US must play role in Sudan peacekeeping mission -Annan
Feb 10, 2006 (UNITED NATIONS) — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he will ask U.S. President George W. Bush for the United States to play a major role in a peacekeeping force in Sudan’s Darfur region.
Annan told reporters Thursday that Darfur’s plight is too severe for rich nations, including the United States, to simply fund the mission while third world nations contribute troops _ a practice that is largely the norm for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world.
“It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate it to third world countries,” Annan said. “They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur.”
Annan said he planned to raise the issue with Bush during a White House meeting on Monday. The United States currently pays about a quarter of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, which topped US$5 billion (A4.18 billion) in 2005, but provides a very small percentage of troops or police.
Annan said the Darfur mission will need a “completely different force.” That means highly trained troops with solid logistical support, backed by air power, with the ability to move quickly.
The U.N. mission must send a message to those responsible for the violence “that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians,” Annan said.
Asked specifically what he would seek from Bush, Annan told reporters: “I will share with him the facts that I have shared with you, the needs that we have and the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that would include the U.S.”
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council authorized planning for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties in Darfur from the African Union, whose 7,000 troops have been hampered by shoddy equipment, poor training and lack of funds.
The AU troops have made a difference in the areas where they are stationed, but have been unable to bring lasting peace to Darfur, where an estimated 180,000 people have died in violence since 2003. The United States and several other nations have said genocide occurred in Sudan.
The United States will be reluctant to send its troops because of its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also been far more reluctant to contribute troops since 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in clashes with gunmen in 1993 during the peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
U.S. Mission spokesman Richard Grenell would not comment on whether the United States planned to contribute troops.
“The American people have provided an incredible amount of money to support the AU force and an incredible amount of money for the humanitarian response, and the American people have also been very generous to peacekeeping operations and disasters around the world,” Grenell said.
U.S. officials in Washington have said the United States envisions combining the AU force in Darfur with the 7,000 U.N. troops monitoring a separate peace agreement between southern rebels and the Sudanese government.
While wealthy nations once provided the bulk of peacekeeping troops, they have done so less frequently in recent years. Instead, they fund the missions, while poor nations like Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Nigeria provide the troops, in part because they receive much-needed cash for it.
Last month, the top U.N. envoy in Sudan, Jan Pronk, called for a U.N. peacekeeping force of up to 20,000 troops to disarm marauding militias and provide security so over 2 million refugees can return home in Darfur.
Human Rights First sent letters to Bush and Annan on Thursday urging them at their upcoming meeting to support the appointment of a prominent public figure as a U.N. envoy to provide new impetus to find a political solution to the Darfur conflict. Pronk has said he opposes a new envoy.
(AP/ST)