By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 26,
updated --
While the UN
Security
Council met on
Darfur
Thursday
morning,
sources told
Inner City
Press that the
US would use
the meeting to
circulate a
draft
resolution
supporting the
African
Union
communique on
Sudan and
South Sudan.
When
the closed
door
consultations
ended, three
Council
members told
Inner City
Press
they had just
gotten the
draft -- "and
the US wants
action right
away," one of
them
complained.
Inner City
Press reported
this,
and a half an
hour later US
Ambassador
Susan Rice
confirmed the
draft
was out.
But
another issue
lurked: the
serious damage
to the oil
facilities at
Heglig.
Several
Council
members said
their
Ambassadors in
Khartoum had
been taken the
day before
down to Heglig
and were
"shocked" by
the level
of
destruction.
One member
spoke of
pictures, of a
$1 billion
repair
cost and work
to take up to
a year.
Another,
a Sudan
supporter,
even described
what he called
South Sudan's
sabotage of
Heglig as a
"war crime,"
saying "you
can kill
people
directly or by
denying a
country half
its income."
The goal in
this scenario,
however, seems
to be regime
change and not
starvation.
Regime change
through
starvation?
Inner
City Press
asked
Ambassador
Susan Rice
about Heglig
and its
relation to
the
resolution and
situation
between the
two Sudans.
She said again
that
it is not
clear who
caused the
damage: "there
are multiple
ways that this
could have
been caused
by the
fighting
between the
parties, by
sabotage, by
either or both
sides, or
indeed by
aerial
bombardment,
which was
utilized by
Khartoum in
trying to
dislodge the
SPLA forces
from Heglig."
Rice confirmed
the trip of
Ambassadors
down to
Heglig. She
said the "draft
is really
primarily
focused on
reinforcing
the African
Union decision
of a couple of
days ago."
When
Sudan's
Permanent
Representative
Daffa-Alla
Elhag Ali
Osman
came after
Rice to the
stakeout,
Inner City
Press asked
him if his
government
supports the
communique. We
are a
member of the
African Union,
he said, but
that does not
mean that the
AU should be
"used" by UN
Security
Council
members. Later
he said that
the
communique's
timelines --
he mentioned
"one
week" -- were
too tight.
One still
wanted the
view of South
Sudan's
Representative
Agnes Oswaha;
even in her
absence of
Heglig it can
be said that
the oil from
South Sudan's
Unity State
transited
through there,
meaning Juba
loses too,
even if the
oil transfer
fee were
settled.
Much
less focus
was given to
the morning's
ostensibly
subject,
Darfur. UN
Peacekeeping
under Herve
Ladsous is
proposing to
reduce and
redeploy
the UNAMID
mission's
posts. In the
Council's open
meeting he
painted
an improving,
some say
Pollyanna
picture of
Darfur
including
North
Darfur.
When
the meeting
ended, South
Africa's
Permanent
Representative
Baso Sangqu
expressed
concern that
pulling out
too late could
lead to a
"backlash"
and the need
to return. It
recalled Timor
Leste, where
the UN pulled
out then
rushed back in
after
violence.
Inner
City Press
asked US
Ambassador
Rice about
this critique.
She said the
US "hardly
sanguine
about the
security
situation. We
see that the
violence is
escalating in
four or five
regions of
Darfur, and
we're
particularly
concerned
about North
Darfur and
Jebel Marra...
The way we
understand the
proposals
by DPKO is not
to really
think of it as
a downsizing
but, rather, a
right-sizing
so that the
personnel that
they have are
ones that are,
first of all,
optimally
equipped and
trained.
There's been
some
issues with
that, I think
you know."
UK
Permanent
Representative
Mark Lyall
Grant told
Inner City
Press that
many of
the posts
proposed for
elimination
were not
presently
filled --
"phantom
posts" -- and
that some of
the
peacekeepers
to be
rotated out
hadn't
necessarily
done a perfect
job.
Rice on camera
more
charitably
said "as you
know," some
have not had
the
right
equipment and
training. It
brought to
mind a scandal
in which a
Nepalese
battalion
deployed with
armored
personnel
carriers that
did
not work. This
in term
brought to
mind Haiti and
MINUSTAH --
but
that's another
story. Watch
this site.
From
the US Mission
to the UN
transcript:
Inner
City
Press: On
Darfur,
Ambassador
Sangqu of
South Africa
just said
he's at least
concerned of
this idea of
reducing the
force size,
such
that there
could be kind
of a backlash.
I think it
happened in
East
Timor, for
example. At
one time, the
UN pulled out.
Does the U.S.
think that
things are
going as well
in Darfur as
it seemed that
Mr.
Ladsous was
saying,
that-at least
in the north
and on the
borders?
And on Sudan /
South Sudan:
I've heard
that the U.S.
ambassador and
other
ambassadors
are going to
actually visit
Heglig and see
the
damage. I want
to know if
that's true
and how that
relates to the
issues in your
draft
resolution and
in trying to
get the two
parties
negotiating.
Do you think
that this-I've
heard that
it's as much
as a
billion
dollars of
damage or
long-term
repair. What's
the relation
between that
fact on the
ground and
what you want
to see the two
parties do?
Ambassador
Rice:
Well, on
Heglig, I
think it is
the case that
the government
in
Khartoum was
trying to
organize to
take some
diplomats down
to
Heglig. I
don't-I think
what is clear
is that there
has been
damage.
I don't know
that we have
reliable cost
estimates on
that. What is
most unclear
is how the
damage was
caused, and I
discussed this
the
other day.
There are
multiple ways
that this
could have
been caused
by the
fighting
between the
parties, by
sabotage, by
either or both
sides, or
indeed by
aerial
bombardment,
which was
utilized by
Khartoum in
trying to
dislodge the
SPLA forces
from Heglig-or
maybe
come
combination
thereof. It
doesn't factor
directly into
the draft
we're
discussing
because the
draft is
really
primarily
focused on
reinforcing
the African
Union decision
of a couple of
days ago.
Going
back
to Darfur,
remind me
again of what-
Inner
City
Press: There's
a concern
expressed by
South Africa
and maybe
others that,
if you pull
out too
quickly, you
might have to
go back
in as took
place in Timor
Leste.
Ambassador
Rice:
Well, first of
all, from a
U.S. point of
view, we're
hardly
sanguine about
the security
situation. We
see that the
violence is
escalating in
four or five
regions of
Darfur, and
we're
particularly
concerned
about North
Darfur and
Jebel Marra.
So this
remains a very
insecure, very
serious
situation. The
way we
understand the
proposals
by DPKO is not
to really
think of it as
a downsizing
but, rather, a
right-sizing
so that the
personnel that
they have are
ones that are,
first of all,
optimally
equipped and
trained.
There's been
some
issues with
that, I think
you know.
Secondly, that
the police
component is
configured to
be maximally
effective and
to be deployed
in areas where
they can have
the greatest
beneficial
impact in
terms
of protecting
civilians.
There have
been issues
with air
assets
having been
grounded by
the
government-underutilized-so
I think
they're trying
to address
those as well.
So, obviously
the Council
will have
further
opportunity to
delve into
these
recommendations,
as
I said, when
we do the
mandate
renewal. But
certainly from
our point
of view, I
don't think
it's correct
to view it as
a downsizing
but,
rather, trying
to align the
personnel
resources and
equipment on
the
ground with
the needs as
they are
today, as
opposed to
when the force
was originally
mandated.