TEXT-Darfur envoys support Salva Kiir initiative on Darfur
May 10, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — UN envoy Jan Eliasson and AU envoy Salim Ahmed Salim said they support fully Sudanese Frst Vice-President initiative to unify the rebels around common ground before the beginning of Darfur peace talks.
In a press conference held Thursday in Khartoum, Darfur envoys said they back Salva Kiir initiative to facilitate the unification of the position of the rebel movements before the negotiations. They expressed satisfaction that the ruling National Congress Party is also behind this initiative.
“We will give all assistance to the efforts of the SPLM, but we will also be in very close contact with the regional actors.” UN Jan Eliasson said.
The two envoys had just returned from Juba, the capital of south Sudan, where they held talks with First Vice President and southern leader Salva Kiir over his initiative to convince holdout rebels to join the peace process.
The meeting had discussed Salva Kirr initiative and ways of coordinating it with other initiatives to accelerate the process of finding a final solution for the problem. The meeting was attended by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement’s (SPLM) special envoy to Darfur, Reverend Clement Janda, and some of the members of his task force which is assigned to liaise with the Darfur movements.
Hailing the increase in regional initiatives to find a political solution for Darfur, the envoys stressed the importance of converging regional efforts towards the same goal, after initiatives by Libya, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea and Egypt to end the Darfur violence.
“There’s hope for (progress) in the political process if everybody moves in the same direction,” Eliasson said. “The time is now for mobilisation.”
Salim called for the process to be speeded up, warning that “the process cannot be endless.”
“We expect from the parties to demonstrate a political will and to reduce the level of violence. We expect respect of the ceasefire as part of this process,” he added.
Salim also noted that solutions to regional conflicts also played a role in ending the violence in Darfur, adding he was “very much encouraged” by a reconciliation deal between Sudan and Chad.
“Without normalisation between Sudan and Chad, it will be very difficult to achieve a breakthrough,” he said.
Under the terms of the accord signed in Riyadh last Thursday, the two countries agreed “to prevent the use of their territory to shelter, mobilize, train, transit or finance armed opposition movements.”
Sudan and Chad accuse each other of supporting rebel forces in their respective territories amid international fears that the continuing strife in Darfur will spill over into Chad and ignite a regional war.
Salim urged for the disarmament of the Khartoum-backed Janjaweed militias, accused of atrocities in Darfur, underlining that it was the “responsibility of the government” to ensure this.
The raging conflict has cost at least 200,000 lives and forced more than two million people from their homes, according to the United Nations, though Khartoum contests those estimates, saying 9,000 people have died.
(ST)
Below the transcript of the Press Conference held by AU and UN Special Envoys for Darfur Salim Ahmed Salim and Jan Eliasson at the United Nations Mission in Sudan Headquarters, Khartoum on 10 May2007
UNMIS Spokesperson : Good afternoon everyone and thank you very much for coming to this press conference hosting the two Special Envoys of the African Union AND THE un Secretray-General, Dr. Salim Ahmed Salim and Mr. Jan Eliasson. They are here in their third joint visit in the Sudan.
Without further ado, I would give them the floor but please bear in mind that we would have to wrap up this press conference at maximum 15:10 hours.
Thank you very much.
SP Eliasson: Welcome to the United Nations headquarters. I am very proud to have my friend and very dear colleague at my side and I think I would want to ask you, Salim, to introduce the subject and I would follow up with some comments before we leave the floor to questions.
SP Salim: I think in view of what Radhia has already said, the time is short, so I will be very brief so as to give you more opportunity to ask questions.
We have been here for the last two days after a series of activities that we have been involved with. To begin with, we were in New York at the Security Council, where we not only had consultations between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his team together with Jan [Eliasson], and the Chairman of the Commission of the African Union, Professor Konaré, and his team, including myself. We had extensive consultations in a private session with the Security Council. This was followed subsequently by an important meeting in Tripoli where all the international and regional principal stakeholders were present and where, in addition to reiterating our common position of doing our utmost to finding a solution to the crisis in Darfur, there was also clarity in terms of coordination and in terms of convergence. I say coordination because there are a number of initiatives which are important initiatives at the regional level taken by the countries in the region for example, the Egyptian initiative, the Libyan initiative and now the Egyptian ideas. And it was agreed in Tripoli that these suggestions and ideas are important, but at some point they must converge towards the African Union-United Nations leadership. That was a common understanding in Tripoli and we have been operating on that basis of common understanding.
We were also in Egypt where we had very good and extensive discussions with the Egyptian authorities, and also with the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States. As you are aware, the League of Arab States has also been an important partner in the peace process, so it was useful to have talks with him but also to have ideas on how the see the situation forward.
We have been in Khartoum and we have been to Juba. One of our main concerns, as we prepare for the negotiations, has always been to see to what extent the positions of the movements can be harmonized, so that if they can not have a unified movement, they could at least have unified positions. The question of common position or platform on the part of the movements is extremely crucial to facilitate a speedy and effective process of negotiations. That has been our task. We are conscious of the role being played by Eritrea , by Libya, by Egypt, and by Chad in that direction. But we have all been very conscious on the important role also being played by the SPLM. When we were here last time, we had a long meeting with the First Vice-President Mr. Salva Kiir who briefed us of how he saw the situation. We encouraged him then and said that that initiative was a very wise path to follow and we assured him of our support at that time. This time around, we went to Juba and had a long, constructive and useful discussion with the First Vice-President, together also with his task-force team which is dealing with the preparation for a meeting of consultations with the non-signatories. We completely endorse the position taken by the First Vice-President and the initiative which is being undertaken by the SPLM to try and get the non-signatories to southern Sudan, so that they can talk, and also utilizing their own experience [SPLM] in trying to help in the process of facilitating the unification of the position of the movements before the negotiations.
We have agreed with the leadership of the SPLM on this and also in terms of how the African Union and the United Nations, jointly, can support these efforts and we will do so. We were encouraged also to know that the initiative by First Vice-President Salva Kiir also enjoys the support of the Sudan government.
We have also been very much encouraged by the recent developments with respect to normalizing or improving relations between Chad and Sudan. We hail the initiatives which have been taken, and we hail the agreements which have been entered to bilaterally by the two countries, with the support initially of the Libyan leadership and secondly by King Abdullah [OF Saudi Arabia] also in his capacity as the Chairman of the League of Arab States.
We can not emphasize enough the crucial importance of relations between Sudan and Chad. We firmly believe that without the normalization of these relations, without the improvement of these relations, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a breakthrough in the Darfur peace process.
Finally and this is crucial, one of the principal objectives of our visit this time to Khartoum was to have our own internal discussions among ourselves with our joint task force here in order first, to assess and to take stock of what has been happening and to map out the way forward. We have had intensive discussions on this and we are now, at least as the Special Envoys, quite clear on the way forward and how to bring about the process, how to bring about the negotiations, and how to initiate the various steps before the negotiations. Clearly, having agreed on what we think should be the way forward, we have today presented our proposals and our ideas to our principals – the principals being on the United Nations side the Secretary-General of the United Nations and on the African Union side the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Professor Konaré. We believe that these proposals would provide a sound basis on the way forward and of course, we await the response of our principals before we carry forward.
Eliasson: Thank you, Salim. I think we can safely say that we are now putting in higher gear in the political process. There is now hope for a momentum on the political process but there are serious obstacles. Realities on the ground are troubling: the humanitarian situation is dire; the tribal clashes go on; inside the camps there is unrest, and I think there is a trend of understandable impatience. So we are at a crossroads and there is hope for a political process if everybody now moves in the same direction.
We have been in contact with the Security Council; we have been in contact with the regional actors in the Tripoli meeting; our visits have been to all of the capitals in the region – Asmara, N’Djamena, Cairo and Tripoli. But in the end, of course, it is the Sudanese people, the parties to the conflict inside Sudan that have to solve the Darfur problem. Therefore, we are grateful that the SPLM is taking the initiative of bringing the non-signatories together to coordinate their positions and, by that, prepare themselves for negotiations. We understand that all of the government is behind this initiative and this positive factor and we find itvery satisfying. We will give all assistance to the efforts of the SPLM, but we will also be in very close contact with the regional actors.
The keyword now for the next few weeks is “convergence”. We have had a period of parallel initiatives and if we have parallel mediation activities, and there is a risk that the parties will turn to various alternatives. But if we have convergence now and move the negotiations process in a convergent farmework, then we will be able to seriously prepare for negotiations which will be the second stage – convergence of mediation efforts followed by preparations for negotiations. And then of course we hope that we will also be able to invite to negotiations as soon as possible.
This is our goal. We have been tasked by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who gives this matter his absolute highest priority, and by Chairman Konaré, who also gives this matter the highest priority, to present to them a roadmap for the way forward. And we have, in the spirit of excellent cooperation between our teams – African Union and United Nations – come to these conclusions which we have sketched out in general terms to you.
Of course, it is equally now important that everybody – the parties to the conflict, the neighbors and the international community – fully supports this political process. We are at a crossroads and I would say now is the time for mobilization of efforts in the political realm. We have talked very much about peacekeeping, an indispensable part of the process towards peace in Darfur, but we all must remember there has to be a peace to keep, and that is where we now see a hope if everybody moves in the right direction to make a step forward.
We are confident now that our team, which will be enhanced and strengthened both here in Khartoum and in Darfur, will be able to carry on with contacts for the preparations of the negotiations. We will later on be faced with some very detailed issues like the format of negotiations, venue for the negotiations, and participation in the negotiations. These are matters that have to be dealt with in consultation with the parties.
There is also the need, when carrying forward this process, to have the support of the people of the Sudan. And we are very happy that we had already been in contact with civil society, with tribal leaders, with representatives from the camps, and with women groups, in order to make sure that this process has legitimacy inside Darfur and inside Sudan, because it is important that what we do will has lasting results.
We have been at work together [ten two Envoys] working side by side for three months. We have been extremely active. Now is the time for the mobilization of resources, which means that there would have to be activities from many different directions but in a coordinated, coherent and converging pattern.
Thank you very much.
Questions and Answers
Q: You said that you have prepared or presented to your principals a sort of a roadmap that would lead to negotiations. Can we have an idea of the suggestions?
Second thing, in light of previous attempts to bring the rebels to the negotiations table have failed, can this go on forever? Will there be any consequences for the failure of the rebels to unite because of government attacks or because of divisions among them?
SP Salim: Clearly, if we have submitted our proposals to our principals, I think our principals would be very surprised if they hear the proposals in the media before they see them – it is obvious. But clearly the proposals do contain elements which are essential: the question of consultations with the movements for the purposes of bringing about a common position; the issue of what we do immediately thereafter in what we call the “pre-negotiations phase”; and the actual launching of the negotiations.
I don’t think we can go further than that if we are to give the benefit to our principals to have a look at these proposals first.
Now with respect to unification efforts, first, one has to understand that these are quite intricate and complex problems – they are not easy. We had our own experience in Abuja – it took me, for example, some two months to try and reconcile Mr. Abdulwahid with the commanders, two months of uninterrupted discussions and yet we could not succeed. So we have to understand the depth of the differences and also to understand that there is no quick-fix approach to resolve these issues.
But having said that, it is very clear also that this can not be an endless process, and that is why we think now that the combination of the SPLM efforts which are going to be made with our full support and, I believe, the support of the regional actors; the efforts which are being carried out by Eritrea, by Chad, by Libya, and by Egypt, would all converge into this process of trying to reconcile the movements. At the end of the day, we will clearly convene negotiations. And clearly, as was indicated in Tripoli – and this was not my position or Jan Eliasson’s but that of the international community – there will be a price to pay, a price for non-cooperation whether in the area of the escalation of violence or for non-cessation of hostilities or for obstructing the peace process. But I don’t think we should talk about the price at this point but just hope that people cooperate, because in the final analysis, the most impatient people of this exercise are the people of Darfur themselves – those who live in the IDP camps, those who are refugees and those who live in situations of insecurity with increased banditry and lawlessness. So it is important that negotiations should take place.
SP Eliasson: Can I add something on the roadmap? I think if you have listened carefully to what we have said, you have heard some of its elements. First of all, expectations of convergence of initiatives – you have the Eritrean, Libyan, Chadian and Egyptian activities, which are to be welcomed, and where we have very close cooperation. You have the intensified contacts that we have established with the SPLM at the meeting in Juba where we had a very valuable discussion with Salva Kiir, which was a follow up to the meeting we had last time we were here.
Secondly; you have to understand that after that period will be a preparation for negotiations and that involves both preparations for the great amount of logistics needed, and also some political preparations that have to be made. And we have very close contacts with the growing number of people involved, particularly in Sudan.
Thirdly; of course you have the negotiations proper. But the details about that are of course to be determined with our leadership in the African Union and the United Nations.
One thing I should like to add though is that we expect the parties to demonstrate political will to move into the political process. The best way to demonstrate that political will is to reduce the level of violence. We said that earlier at our visit in February and there was no bombardment, if you may recall, between the 11th of February and 19th of April. Unfortunately, since the 19th of April, we have seen a tragic series of bombardments and also other military activities from the other side. There were statements made, one of them was by the Secretary-General yesterday, expressing deep concern over these bombardments. What we expect is a cessation of hostilities and in fact respect of the ceasefire as part of this process. We would very much suggest that a true cessation of hostilities should start from now. There is a very heavy political price to be paid for escalation of hostilities, but it is of course absolutely evident that when negotiations start, there should be an end of hostilities. That is a very concrete effect of this political process and links together the political process with the situation on the ground – the peacekeeping and the military perspective.
As far as the cost of non-participation or non-cooperation, that was stated already in the Tripoli document of the 29th of April which was a very important document. We can not go into the extent of these of course, but I can only tell you that we both report to bodies that follow very closely what we do. In my case, I report to the Secretary-General and of course the Security Council follows with very close interest every step undertaken in this matter.
Q: The AbdelShafei faction of the SLM had recently downed a military helicopter and arrested one of the airmen on board. Media reports quote the field commander of that movement as having said that he will hand the airman over through the United Nations and the African Union. Relatives of the detained airman still await this promise from the SLM. What comments could the United Nations and the African Union make on this issue?
SP Eliasson: I haven’t received a detailed report of this incident, but from the general perspective that I tried to reflect earlier, there has to be action taken from all sides to reduce the level of violence. We mentioned particularly the bombardment, but we also, in all our meetings with the non-signatories, brought up the importance of ending also offensive military action. We hope very much that this matter will be solved. It is also a humanitarian matter but I will need to get more details on this incident.
Q: You mentioned that the main part of the suggestions you have forwarded to your principals at the United Nations and the African Union is to see a unified position from the side of the armed movements in preparation for talks with the government. But from the realities as reflected in the media, we see that Mr. AbdulWahid Nur of the SLM says he has no political coordination with any specific movement. He mentioned his differences with the NRF. How will the Special Envoys deal with these differences in ideology between the movements?
There are reports that Juba may host the envisaged talks after coordination with all the initiatives from the neighboring states to rejuvenate the political process for Darfur. How true is this?
SP Salim: First, I think I have to be clear. We said, and I want to repeat, the negotiations will be much facilitated if there is a common position of the movements. Every effort will be made to ensure there is a common position, but there is no guarantee we will have a hundred percent common position. But I believe that as much as a common position that can be obtained will certainly assist in the process.
I really don’t think that it is proper for us to comment on the individual positions of the individual movements. They will have to face their own responsibilities before their people and before history. What is important is that efforts are being made. And these efforts are being made not only by us, not only by the regional actors, but in many ways also by the international community at large. Everybody wants to see meaningful negotiations and everybody understands that if we are to have meaningful negotiations, every effort must be made to get the movements to come to a common position. Initially we had more ambitious ideas as to try and see if the movements can unify. I think we have reduced those ambitious ideas to the point of saying, “Look, at least they must have a common position”.
We don’t know whether talks would take place in Juba or anywhere else, but definitely the talks are to take place in southern Sudan. And these talks have a specific framework. They are to try and explore every avenue with a purpose of promoting cohesion of the movements so that they could have a common agenda and a common platform before the negotiations. We believe that Vice-President Salva Kiir, with his own experience, with his own commitment, is in a unique position to try and do that. He has our full support. Whether the meeting will take place in Juba, Yei or anywhere else, is a matter for him to decide.
Q: The Government of Sudan, through statements of Presidential Advisor Dr. Majzoub el-Khalifa, has described the efforts of the two Special Envoys as “weak”. What are your comments on this?
My second question is to Dr. Salim. Dr. Majzoub (Presidential Advisor) has said that EU ambassadors have been inciting the African Union not to accept Sudan government support.
SP Salim: The answer to the first question is very simple. We just met with Dr. Khalifa and he praised our efforts. So we take what he told us as most authentic. If he said something else to you, ahlan wa sahlan [so be it].
With respect to embassies, African countries are African countries. These are sovereign states. If there are countries in this world, from my limited experience of life, which are more sensitive to the notion of sovereignty and to the notion of not being pushed around, it is the African countries. And I think it is a bit condescending to believe that western embassies here can push African states into doing something that they don’t want to do. It may happen sometimes that a particular western country may have some ideas which are shared by another African country – that is quite common. After all, we live in a global village and it is quite common to work together. But I don’t think really that you can suggest seriously that western embassies can really have a say in how African States operate on the issue of Sudan. Plus, the African countries have a vested interest in Sudan; have a vested interest in the unity, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity of Sudan. At no other conflict, no other situation has Africa invested so much as in the question of Darfur. So this is a testimony to the extent of the commitment of Africa in solidarity with their brothers and sisters of Sudan. That does not mean to say that on every occasion the position of the Government of Sudan will have to be synonymous with the position of a given African country. But, on the long term goal of finding a solution to the crisis in Darfur, or promoting unity and cohesion in Darfur, of implementation of existing agreements, I think you will find the Sudan and the people of Sudan will have the people of Africa and the African States as their supporters.
SP Eliasson: Can I add to that? We hope and think that we have the confidence of the parties. This team is working in a fair manner, listening very carefully to the parties. We will move with all deliberate speed to the beginning of negotiations. We have had difficulties that are obvious to all of you, for instance in terms of identifying and talking to all relevant leaders, both political and military, of the movements. We have no hidden agenda. The United Nations and the African Union are working in the spirit of finding solutions to the problems of the people of Darfur. We are guided by the images from the camps, by the realities of Darfur where we have spent considerable time during our visits.
When it comes to the outside world, not least the classical donor community, I think you should see that their engagement and interest as an expression of frustration – expression of their frustration and impatience – of finding solutions. In fact, I think we could revert to the old word of solidarity – it is an expression of international solidarity with the people of Darfur. It is important that those efforts of course are also coordinated and deployed in this convergent pattern that we just mentioned, and I am hopeful and sure that this will be the case also with the European countries and the United States who express those concerns.
Q: Before taking over as the Special Envoy of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, you were the Chief Mediator of the African Union to the Abuja talks. What is your assessment of the DPA one year down the line and of the political efforts for peace during this period?
SP Salim: It is very difficult for somebody to evaluate himself but I will say this; we did the best we could in the circumstances prevailing. Sometimes the best may not be the perfect. Sometimes even the best may not be good enough but the reality is that those of us who worked in Abuja – and I say “those of us who worked in Abuja” because sometimes there is what I could call, “selected memory lapses” of what happened and people tend to demonize others when it is convenient- those who worked hard in Abuja – not only in the African Union delegation which was led by myself, but also the United Nations worked very hard; we had their commanders there, their political figures and their experts there; the US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Norway, the League of Arab States, the EU and a number of other countries which came in and out . I remember Germany was in at some point; Italy was in at some point; and so on – all of these worked very hard. I remember when we came in with the DPA, all of us believed that this would provide a framework for a solution to the crisis in Darfur. And of course there were also others who were more vigorous in their approach. But at the end of the day, every agreement has to be evaluated with its outcome, and clearly what was achieved in Abuja has proved to be insufficient to deal with the aspirations not only of the non-signatories but also with the aspirations of the people of Darfur. Many of them in Darfur feel that the agreement did not do enough. And that is what we are trying to do now. We are trying to see what we can do more to address the concerns which were perhaps not sufficiently addressed in Abuja, even the process itself of consultations. In Abuja we were basically confining the consultations between the Government of Sudan and the armed movements. We have found out in the consultations we have had in the last three months that it is very important to involve also in the consultations a wider body of opinion. That is why in our last visit here we had extensive discussions with the civil society; we had discussions with the political leaders of the various political forces and we had discussions with the tribal chiefs. In one of our first meetings, we had also representatives of the IDP camps and so on. In other words, there is no one who can claim an absolute monopoly of representation of the people of Darfur. That being the case therefore, we try as much as possible to maximum our contacts so that we could have maximum involvement of the people.
So my evaluation of the DPA is that we did the best we could. Let me say also that in all the process and up to the last minute we were together – the government and all the factions of the movements were working together. The end product of course was not satisfactory to all and now the challenge is how to work in such a way and to have a series of understanding which will make peace a durable fact in Darfur.
Q: Dr. Salim, you probably have answered part of this question. But my interest is that when the armed groups in Darfur rejected the DPA, we were told then that they did not reject the whole DPA but just a few things – power sharing, compensations, etc. We were told that now the efforts would be just to rectify those few points. But now, a year later, with the proliferation and, some people would say, enrichment of these initiatives – Chad initiative, Turabi initiative, you name it – it seems that there are more than those few points from the DPA. For the sake of an initiated listener, particularly radio, could you tell us exactly are you based on those just those three points which the armed groups rejected or there is something more now?
SP Salim: I do not like to speak on behalf of the armed groups but, to begin with, the positions of the armed groups were not pretty identical. There were some who totally rejected the DPA and some, after discussions, found the DPA as a possible basis. But, really, the real game in town now is not to talk about who rejected what, but to look into the areas of concern which, when addressed, would fulfil the aspirations and expectations of the people of Darfur and would really be seen to have addressed some of the concerns that have been expressed.
This is the point we have been making from day one – or from day one when I came here first myself and then when I came together with my dear friend and brother Jan Eliasson, we said that what we are going to focus on those concerns. And basically, the concerns revolve around three major areas: the question of wealth sharing and more importantly, compensation. The issue of compensation had been mentioned repeatedly wherever we have gone, not only by the movements but, especially, when we met with the representatives of the IDP camps, when we met with the tribal chiefs, when we met with civil society. That is therefore one area where clearly there is a consensus of position on the part of all concerned that this is something which has to be looked into and we are looking into it, and the initial indications are quite positive coming from the government and coming also from the discussions we have had.
Then there is the question of power sharing. This is a more intricate and more delicate area but is an area which has to be addressed.
Then there is the question of security arrangements. The security arrangements, in my opinion, there would be a need to maybe deal with that later. But it is one area which was extensively discussed and covered with the full input of the movements in Abuja.
So really we will see. I do not want to go into the arguments now whether it is a DPA plus or a DPA minus. All I am going to say is that what we are working for is an agreement which will provide a lasting solution to Darfur.
Eliasson: Can I add one element? The longer this conflict goes on, the more we run the risk of having new problems that were not part of the Abuja negotiations. We have new realities on the ground that have to be dealt with. I can only mention again the tribal clashes and the fact that some villages are being occupied. How to deal with that situation will be an extremely important issue. You have something that we saw from the air. It is incredible. We saw desertification, the drought that has existed for so long. And then we saw land that has not been used. Sand had taken over the place of grass. So we need to not only look into compensation but also look at irrigation, development, schools, and health clinics in those places. So we have a new agenda coming with the length of this conflict and I am glad to see that this has been recognized by the government and the non-signatories. We have to identify also these new challenges, otherwise we run the risk of working with the problem that was defined in an earlier context. We have a new problem. And this is the tragedy of Darfur – we have a new generation of conflicts. I could add also the radicalization of the camps. What consequences can be drawn from that? That is why I say that we are saying and insisting that time is on nobodies side. We have the old problems and we have the new problems and they are growing. That is why we are practically between hope and despair. Hope that we will not miss this chance to now go for the political solution, but also great fear that we will have uncontrollable developments and completely new and enormously demanding negotiations which will affect not only Darfur but also Sudan as a whole.
We believe in one Sudan. We believe that this country has a great future. The Sudanese people deserve better than this ongoing conflict. But for every week that goes, we run the risk of entering a new territory of even more serious problems.
Q: You have talked about hostilities and armed activities between the government and the non-signatories and banditry and so on. But one point which is crucial and everybody is emphasizing on is the position of the Janjaweed. We know that there is a mechanism between the government and the African Union joint teams which are supposed to have met for the last five months. They have not met and we need to know from your meetings with the government officials: are there any guarantees from the government that they would actually disarm the Janjaweed? Is there any progress on this and how important is it?
SP Salim: The issue of the Janjaweed has been raised at every level. There was a clear decision passed a long time ago in N’Djamena. There was a decision by the Security Council. There are clear provisions in the DPA itself for the disarming of the Janjaweed. The only thing I can say frankly, unless this issue is tackled and tackled seriously and effectively, the prospects for peace in Darfur become more remote. And this is the responsibility of the government. It is the government’s responsibility to deal with the Janjaweed militia – a responsibility which they had accepted themselves in earlier agreements. So every time we meet we do not have to repeat the same thing. But it is clear on our mind, and I hope it is clear to the government, that it is something that is a major preoccupation of the international community.
Having talked about the Janjaweed, let me also say that there is also concern with the state of banditry, the state of lawlessness that prevails in some of those areas. And that is why I want to echo what Jan has said: the longer this conflict goes on, the more we are entering into new territory and the more difficult it becomes to find a negotiated solution. But, clearly, everybody has to assume his own responsibility and the government, frankly, has to resume its responsibility vis-à-vis the Janjaweed.
Eliasson: Radhia was also drawing my attention to the Communiqué of yesterday from the Joint Commission where the disarmament of the Janjaweed came up and the Joint Commission endorsed the efforts to finalize the disarmament plan and called on the joint AMIS-Government of Sudan committee to accelerate its work. So we do follow this matter very closely.
Q: We recently heard that the United Nations and the African Union Commission have jointly appointed Rodolphe Adada as the joint Special Representative for Darfur. Is this a step for implementing the enhanced Heavy Support package?
SP Eliasson: We of course welcome this decision and look forward very much to working together with Rodolphe Adada, the former foreign minister of Congo. He will be responsible for the hybrid mission of course once it is deployed. His responsibilities are to coordinate the activities in the area of peacekeeping of the African Union and the United Nations and we look forward very much to seeing progress in that field.
The Heavy Support Package has been agreed to and we hope it will be implemented as soon as possible. In the meantime there is strong need – and I urge all countries – to support the African Union Mission in Sudan which is performing its duties under difficult circumstances and with lacking resources. All support must be given to African Union Mission in Sudan until this Heavy Support Package, the stronger United Nations component, gets in place. There is an agreement in principle as you know on the three different stages, and we hope very much that those stages would be decided upon soon and that the appropriate decisions will be taken not only here but also in New York of course where the Security Council plays a very important role.
SP Salim: Let me just add one element: the Joint African Union-United Nations Special Representative has been appointed jointly by the Chairperson of the African Union Commission and the Secretary-General of the United Nations with the consent of the Sudanese government. So he is a person who comes here with the consent of the Sudanese government and I honestly hope that he will get the full support of the Sudanese government and also the fullest cooperation of all those involved in this process.
Spokesperson Radhia: I take it that this was the last question for today. Thank you very much for your attendance and I thank the two Special Envoys and we will see you at our next briefing opportunity.