Hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - The Continuing Crisis in Darfur

Interview

Hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - The Continuing Crisis in Darfur

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R-GA): Thank you, Senator Kerry.

Administrator Almquist, did I understand you to say that the people in Darfur supported the militia and the rebels because they didn't trust the Sudanese government?

MS. ALMQUIST: The current conflict started with a rebellion, an outbreak in 2003, by the precursor to the five or so principal rebel groups now. But yes, it started out of frustration over the grievances over the attacks that they were under, and there remains popular support for rebel leaders and rebel movements in Darfur. Their grievances, they do not feel, still have been addressed.

SEN. ISAKSON: Why then would those rebels be attacking the World Food Program convoys if they were bringing food to help the people that support them?

MS. ALMQUIST: First of all, unfortunately, we don't specifically know who is attacking the convoys. We think there are a variety of actors involved. Some of them are probable rogue elements from rebel movements, or many of these splinter factions that have evolved, especially over the last year and a half, and there are resources they see moving by them on the road in a very resource-scarce environment. And no matter how many times we speak about humanitarian principles, those are attractive resources to go after. That's why the point about non-logistic military support, particularly for signatories to the DPA, for groups who have signed on to the cease-fire and to the political framework that is in place right now, would be one way of further mitigating banditry and attacks. The rebels are not the only group taking advantage of the lawlessness that has now overtaken Darfur, so --

SEN. ISAKSON: And I take it that really plays into the hands of the Sudanese government, which is reluctant to provide the security for the convoys. Is that correct?

MS. ALMQUIST: The security -- I can't speak to why the government of Sudan hasn't been able to provide more police escorts for WFP convoys, for instance, but they are slow in responding to requests for the convoys. And, in fact, some of these convoys are 150-vehicle-long endeavors, and protecting that is a pretty significant endeavor. So ultimately we need an environment of security in Darfur to properly continue to get humanitarian aid where it needs to go.

SEN. ISAKSON: Well, it makes it quite apparent of the absolute tragedy of the Darfur area and what's the cooperation amongst some very bad people to make folks who are already suffering suffer even more. I admire what you do and appreciate what you do.

Mr. Williamson, Envoy Williamson, I want to ask you really just one question. You referred to the five on the Security Council, permanent members. One of those is China. Is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

SEN. ISAKSON: And you referred to them in some cases slowing down U.N. efforts in Darfur -- "them" being the members of the permanent members?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

SEN. ISAKSON: And I understand that right now there's a Chinese freighter going up and down the East Coast of Africa, trying to drop off weapons from Mozambique. Is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMSON: For Zimbabwe, I think --

SEN. ISAKSON: Or Zimbabwe --

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir.

SEN. ISAKSON: And do we know if they're supplying any weapons in the Sudan?

MR. WILLIAMSON: We do.

SEN. ISAKSON: That they are supplying some?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.

SEN. ISAKSON: Is there any pressure point on the Chinese? Because they seem to be -- I don't want to use the wrong word here -- but certainly profiting from the sale of arms in Africa and slowing down movement by the U.N. on the Security Council and known to be a supplier within -- to the Sudanese army, I suppose, is who they're supplying. Is there any place we can put pressure on that we're not trying to? Or are we trying to?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah -- can I give you one example of the type of problem, just to elaborate on what you've raised? Yesterday there was a discussion in the Security Council about benchmarks, to put more pressure for more rapid deployment. The Chinese position was twofold: Yes, it would be good to have more rapid deployment, but no, let's not put pressure on them; benchmarks are counterproductive.

Senator, we need to be forward-leaning within the Security Council and elsewhere. Currently there is an embargo on weapons sales to Darfur, not to Sudan, so there are weapons sales. Some reports indicate they've diminished but nonetheless continue through the Port of Sudan. Once they're in country, your imagination is as good as mine to where they end up.

We have a complicated and large and broad relationship with China. Speaking for my responsibility, I continue to be disappointed that China doesn't have greater concern about the people that are suffering in Darfur and are not more proactively helpful to us. I believe that Congress has discussed a variety of things. The administration raises this and engages with China, and we remain hopeful that their behavior will become more proactive and constructive.

SEN. ISAKSON: So there's an embargo on sales of arms into Darfur, but there's no embargo on the Sudanese government?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir. That's my understanding.

SEN. ISAKSON: So the people that are suffering are even harder to protect themselves and the people they're suffering from still have open access to the weapons?

MR. WILLIAMSON: Weapons are available.

SEN. ISAKSON: Thank you, sir.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source