Eutrusca
02-03-2006, 16:06
COMMENTARY: So what's this all about? Do they not like the UN involved, or do they somehow think African Union forces are going to do a better job, or like what?
Peacekeepers and Diplomats,
Seeking to End Darfur's Violence, Hit Roadblock (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/international/africa/01sudan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
By WARREN HOGE
Published: March 1, 2006
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 28 — Sudan has withdrawn its support for a United Nations peacekeeping force to replace African Union troops now in the conflict-ridden Darfur region, and is lobbying other countries to discourage the substitution, Jan Pronk, the United Nations envoy for Sudan, said Tuesday.
Darfur War Spreads "The government is taking a very strong position against a transition to the U.N., and that is new," Mr. Pronk said. "Sudan has sent delegations to many countries in the world in order to plead its case: let the A.U. stay and let the U.N. not come."
In another development indicating a snag in the international effort to curb the violence in Darfur, John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, conceded the failure of the American effort to produce a resolution on a United Nations mission to Sudan by the end of February, a month during which the United States has served as president of the Security Council.
"It is something we have pushed hard for, and we're going to continue to push hard, even though tomorrow is March 1, because this is something that we feel very strongly about," Mr. Bolton said.
Other members of the Council had resisted taking up the subject until the African Union made a formal request for bringing in the United Nations, a request that had been expected at a meeting of the organization this Friday.
On Tuesday, that meeting was postponed until March 10.
Mr. Pronk said the African Union had already made a decision "in principle" to request United Nations peacekeepers, but he did not know whether the group would formally confirm that decision. If not, he said, "then we are back to scratch."
He said Sudan's government was portraying a United Nations entry as a precursor to a Western takeover of the country.
"They speak about recolonization, imperialism, they speak about Iraq and Afghanistan, they speak about conspiracy against the Arab and Islamic world," Mr. Pronk said. "It's easy to get heated opposition to the U.N. even among people who don't like the government."
The government has also raised the specter of an attack by Al Qaeda on United Nations forces in Sudan if they come, he said.
"They say Al Qaeda will threaten governments they see as sitting in the same corner with the West or the international community that they despise," he said.
More than 200,000 people have been killed and up to two million villagers driven from their homes in Darfur because of attacks on civilians by government-backed Arab militias on camel and horseback.
[ So are they saying that "better that 200,000 people die than to let the infidels in?" ]
In a deepening of one of the world's worst refugee crises, the chaos in Darfur has now spilled across the border into Chad.
The Security Council directed Secretary General Kofi Annan on Feb. 3 to start contingency planning for turning the 7,000-man African Union force into a United Nations force at least twice that size. The government in Khartoum backed the idea.
The plan was a central topic in a meeting on Feb. 13 at the White House between Secretary General Annan and President Bush. Mr. Bush later backed a larger force for Darfur and suggested that NATO could play a supporting role.
Council diplomats say action, including possible sanctions on Sudan, is being resisted by three countries in particular — China, a purchaser of Sudan's oil; Qatar, the Council's Arab representative; and Russia, which traditionally opposes sanctions.
One Security Council ambassador, who would not speak for attribution, said he believed that Sudan's allies, having succeeded in frustrating the American effort to speed action, would now try to delay consideration until April, when China takes over the Council presidency.
Peacekeepers and Diplomats,
Seeking to End Darfur's Violence, Hit Roadblock (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/international/africa/01sudan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
By WARREN HOGE
Published: March 1, 2006
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 28 — Sudan has withdrawn its support for a United Nations peacekeeping force to replace African Union troops now in the conflict-ridden Darfur region, and is lobbying other countries to discourage the substitution, Jan Pronk, the United Nations envoy for Sudan, said Tuesday.
Darfur War Spreads "The government is taking a very strong position against a transition to the U.N., and that is new," Mr. Pronk said. "Sudan has sent delegations to many countries in the world in order to plead its case: let the A.U. stay and let the U.N. not come."
In another development indicating a snag in the international effort to curb the violence in Darfur, John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, conceded the failure of the American effort to produce a resolution on a United Nations mission to Sudan by the end of February, a month during which the United States has served as president of the Security Council.
"It is something we have pushed hard for, and we're going to continue to push hard, even though tomorrow is March 1, because this is something that we feel very strongly about," Mr. Bolton said.
Other members of the Council had resisted taking up the subject until the African Union made a formal request for bringing in the United Nations, a request that had been expected at a meeting of the organization this Friday.
On Tuesday, that meeting was postponed until March 10.
Mr. Pronk said the African Union had already made a decision "in principle" to request United Nations peacekeepers, but he did not know whether the group would formally confirm that decision. If not, he said, "then we are back to scratch."
He said Sudan's government was portraying a United Nations entry as a precursor to a Western takeover of the country.
"They speak about recolonization, imperialism, they speak about Iraq and Afghanistan, they speak about conspiracy against the Arab and Islamic world," Mr. Pronk said. "It's easy to get heated opposition to the U.N. even among people who don't like the government."
The government has also raised the specter of an attack by Al Qaeda on United Nations forces in Sudan if they come, he said.
"They say Al Qaeda will threaten governments they see as sitting in the same corner with the West or the international community that they despise," he said.
More than 200,000 people have been killed and up to two million villagers driven from their homes in Darfur because of attacks on civilians by government-backed Arab militias on camel and horseback.
[ So are they saying that "better that 200,000 people die than to let the infidels in?" ]
In a deepening of one of the world's worst refugee crises, the chaos in Darfur has now spilled across the border into Chad.
The Security Council directed Secretary General Kofi Annan on Feb. 3 to start contingency planning for turning the 7,000-man African Union force into a United Nations force at least twice that size. The government in Khartoum backed the idea.
The plan was a central topic in a meeting on Feb. 13 at the White House between Secretary General Annan and President Bush. Mr. Bush later backed a larger force for Darfur and suggested that NATO could play a supporting role.
Council diplomats say action, including possible sanctions on Sudan, is being resisted by three countries in particular — China, a purchaser of Sudan's oil; Qatar, the Council's Arab representative; and Russia, which traditionally opposes sanctions.
One Security Council ambassador, who would not speak for attribution, said he believed that Sudan's allies, having succeeded in frustrating the American effort to speed action, would now try to delay consideration until April, when China takes over the Council presidency.