US ambassador discusses ‘ongoing genocide’ in Darfur with UN chief
January 26, 2009 (WASHINGTON) – The new U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, presented her credentials to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon prior to a 45 minute discussion in which she discussed Darfur with the UN chief.
Sudanese officials have expressed grave concerns about Susan Rice, who is a harsh critic of the government and advocated using force against the regime. Writing in the Washington Post in 2006, she suggested that the U.S. Air Force and Navy undertake a bombing campaign and coastal blockade against Sudan.
In today’s remarks she did not depart from her contention that the Sudanese government is genocidal, but she spoke of confronting the Darfur problem with diplomatic and peacekeeping means.
Ambassador Rice said, “obviously we remain very deeply concerned about the ongoing genocide in Darfur. The priority at this point has to be effective protection for civilians. And in that regard, our effort and attention will be, and as we discussed this morning with the Secretary-General and colleagues, on effective efforts to support the full and complete deployment of UNAMID so that there is the capacity on the ground to begin to effect that civilian protection.”
The UN-African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur (UNAMID) is seriously delayed in deploying, faces challenges in protecting the massive displaced populations and is itself sometimes targeted. Assisting the struggling peacekeeping operation was the prime approach of the previous administration, especially over the last year since it gave up on leading mediation efforts between the warring government and rebels.
While government planes bombed areas of Darfur this morning in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, Rice made no mention of the proposed no-fly zone. Among the Obama appointees, only Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has made explicit mention of the campaign’s promise to impose a no-fly zone over Darfur.
But Rice did speak in vague terms of options beyond diplomacy, as have previous administration officials: “Obviously, we will continue to look at what is necessary to deal with any obstruction, continued violence or reprisals that may occur anyway or may emanate as a result of a potential indictment.”
The ambassador’s remarks are consistent with the more direct line taken by Secretary of State Clinton at her confirmation hearing in the Senate on January 13. After referencing Darfur, Clinton said, “We will lead with diplomacy because that’s the smart approach, but we also know that military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort. All the while, we must remember that to promote our interests around the world, America must be an exemplar of our values.”
“We are putting together the options that we think are available and workable. It is done in conjunction, as you would assume, with the Department of Defense,” added Clinton when questioned by Senator Feingold, chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs.
(ST)