QUESTION: I was going to ask a question about Darfur, on Sudan. The Post editorializes this morning in The Washington Post that the Administration has shrunk from pressuring the central government on Darfur because of the interest in getting a north-south deal, and that, essentially, in a best-case scenario now there could be hundreds of thousands of death because of the lack of access.

MR. ERELI: I guess there’s just no -- you know, you can write that, you can write something like that, if you ignore everything we’ve done on this issue. I mean, we’ve got -- it was because of our pressure, I think, that humanitarian workers have been allowed into Darfur. Look at the briefing Andrew Natsios gave, where he said, quite frankly, we’re doing this briefing to raise the pressure on the Sudanese Government because they’re keeping people out of Darfur, and then, lo and behold, people got into Darfur.

Who led the charge or who led the effort to get a ceasefire in Darfur? Who brought the issue to the UN? Who marshaled an international effort in Geneva and with the EU in Chad to bring attention to this issue? Who has contributed more in terms of humanitarian assistance to Darfur than any other country?

So you can say we’re -- you can suggest that somehow we’re backing off from taking a strong stand or exercising every diplomatic tool at our disposal on behalf of the crisis in Darfur, but I think you’d have to ignore all the actions we’ve taken that suggest the contrary.

QUESTION: What about --

QUESTION: Any reaction --

QUESTION: I’m sorry. What about the idea of a full-scale UN resolution? We’ve had a briefing and a president’s statement.

MR. ERELI: You know, there have been -- there have been those suggestions, but they -- until now, I think they’ve been in the realm of the general and the theoretical, as opposed to the specific.

The focus really now is on getting -- doing the assessments and getting the aid to the people who need it. I think, in that regard, I would say that the ceasefire, the AU cease -- the African Union Ceasefire Commission is setting up operations in Darfur’s largest city today. They are working with the Government of Sudan to make it ready for a monitoring team to come into place, and we expect the monitoring team to begin its mission shortly.

QUESTION: Adam, any reaction to reports that some UN humanitarian aid workers were kidnapped over the weekend by rebel groups out of Darfur?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I would note that on Friday, the Sudan Liberation Army detained 16 United Nations and nongovernmental organization workers. These were workers conducting an assessment mission. They were released on Sunday, and all of them were healthy and not harmed.

I think that it did not, I think, affect in any significant way the United Nations relief operations there. They were temporarily halted, but have now almost resumed full activities.

QUESTION: So you’re saying all’s well that ends well is fine?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don’t have a lot of, frankly, facts about the circumstances of the detention, and I would hesitate to call it -- I’m not sure I would call it kidnapping, but I can’t speak to the details of the detention. All I can tell you is that they have been released, they are well, and activities are resuming.

QUESTION: The fact that they were detained, the fact that there was a detention, isn’t that already a problem if they’re hindering humanitarian aid workers? And are you looking into it? Is the United States taking any kind of stand on this?

MR. ERELI: I think that we are working with the United Nations. We have people there. Our aim is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that involves, I think, constant coordination among the different actors there -- NGOs, UN, American, as well as the Government of Sudan, as well as the rebels, as well as the Jingaweits. It’s a complicated situation. Everybody’s got different -- not everybody, but there are several different agendas at work here. And I think that we are consistently and constantly increasing the level of activity and the margin for maneuver that we have, and that those are positive developments.

That said, it remains a unsettled and dangerous place, and that’s why it’s all the more important that monitors be deployed there in number quickly so that we can have greater clarity on what’s going on and steps can be taken to ensure the smooth flow of aid.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Change of subject. This --

QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up on Darfur? You just outlined U.S. policy in Darfur as if it was a little crisis. I mean, people are not shy to call what’s happening there as a genocide. And this is what you have given us as a response. I mean, do you -- just imagine if a million people were made homeless, hundreds of thousands were killed in Europe, that the U.S. will have this kind of reaction? I mean, why can’t it just propose something to the UN to stop the killing in the first place?

MR. ERELI: First of all, I would take issue with the word "genocide." We have made it clear and I think the international community has made it clear that this is a situation of ethnic cleansing. We have also made it clear that we believe that it is a humanitarian crisis. And we have also, I think, been at the forefront of international efforts to address this crisis.

So I take strong issue with your suggestion that somehow there is a double standard and if it were anywhere else we would be doing more. I think we are doing a lot. We have been consistently outspoken about this issue. We are active diplomatically and, in terms of humanitarian assistance, in addressing it. It is a conflict that is -- that has gone on for far too long and that is creating significant human suffering. And it is something that we have said we are committed to working with our international partners to end, but it is not something that you can just walk in and solve overnight.

QUESTION: Would you agree that some people criticize the U.S. position that you could not be taking a harder position with the Khartoum government because you were worried that that might jeopardize the peace-signing process in Naivasha?

MR. ERELI: I just answered that question. I just answered that question. And one thing I didn’t say is we have made it very clear, to those who would suggest that we are somehow coddling the Government of Sudan in order to get a Naivasha deal, the Secretary has been very outspoken. And he has said the United States cannot have normal relations with Sudan as long as the situation in Darfur persists. So irrespective of the Naivasha accords, this -- we have made it clear that this is -- this is a problem that needs to be resolved and needs to be acted on in order for us to be able to have normal relations with Sudan.