16 July 1999
Transcript: State's Rice, NSC's Smith at July 15 Briefing
(Rice is heartened by recent Lusaka peace agreement) (5370) Washington -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice told a press conference at the State Department July 15 that she detected progress on efforts to end the conflict in Congo-Kinshasa during the recent meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which she attended. Rice told journalists that she and her delegation, which included former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake -- who is now special U.S. envoy to the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict -- conducted productive country-to-country talks, called 'bilaterals,' at the OAU conference, held in Algiers. Referring to a recent Congo peace agreement signed in Lusaka, she emphasized that "now it is imperative that all of the rebels sign this document, that they not get hung up over what are really quite mundane protocol issues, and that they affirm their commitment to the document." In Algiers, she said, "I sensed among the many heads of state with whom I had a chance to talk about the developments in Lusaka on Saturday a genuine commitment on the part of all concerned to see this agreement stick and to make it meaningful. There was some concern about the fact that the rebels have not yet signed, but by no means despair or any sense of dismissing the agreement as therefore not being binding on the parties who had signed." Rice was joined at the press briefing by National Security Council Senior Director of African Affairs Gayle Smith, who also made a recent trip to the continent. Smith said that despite political setbacks on the continent, "we also want to be very clear that it remains our view that there really is a change afoot in Africa and it remains a critical moment for our engagement." Following is the transcript of Assistant Secretary Rice's State Department briefing: (begin text) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman July 15, 1999 ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS SUSAN RICE AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS GAYLE SMITH ON AFRICA Washington, D.C. ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: Hello, everybody; it's been a while. I appreciate all of you being here. We wanted to take this opportunity to go over a number of developments that have arisen over the last seven or eight days, and to look a bit forward as well. Just within that brief period, we've had a number of significant developments -- a peace agreement in Sierra Leone; an agreement in the Congo conflict, signed by most of the belligerents, although not yet all of the belligerents; we hope some positive developments with respect to the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict; as well as an important summit of the OAU, which just concluded yesterday in Algiers, and from which I've just returned. Of course, the Secretary's speech on Tuesday to the NAACP, which I think reiterated and expanded upon our substantial commitment to a new partnership, a new relationship with Africa. Of course, looking forward, we hope that within the next several days, if not week or so, we will have the African Growth and Opportunity Act taken up on the House floor, and we hope [it will] pass the House with a substantial margin. If I might just say a few words in particular about the OAU summit and its outcomes and where we are on some of the key conflict issues, and then hand it over to Gayle and then, of course, take your questions. There were a number of interesting developments at the OAU summit, some of which you may have seen in the press. They range from what I thought was a rather groundbreaking declaration of commitment to exclude in future from such gatherings any governments or any leaders that have come to power by coup or non-democratic means. That has not been an explicit element of OAU summits present and past, and it would be a substantial positive development in the future. They also approved a counter-terrorism convention, a first in the OAU context. They gave particular focus to some of the ongoing conflict situations, expressed particular concern about Somalia. In the context of Angola, it was very critical of Jonas Savimbi and UNITA's role in perpetuating the conflict. They welcomed the progress and the agreement, in fact, on Sierra Leone. I thought notably -- and perhaps not as prominently played in our media -- was a very welcome commendation on the part of the heads of state for the new relationship that is emerging between the United States and Africa. Particular reference and commendation was made of the US-Africa Ministerial Meeting here in March, and the Secretariat of the OAU was instructed to follow up, as were member governments, to pursue the substantive next steps we agreed in the 13-page blueprint document that was issued at the closing of that summit. At the same time, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government welcomed by name President Clinton's initiative on relieving African debt and welcomed steps to move forward on that important subject. We -- the delegation that I led, which consisted of State Department officials as well as Anthony Lake, former National Security Advisor, who has been the President's envoy on the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict -- conducted a range of bilateral meetings with a broad spectrum of foreign ministers and heads of state. We covered a lot of ground but our principal focus was on the Ethiopia-Eritrea issue, and we had substantial and very helpful deliberations with both Ethiopians and Eritreans, with the OAU Secretariat and others who share our concern about resolving that conflict; and separately, constructive discussions on the Congo issue. If I might just touch on these conflict situations briefly. On Ethiopia and Eritrea, the OAU high-level delegation, which has been the entity of the OAU that has been working on the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict for the last year, presented to the two parties a document called "Modalities for Implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement," which was meant to bring greater specificity to how the OAU framework itself, which both sides had nominally accepted, might now be brought into force and implemented. It was notable that the two sides' initial response to this document was a constructive and a positive one, and now we will be working very closely with the OAU to try to follow up as quickly as possible with the aim of trying to formalize an agreement to these documents and then, of course, move towards a cessation of hostilities and more detailed talks on implementation. Obviously, we are a long way still from a formal agreement, but I think we have reason to be encouraged at this development and we will continue our more-than-year-long efforts to try to help bring this dispute to a successful conclusion and a peaceful conclusion. On the Congo I sensed among the many heads of state with whom I had a chance to talk about the developments in Lusaka on Saturday a genuine commitment on the part of all concerned to see this agreement stick and to make it meaningful. There was some concern about the fact that the rebels have not yet signed, but by no means despair or any sense of dismissing the agreement as therefore not being binding on the parties who had signed. Obviously, now it is imperative that all of the rebels sign this document, that they not get hung up over what are really quite mundane protocol issues and that they affirm their commitment to the document. We would find it impossible to understand if they took this opportunity to continue to wage a battle using force when there is a comprehensive and we think very thoughtful cease-fire agreement that has been signed by all concerned belligerents. We certainly look to the rebels and those that have close relationships with the rebels to ensure that the documents are signed by all and implemented as soon as possible. On Sierra Leone, there again we are gratified that there is a peace agreement that's been signed by all concerned. The challenge in the first instance there remains implementation. And here, as in the case of the Congo, our desire is to be as supportive as we can of efforts to see those agreements successfully implemented. I will pause there and hand it over to Gayle, and then look forward to talking in further depth on this with you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. It's nice to see everyone again. I think we were -- or at least I was last here at the time of the US-Africa Ministerial. Obviously, quite a lot has happened since then. I just want to try to put the last several weeks in context and say a few words about how we see this fitting into the President's policy and approach towards Africa. As you know, since the beginning of this Administration -- and particularly since the President traveled to Africa -- he and members of his Cabinet have emphasized the importance of long-term partnership, of African leadership and of our deep engagement with the continent. Obviously, during the last year, including from this room, there have been those who have said, what happened -- there were major wars that broke out; what happened to the renaissance and so on. I think that while, obviously, it's important to be cautious in our presently optimistic reading of the developments Susan just outlined, I think we also want to be very clear that it remains our view that there really is a change afoot in Africa and it remains a critical moment for our engagement. Now, that engagement has carried through on the economic front, as you know, through the last year. Since the time of the ministerial, as Susan mentioned, we have a major debt initiative on which the United States took significant leadership in Cologne, which will affect Africa enormously and which was quickly recognized by Africans for its significance. We have movement on the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which the Administration is fully committed to seeing passed. Just two weeks ago, we convened here at the State Department a preliminary meeting with the government of Angola on a bilateral consultative commission, the aim of which is to deepen our engagement with that government and importantly, to deal at a time in Angola's development with key economic issues of interest to both of us. These peace agreements in various forms that Susan has just outlined, we see as important for a number of reasons. In Sierra Leone, in the Congo and in the case of Eritrea and Ethiopia -- where we believe we are seeing positive progress -- the important thing, in our view, is not only that this points to an opportunity for the re-emergence of peace and progress on the front of economic development, but also and significantly in each case African regional institutions have taken the lead, and a very significant lead. Now, this has not meant that the US has abdicated responsibility or dropped the ball. In all three cases, we have worked very actively and substantively with those regional institutions. In Sierra Leone, we have been part of the International Mediation Committee working with ECOWAS. Reverend Jackson, Assistant Secretary Rice and others have been directly involved. In the Congo we have been actively involved as well with President Chiluba in his leadership of the SADC [Southern African Development Community] Process; and as Susan has just outlined, we have coordinated with the OAU closely throughout the last year on Eritrea and Ethiopia. I think that the point I'd like to make in closing and before we open up to questions is that all of these agreements and potential agreements are as complex as the wars that they are aiming to resolve. I don't think any of us thinks it is, therefore, going to be clear sailing. That said, all of the issues are above ground; there is committed African individual leadership and institutional leadership. I think during the last year, in particular, we have been able to forge important, credible partnerships with those institutions to continue working with them from this point forward and we are quite committed to staying the course. We're also quite committed to answering any questions you may have, so I think I will now open up. QUESTION: You both mentioned the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Could you briefly summarize what it would do and what the prospects are in both the House and the Senate? I understand the House vote may take place tomorrow. ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: The African Growth and Opportunity Act is important to the Administration and very important to Africa because it provides a critical element of the overall US-Africa economic partnership or framework that cannot be achieved without legislation. The most important thing that the African Growth and Opportunity Act does is allow greater access to the American market for products of various sorts produced in Africa. It's designed, in a nutshell, to enable Africa to achieve a modest toe-hold in the US market in a range of sectors -- although the one that has gotten the most attention is textiles and apparel -- and to do so quickly. Because as in the case of textile and apparel, [and] with other products as well, very soon all barriers to trade internationally will come down shortly. In the case of textiles, that will happen in the year 2005. If there is not an opportunity for Africa to gain a toe-hold into the US market and have the opportunity to compete not against US manufacturers -- because, for a variety of reasons, they don't compete against US manufacturers -- but other developing country manufacturers in Asia and elsewhere, then it will be very difficult for Africa to have that opportunity come the year 2005. So this legislation does a number of things. But the most important thing that it does is increase substantially the access to the United States market for African products being produced in countries that are taking important and necessary reforms that their governments are fully supportive of that, in the long term, will accelerate economic growth and development. Q: Could you walk us through the Ethiopia-Eritrea business? What is different than two weeks ago? And what part does the United States play in this -- (inaudible) -- proposal? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: What appears to be different is that while some weeks back we had a situation where both sides had accepted in name the OAU framework agreement but had decidedly different interpretations of what that agreement meant, we now have the OAU putting forward a document which is meant to state quite clearly what is meant in terms of implementation by this framework agreement so that there can be no remaining dispute or ambiguity about it. And having put forward that modalities for implementation document, it seems that both sides -- based on what is a clear-cut document -- are reacting positively and constructively. That is something potentially very significant. The US role, from going back to May of last year, has been very active and very instrumental. I won't go back over the whole year's -- or 14 months' worth of effort, but suffice it to say that in the last several months, we have been very much involved as a government and with the two parties to the conflict. Former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake has made four trips to the region, which followed on our earlier two trips to the region and the brokering of the air strike moratorium last summer. Since the conflict began, we've stayed in close touch with both parties and have been working very closely with the OAU and the United Nations in order to press both sides to accept the OAU framework and to eliminate any ambiguities or any disputes, any barriers to its implementation. This last document that the OAU put forward was the product of long, hard work on the part of the OAU as well as the United States and involving the United Nations and members of the European Union. We are all together, I believe, in the international community, behind this document. The OAU, heads of state and government fully endorsed it and now it's incumbent upon the parties to move to implement it. We want to remain as supportive as we get to, we hope, a stage of signing and implementation as we have been to date. Q: Does the document resolve the border dispute? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: You mean the question of where the border actually is? Q: Yes. ASSISTANT SECRTARY RICE: No, that has never been the intent of the OAU or any other mediation effort. In fact, both sides have agreed from the very early days that the determination of where the actual border lies is a technical matter that would be accomplished through a formal process of delimitation and demarcation by the United Nations. One of the ironies is that the end-state has always been accepted; it's been a question of how we get to the end-state. That is more what these documents are about. Q: (Inaudible) -- just the status of how much there is and how much the US is -- what the current US position is on how much -- MS. SMITH: The bilateral concessional debt forgiveness in the last couple of years alone has been in the range of $500 million, give and take. I think the most significant thing is the Cologne debt initiative, which calls for a number of things. One is a new focus on poverty; in other words, it calls on the International Financial Institutions to develop a framework whereby debt relief and poverty reduction are focused on spending in the social sectors, AIDS prevention, so on and so forth. This is a point, by the way, that has resonated in Africa. In fact, one of the prominent speakers at the OAU summit, President Obasanjo of Nigeria, referred specifically to the importance, in his view, of the need for African governments to pursue development initiatives and manage debt at the same time. It calls also for substantially deeper relief -- a reduction of up to 70 percent of the total debts for the countries that would qualify, the majority of which are in Africa. Debt relief that would be faster both by providing early cash-flow relief for a sort of interim relief package and by allowing earlier stock reduction, and the number of countries qualifying under HPIC -- the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative -- would be increased from 26 to 33. Now, we, as you know, took an important leading role in putting together this initiative. We are hopeful that we will see as much support as possible for this initiative from the Congress. The President is quite committed to doing what we can to keep debt relief a high priority for the Administration in Africa and other poor countries affected by it. Q: Sierra Leone. There are reports from human rights groups that they are quite unhappy with the peace deal because it reportedly says that the guerrillas there or the militias will be sort of excused from their human rights abuses -- the slaughtering that they did there. I wanted you all to speak to that. And also, Jesse Jackson, I think the other day, has complained that while the US is spending billions of dollars for reconstruction programs for Kosovo, they're not doing the same thing for Sierra Leone. So I'd like to know, is there going to be some type of a reconstruction program for Sierra Leone -- not just a debt forgiveness, but a reconstruction program? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: The view of the United States is that the most important and meaningful way to end the atrocities in Sierra Leone, which have concerned us greatly and which we have condemned on multiple occasions, is to bring about a lasting peace in Sierra Leone. That, too, is what the people of Sierra Leone themselves most want, and that is what their leaders have agreed to. The amnesty provisions in the Sierra Leone peace agreement are of a domestic nature. They do not in any way obviate the interest of the international community in seeing that crimes against humanity, wherever they may occur, are dealt with in an appropriate fashion. We want to see this agreement succeed, and we are prepared to provide appropriate support for its implementation. In particular, we are looking forward to seeing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is envisioned in the agreement stood up and running and made credible. This Truth and Reconciliation Commission can provide a forum for dealing with issues of impunity and aim to break the cycle of violence and give both victims and perpetrators of atrocities in Sierra Leone the opportunity to establish the truth about what happened and to decide on appropriate steps in accordance with the truth as discovered. Obviously, if this peace agreement fails to meet its objectives -- including the aspirations of the people of Sierra Leone for peace as well as for justice -- then we and others in the international community will want to look at what further next steps are appropriate. But as I said at the outset, our view is that the best guarantee of an end to the atrocities and reconciliation in Sierra Leone is for this agreement to succeed. Finally, let me say what I hope is well-understood, if not obvious, that we continue to be wholly committed -- speaking from the perspective of the United States -- to the pursuit of accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian law everywhere in the world; and Sierra Leone is by no means an exception. With respect to the reconstruction/rehabilitation process, the United States will want to play an important role in the context of others in the international community in helping Sierra Leone get back on its feet. UNDP was present throughout the negotiating process to show the international community's commitment to this. We and others see the challenge of demilitarization, disarmament, demobilization as being one of the most pressing challenges in Sierra Leone and we hope to be able to contribute constructively to that, as well as to the other post-conflict peace-building challenges. Anything else on that? MS. SMITH: I would just add one point on this because I think, again, it's important to put your question into context. Long before Kosovo, it was recognized that the international community, including the United States, had under-invested in and under-engaged with Africa. The President's policy has been predicated on the need to rectify that and put a foundation in place to do so. He and his Cabinet have been aggressively doing that whether it be by calling consistently for an increase in aid to Africa and pledging to restore aid to historic high levels; by working aggressively through signing trade agreements; appointing an African trade representative in the Office of the US Trade Representative and pursuing trade agreements; encouraging greater US investment in Africa; giving greater prominence to the African voice and representation in international fora -- any number of vehicles for addressing what is a fundamental underlying problem. As in the case of Kosovo, the United States is not going to be the only member of the international community responding to Sierra Leone. As Susan points out, our response has and will be comprehensive. We are the leading donor of humanitarian assistance and have been so. I need to check this figure definitively, but I believe that -- it's over $55 million this year and it was well over that last year -- this year is not over. We've begun to look at the issue of refugees and so on and so forth. We intend to respond in a forward-leaning manner and I think, importantly, in a comprehensive manner -- looking not only at how we can help consolidate the peace agreement, but how we can help people return their lives to normal; invest increasingly on the humanitarian front, but also help that country get back on a solid economic footing. MS. SMITH: Is this on Sierra Leone? Q: No, I wanted to follow up on that; not necessarily on Sierra Leone. I went to something a couple of weeks ago where a number of African ambassadors spoke and they were asked what they felt was the most serious problem in their countries. This is not one of these countries where they've just recently had civil wars. They said that their most serious problem was AIDS -- that it was not being addressed adequately either by their governments nor, they felt, by the outside community. And they desperately needed help for the programs not only to teach people about it, but medication. Is this being addressed in an aggressive way? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: As you may have noticed, Secretary Albright put particular emphasis on the HIV/AIDS pandemic in her remarks on Tuesday. She did so because we share the recognition that that is the most pressing critical problem facing Africa. The United States has been the leading international donor for many years in combating HIV/AIDS but I think we recognize and the President recognizes that we can and we must do more. That is why the President's AIDS czar, Sandy Thurman, has taken more than three trips in the last year to Africa to look into this issue. She is presenting to the President a series of recommendations to enhance our efforts to respond to the AIDS crisis, and we look very much forward to support in Congress to substantially enhance our contribution to this. Q: In her remarks to the NAACP, the Secretary outlined the duties or the assignment of the special envoy on Sudan. They apparently don't include going to Khartoum for direct bilateral negotiations. Would you talk a little bit about the rationale for that? And what is the dynamic now of the Sudan process? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: First of all, this envoy will not be responsible for our bilateral relationship with Khartoum. This is not an effort to inject a new personality in our still quite serious and troubled relationship with the government of Khartoum -- a relationship that remains so because of Khartoum's support for terrorism, its massive human rights abuses and its efforts to destabilize its neighbors. The purpose of this envoy will be three-fold: first, to draw what we think is badly needed attention to the humanitarian crisis that persists in Sudan and to martial concerted international support for an effective humanitarian response. The crisis goes in waves and press attention goes in waves but, in fact, the needs are consistent, and we want to address them as such. Secondly, on the human rights side, the government in Khartoum is perhaps the world's most egregious abuser of human rights, whether it be slavery or religious persecution or the tremendous, horrible manifestations of this conflict on the people of Sudan -- aerial bombing of hospitals and the like. This envoy will not only shine the spotlight on those concerns, but also try to martial greater international concern and consciousness about these problems and perhaps concerted international action as a result. Thirdly, to reinforce our support for the IGAD [Intergovernmental Authority on Development] peace process -- this is a regional peace process led by Kenya. We view this process as vital; as central to all efforts to resolve the war in Sudan and the individual very much under the umbrella of IGAD and in concert with our partners in IGAD and in Europe, who are supporting the peace process, to maximize its effectiveness. The IGAD talks will resume next week in Nairobi. For the first time in a while, I had the opportunity for extensive conversations with the Kenyan Foreign Minister in Algiers whose government is leading this effort on the need to invigorate the IGAD process and on the substantive steps that we hope can come out of this next round of talks. Why don't I just say one thing, Tom, in addition to that. Obviously, for an envoy to maximize his or her effectiveness on all three of those areas of interest, it may be appropriate at times for that envoy to have dialogue with Khartoum. But that is not on the bilateral relationship; it would be in support of pursuing the agenda on those three areas. Q: Could you sort of bring us up to date as to what is the bilateral relationship with Sudan? I mean, you said it was troubled and serious; but I think since the US bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, the Sudanese diplomats here left. I think they're still gone. Has anything moved? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: That's basically a year ago. Not much at all has changed in our relationship with Sudan. The fundamental issues that cause us concern remain and, therefore, our policy towards Sudan has not changed. As I said, we remain deeply concerned about Sudan's continued support for terrorism; its egregious human rights violations; its efforts to destabilize its neighbors; and the continuation of the deadliest civil war in the world. We have maintained diplomatic relations with Khartoum. They removed their diplomats from Washington voluntarily; we did not ask them to leave. They are welcome to come back if and when they choose. We do not and have not for several years had a full-time diplomatic presence in Khartoum for security reasons. And in the wake of the bombing of Al-Shifa those security concerns have not yet been mitigated. Q: Is there sort of a way out of this? ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: Yes, the way out is when the government of Khartoum fundamentally changes its behavior. Q: For both of you ladies -- how does the situation in the Congo and the situation in neighboring Sudan threaten or does it threaten to destabilize neighboring countries, such as Nigeria; and how is Nigeria doing? MS. SMITH: I think we've seen from the war in the Congo, the conflict in Sierra Leone, the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia that these wars obviously do have the capacity to destabilize countries, or at least have a very negative impact on their neighborhoods. Congo happens to have more participants than almost any conflict we've ever seen in Africa. One of the very positive things, though, now is that what you have is countries that were, 18 months ago, close allies on the economic and political fronts re-engaging as allies once again to bring about a solution. On Nigeria, it has been about six weeks since we attended the inauguration there. There have been some extremely important and dramatic steps made by the new government to address some fundamental issues that have destabilized that country over the years, including to tackle corruption, the government took the approach of canceling a number of contracts to be re-examined. They have retired a significant number of people from the military; begun the process of taking a new look at their economy and how it can run more effectively and with less corruption. Significantly, President -- (inaudible) -- has already played an important role in the Sierra Leone peace process. As a prominent country in the region, he was very active and, again, played a very prominent role. So I would say that the transition there is going well. It is a very difficult one. We just had an inter-agency team return from Nigeria. It represented, I believe, eight US Government agencies to take a serious look at how we begin to put together our strategy for engagement with that government and the people of Nigeria, to do our best to make the transition a full success. Q: Was that election popular and democratic, fair and square? MS. SMITH: I think the findings of the observers -- I don't know that I can recall the exact quote -- was that there were some irregularities in the election, but on balance they did not find that it affected the ultimate outcome. ASSISTANT SECRETARY RICE: And it reflected the will of the people of Nigeria. Q: Thank you very much. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
