excepted from Friday’s State Department Press Briefing. In this case the questions were much better and more concise than anything that Boucher’s stand-in said. The questioner was intelligent and logical - I’m betting that the questioner was not an employee of NPR.QUESTION: -- the Secretary mentioned the possibility of declaring the situation there to be a matter of genocide. Can you advance that at all?
QUESTION: Well, wouldn’t a designation of genocide trigger certain actions that would have to be taken by this government?
QUESTION: But just one last point on that. So if the legal distinctions that would trigger some things, would trigger some things, and you’re saying that classifications seem hollow, why don’t you just do those things right now?
QUESTION: When you say it’s under active consideration to put sanctions on individuals, what is it that you’re weighing up?
QUESTION: But you are always saying that it’s the government that’s backing them --
QUESTION: -- and the militia that’s responsible --
QUESTION: -- so the leader of the government, aren’t they responsible? Where is the legal technicality that stops your identifying?
QUESTION: But you’ve been making the case all the time that the government’s responsible for the militias.
QUESTION: Is all of this affecting the big plans to hold the White House ceremony to which the leaders in Khartoum and the leaders of the SPLA would be invited to celebrate the signing of agreements leading to peace between the north and the south?
QUESTION: The same said editorial talks about certain countries in the UN Security Council that are protecting Sudan’s interests and basically blocking stronger action there. Do you agree with that, that there are (inaudible)? |