TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS: SUDAN 'TOTALLY UNSUITABLE' FOR UNSC
SEAT (Boucher comment at October 6 State Dept.
Briefing)
October 10,
2000
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said October 6 that
Sudan is a "totally unsuitable" choice for a seat on the U.N.
Security Council and would "in fact undermine and weaken Africa's
representation on the Council. Sudan is under United Nations
sanctions for supporting terrorism."
Boucher also told a reporter at the regular State Department
briefing that Sudan's government and leaders have "shown no concern
for human rights and the humanitarian welfare of their own citizens,
nor have they shown any economic or political leadership in
Africa. They have carried out military actions against U.N.
efforts, bombing U.S. relief airplanes on the ground."
Following are excerpts from the State Department briefing of
Boucher's comments on Sudan:
(Begin transcript excerpts)
Q: Because this is the - we are almost hitting a three-day
weekend, there is every - well, not every - there is a possibility
that when we next see you again, Ambassador Holbrooke may be forced
to be sitting next to, at the Security Council table, the ambassador
from a country that you believe is a state sponsor of terrorism,
that being the Sudan. The vote is supposed to be on Tuesday
morning. I'm wondering if you - we had been told in New York
that the U.S. had made some progress on getting the African
countries to back away from their alleged consensus on Sudan in
favor of, perhaps, Mauritius, and I'm wondering - it seems as
though, however, the Sudanese are still in there pushing.
What is your take on this?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as you remember, when we went to New
York, it was the common view that somehow Sudan was the African
consensus candidate and therefore was a shoo-in for this seat.
We have worked on this; the Secretary worked on this in New York;
Ambassador Holbrooke and our mission at the United Nations have been
working; and certainly our African Bureau and our posts in Africa
have been working on this.
We don't normally take a position on a regional candidate, but in
this case we really do believe that Sudan is totally unsuitable for
this position and would in fact undermine and weaken Africa's
representation on the Council. Sudan is under United Nations
sanctions for supporting terrorism. They have shown no concern
for human rights and the humanitarian welfare of their own citizens,
nor have they shown any economic or political leadership in
Africa. They have carried out military actions against U.N.
efforts, bombing U.S. relief airplanes on the ground. So we do
have a very strong dialogue in cooperation with Africa, including at
the United Nations, and we really don't think that Sudan is the best
way for them to represent their interests.
At the same time, what has also become clear in recent weeks, in
addition to the fact that Sudan does not enjoy an African consensus,
is that in the -- there are other candidates, and the absence of
consensus should be obvious in the fact that Mauritius, which has
declared its candidacy before the Security Council, is very much in
the race as well. We know that there are at least 15 African
countries who have made clear that they support Mauritius.
Uganda, in fact, has circulated a detailed letter in New York that
refutes Sudan's claims to being a consensus candidate. We
believe that Mauritius would make an excellent addition to the
Security Council. It is a vibrant democracy. It shown it
has a strong market economy. It has a history of constructive
engagement in regional multilateral fora.
So, with all that in mind, we do approach a vote on
Tuesday. We continue to work this issue. I don't know
how the vote will turn out, but we have continued to work very hard
on this and to make quite clear, as I have today, that we believe
that, first of all, there is no African consensus - that has become
quite clear through our efforts; second of all, that Sudan is an
unsuitable candidate, and we believe many countries agree with us on
that; and third of all, that Mauritius would be an excellent
candidate to represent African interests, and we know that some
countries agree with us on that too. So we will see if we have
enough progress and momentum to actually see the vote go in favor of
a viable candidate.
Q: Can I follow up on that? I understand they need a - the
vote has to - it's in the General Assembly - it has to be a
two-thirds vote in order for Mauritius or any country to get it, and
that there is some concern that they may not get that two-thirds
necessary, in which case it would have to go back to the Africans to
try and make another round of consensus building. There is
talk up in New York that, if that happens, that Uganda -- who is now
supporting Mauritius -- and Tanzania, have kind of pushed their -
put their names in the hat as perhaps another consensus
candidate.
Would the U.S. be willing to support either Uganda or Tanzania on
the Security Council?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me put it this way. Our normal
practice in most of these votes for who gets on the Security Council
is to support a regional consensus if a regional consensus
exists. What was peculiar about this case is there was, during
the course of the summer, claims that there was a regional consensus
for what we thought was an unsuitable candidate, but then those - it
turned out there was no consensus anyway. So that pushes us
into a vote where all the members usually vote, and then you have to
decide who you support. We have done that in this case.
I don't know how this exactly works out in New York. Should
the Africans come up with a suitable consensus candidate, I suppose
the normal practice would apply. But we do make very clear we
think Mauritius is an excellent candidate and would be a fine
representative for Africa.
Q: But are Uganda and Tanzania? Would they also be
suitable?
MR. BOUCHER: You have to ask the Africans and you would
have to ask those individual countries whether they are putting
themselves forward. At this point, what we see is Sudan has
put itself forward and Mauritius has put itself forward for
Africa. And we certainly believe in that choice it is quite
clear which one is the better.
Q: On a related question, what do you think should be the future
of the U.N. sanctions against Sudan, and there is some momentum
towards having these revoked or repealed? What is the U.S.
position on this?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that, first of all, the issue
of terrorism sanctions needs to be considered on its own
merits. It's not a form of quid pro quo in this
situation. As for the sanctions themselves, we told the
Security Council that we would be willing to consider the issue of
lifting the sanctions, but only on the merits and in the context of
substantial progress by Sudan in complying with the benchmarks of
relevant resolutions. We will not support lifting sanctions
until the Government of Sudan takes concrete and verifiable steps to
end its support for terrorist groups.
Q: Well, how far have they got along that road?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, I'm not in a position to judge
that. At this point, as you know, we do have counter-terrorism
experts and security experts who have been sent to Khartoum to
discuss issues of terrorism and our concerns with the Government of
Sudan. We did undertake that in response to offers from Sudan
to address these issues. That dialogue continues, but I don't
have a sort of reading on how far down the road we are.
Q: Just to follow up on that, the sanctions were imposed for a
very specific case of alleged terrorism. You seem to be now
broadening it to include the whole terrorist picture.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't broaden it beyond the resolutions,
because I said quite clearly that we need concrete and verifiable
progress to meet the benchmarks of the relevant resolutions.
It's the provisions of the resolutions that govern in this case, and
until we are satisfied that they have met those provisions, we would
see no cause to --
Q: So you are not satisfied --
MR. BOUCHER: We are not satisfied yet that they have met
those.
Q: One more question on - has Jordan been involved at all in the
last week or so in trying to cap the violence? I mean, Egypt
has been there, but we have heard very little about Jordan.
And Jordan has the only agreement on the use of authority over the
Haram as-Sharif, or Temple Mount. Why isn't she more
deeply involved in this?
(End transcript excerpts)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs,
U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
Return to US Embassy Home Page
|