You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa Horn
Bolton Hits Annan Over Sudan Talk
2006-02-21
The American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, criticized Secretary-General Annan yesterday for employing double standards over sending U.N. troops to the war-torn Sudanese region of Darfur.

Mr. Bolton said that while Mr. Annan has publicly chided Washington for leadership shortcomings on Darfur, he has not encouraged Africans and Arabs to do more, and has failed to push his own U.N. underlings hard enough.

Mr. Bolton signaled America's sense of urgency on Darfur when he elevated the issue to the top of the Security Council's agenda on assuming the council's presidency for the month of February. Just three days into the presidency, Mr. Bolton encouraged the council to issue a statement calling for the replacement of the 7,500-troop-strong African Union force in Darfur with a much larger force under the U.N. umbrella, which would be augmented and strengthened with a mandate allowing intervention to stop atrocities in the region.

Mr. Annan has publicly chided the West, including America, saying the force should include support, military assets, and even troops from the developed world. Mr. Bolton sent a letter to Mr. Annan, offering Washington's help in planning the mission. A week after arriving in New York, however, four American military planners have met only once with U.N. peacekeeping officials.

At the Security Council, American ideas for establishing the force, which is opposed by the Sudanese government, met with resistance from Khartoum's allies from African and Arab countries.

"It would be helpful, I think, if the secretary-general, in addition to prodding the U.S., could also be out there talking to the African Union and the Arab League, and in fact, even talking to his own peacekeepers about the importance of moving ahead," Mr. Bolton told reporters yesterday.

"It's important that whatever is being said rhetorically" by Mr. Annan, Mr. Bolton added, "should be matched by what the Secretariat planners are doing."

Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Darfur over the last few years, in what only America so far has described as genocide. Mr. Annan's representative in Sudan, Jan Pronk, recently said that to stop the killings, rapes, and abuse, and to create an environment that would allow millions of Darfur villagers to return home from refugee camps in Sudan and Chad, a well trained force of 22,000 troops, supported by helicopters and other aircraft, should be deployed.

However, a top Turtle Bay peacekeeping official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The New York Sun it would take his department nine months to compose such a force. American officials said that when a peacekeeping force was needed for Liberia, U.N. officials also told them it would take many months, but after being prodded to set up the force in 90 days, they were able to do so.

Last week, President Bush said NATO could help to set up the force. In New York a second meeting is planned between U.N. officials and American military planners, according to U.N. spokesmen.

"They're here ready to go, and we think other nations are prepared to augment the planning force," Mr. Bolton said yesterday. "We recognize that the secretary-general needs help. That's why we brought these very experienced, very knowledgeable people up here, so we wouldn't lose any time."

Mr. Annan yesterday declined to respond, but his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, countered by saying that "the planning process is moving full steam ahead."
We hae the caterers and the meeting rooms booked for MONTHS of meetings. How's that for planning, huh?
Once the shape of the new force for Sudan starts to emerge, he added, "we will be presenting options to the Security Council," and then try to recruit troops from around the world. Meanwhile, Mr. Pronk is negotiating with representatives of the African Union.

The Sudan regime, however, argues that non-African troops would infringe on its sovereignty. "Sudan rejects replacement of the African Union forces with United Nations forces, "Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha told a visiting delegation of 11 American legislators, led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat of California, on Sunday, according to the Associated Press.

As a result, Khartoum's African and Arab allies in Turtle Bay have resisted ideas for a council resolution that Mr. Bolton circulated last week among the 15 council members.

"African and Arab members of the Security Council on Friday said we should wait until the African Union decision on March 3," Mr. Bolton said. "I said no, we're not going to wait for that. We're going to go ahead and circulate these elements of the resolution" in order to pass it before the end of the month.
Posted by:lotp

#15  Sorry, that should have been 'sub-Saharan' continent. PIMF.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-02-21 19:08  

#14  If so, why is AU infringement on Sudanese sovereignty acceptable? Or is it easier to pay off African countries than everyone in the UN?

Sudan managed to get the kind of AU force it wanted. It limited Nigeria's influence (for all its problems, the country has perhaps the most professional military on the continent) before the force was deployed. The AU was forced to be dependent on Sudan for some critical support, like fuel. Lastly, Sudan was able to work behind the scenes at the AU to further limit the forces' effectiveness. That Sudan was up for the AU chair was likely also a factor.

Posted by: Pappy   2006-02-21 19:06  

#13  Koffee has been sitting on his hands for how long? How many innocent people have been killed?

Colin Powell called it a genocide over three years ago. Koffee was with him on the tour.

This one needs to be hung on Koffee's neck for the rest of his life.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-21 17:54  

#12  Where's my link?

Try again:
a href=http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm8/stu_8activitytwomap1.html/a
Posted by: Ebbolugum Spinesing7842   2006-02-21 17:39  

#11  #10: -Funny thought: African troops have the language advantage on American troops (unless you were to import a heckuva lot of SOCOM or selected multilingual US armed forces personnel for this deployment).

I think it is a valid point, re the language aspect, although you describe it as a funny thought. If you want the details of the validity, let me know.

In the first instance, let's choose between these guys, they've all got along famously for years:



Lots to choose from, Swahili-Arabic looks good for the region, doubt you would want a Bemba speaker, though, and the Kiyanwanda and the Rundi probably still dont get along.
On the other hand, maybe it's time to send in the
multi-lingual guys from the map on page 2 of the above. Or a cross-section of both maps, that would be best.
It's not an American problem, it's an old Colonial/3rd World one, unless its....Strategic.
And, if Africa is so strategic, even in a moral sense, why was it let go so easily post-WW2, and for the past 50 years-plus become steadily worse whilst these guys have culled one another, and no brothers sorted it out? I wouldnt want any of them on my side, and I do not want to help, when the word is out the Murungus will get slaughtered in South Africa when Mandela dies and successful farmers are shot and torched. The shame, I feel nothing.

Anyway, I dont believe the US should get involved in Africa, apart from denying them entry, unless a strict visa with a hefty fee applies.
This is Rantburg, right?

rhodesiafever


Posted by: Ebbolugum Spinesing7842   2006-02-21 17:36  

#10  Not quite up-front, but definitely honest.

Funny thought: African troops have the language advantage on American troops (unless you were to import a heckuva lot of SOCOM or selected multilingual US armed forces personnel for this deployment).

I'm calling one thing to be bullshit -- Sudan's complaint. UN or AU, aren't they *both* infringing on Sudanese sovereignty? If so, why is AU infringement on Sudanese sovereignty acceptable? Or is it easier to pay off African countries than everyone in the UN?
Posted by: Edward Yee   2006-02-21 14:19  

#9  Best UN ambassador since Moynahan
Posted by: Omaviting Uninelet2338   2006-02-21 14:19  

#8  yess i love Bolton, tells it straight and honest-something completely new for the U.N. and Annan
Posted by: bgrebel   2006-02-21 12:50  

#7  AP, you just made my day. I hadn't thought of that aspect! LMAO!!
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-02-21 12:17  

#6  We recognize that the secretary-general needs help

LMAO! Bolton hits the nail on the head, in diplo-doublespeak, of course.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-02-21 12:05  

#5  Mr. Annan yesterday declined to respond, but his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, countered by saying that "the planning process is moving full steam ahead."

Which means that abso-frickin'-lutely NOTHING of substance is being done. Wankers!
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-21 11:37  

#4  Somewhere in DC Voinivich is on a resperator.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-02-21 11:19  

#3  Koffi just wants us to clean up his mess. If we don't, he can slam the US. If we do, he can slam the US for other problems (real or imagined) on the Sudan and for our "slow" response.

News flsah Koffi, we ain't playin' your stooopid game. Fuck off and die.
Posted by: mmurray821   2006-02-21 11:01  

#2  Blue helmets only work when the men who wear them have live ammunition and flexible ROE. Maybe if the UN peacekeeping forces were allowed to moderate their testosterone levels by fighting bad guys they would be less inclined to debase children.
Posted by: RWV   2006-02-21 10:50  

#1  Koffi could not be reached for comment he was to busy depositing the $500,000 prize cough payoff from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/781gawip.asp

The UN is a useless group we should stay in but cut all aid and support, instead throwing it into a new alliance of Democracies. Were to join you have to meet certain criteria and standards. In return you get free trade and a military alliance pact.

Cut the aid and free trade to every nation that doesnÂ’t join and they would be beating down the doors to get in. Of course the tin-hat dictators would opt out but we donÂ’t want them in until they are overthrown anyway. The good part would be their neighbors would join for protection.
Posted by: C-Low   2006-02-21 10:48  

00:00