• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

...............

QUESTION: Julia Taft told a reporter with the New York Times that she's not in favor of what apparently is some legislation that either has or will be signed which changes the way humanitarian aid gets to Sudan and to whom it gets, and I wonder what your thoughts were about that.

MR. RUBIN: First of all, the legislation doesn't change the policy. It provides authority to change policy, and we specifically made clear that we did not support any attempt by Congress to require assistance to be provided under this new authority. So it doesn't do anything other than provide flexibility to the Executive Branch to make this - address this decision.

Now, the question is for all of us what is the best way to assist the people of Sudan as they suffer under the deprivations caused by the regime in Sudan. We have been providing food aid. We have provided over a billion dollars in food aid to civilians in the Sudan conflict over the past ten years. We continue to contribute, along with other nations, to meet the food aid needs of the people of Sudan.

So far, and to date, that food aid has been used only for the purpose of meeting humanitarian food needs of the people of Sudan. The Foreign Operations Appropriations legislation, which I understand the President either has signed or will sign shortly, authorizes - again, but does not require - the President to provide food aid to Sudanese groups engaged in the protection of civilian populations from attacks by regular government of Sudan forces, associated militias, or other paramilitary groups.

We have made no decision on how to implement this legislation. It is an issue that we're going to carefully and deliberately consider in consultation with a number of international organizations, with the Congress. In making the decision, we have to take account a variety of factors, and some of them competing and potentially very complex factors.

For example, we have to determine the best way to help protect civilian populations from attacks from Sudan Government forces and militias supported by the government. We would also need to determine whether providing such aid would compromise the neutrality of relief organizations and, if so, how would we mitigate any unintended impact. We would also need to see how to ensure accountability for any food aid provided to the Sudanese opposition and we would also want to determine what's the best way to increase the incentives for the Sudanese Government to negotiate a comprehensive peace through the peace process that has been established with the Sudanese opposition.

So we've made no decision. We are going to carefully consider a number of issues. We have worked very hard on the Sudan issue over the last ten years, including focusing international attention on the terrible human rights record there, including imposing economic sanction against Sudan.

We also press for UN sanctions against Sudan because of their involvement in the assassination attempt of President Mubarak. We've supported the peace process under the intergovernmental authority of development - that George knows so well is called the IGAD process. We also appointed a special envoy - former Congressman Harry Johnston - to strengthen that process.

So Sudan is a very complex issue. There's a number of competing objectives that we need to take into account and competing interests that are at play here, but I think the implication that a new policy is forthcoming as a result of an authority in the law is overstated.

QUESTION: The article in the New York Times seemed to suggest that officials here in the Africa Bureau -- Susan Rice and her counterpart at the White House -- weren't sort of at the stage of considering and not yet coming to a decision, but that they were, in fact, very strongly in favor of this approach and a move that seems to be opposed by a number of humanitarian groups who are worried about their integrity being called into question.

MR. RUBIN: The last time I checked, the Secretary of State makes decisions like this and so I think the fact that you can find differences in the government is not new. The government is not a one-entity that has a uniformity of positions on every subject. Government has to deliberate and discuss. Bureaus often disagree. I admit that I considered bringing some laundry detergent this morning as a result of the hanging out of some of our dirty laundry, but this is not new to us. This is what we go through every day.

But these are lower-level officials as opposed to the Secretary, who has to make the decision based on recommendations from a number of different organizations. Obviously the advice of Susan Rice - her trusted advisor on Africa issues - is critical, and others, including Julia Taft. So this is an issue that will be weighed based on the criteria that I quite candidly shared with you.

QUESTION: Hasn't the fact that this rare kind of on-the-record admission of some kind of dissension in the ranks - is it fair to say that the discussion about this policy has been particularly lively in this building?

MR. RUBIN: No, not livelier than a lot of - I've seen a lot of policy debates and I wouldn't regard this a particularly lively debate.

QUESTION: Is this change something that Garang specifically asked for in Kenya when he met with --

MR. RUBIN: I believe they've sought this for some time, yes.

QUESTION: They have, okay. Now on -

MR. RUBIN: Keep going - I'm here for you. I'm armed for battle.

QUESTION: The Sudanese Foreign Minister has just announced that he is going to visit Germany and France.

MR. RUBIN: Who?

QUESTION: The Sudanese Foreign Minister, whose name I'm sure you know much better than myself. But do you have any reaction to this? You know, here it is - the US is just contemplating changing a policy to supply aid to the rebels and here is the foreign minister of the government going to visit two allies - ostensible allies in this area.

MR. RUBIN: I assume you meant Mr. Ali Osman Mohamed Taha. Is that the guy?

QUESTION: That would be it.

MR. RUBIN: I thought that's who you meant. I fail to see the connection that the Sudanese foreign minister is traveling - I don't understand your question.

QUESTION: You're about to - the Administration is about to begin considering --

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume we're about to make any decision.

QUESTION: I didn't say that, Jamie. I said about to begin considering a possible change in policy. You don't see any problem with him going to Germany and France?

MR. RUBIN: We certainly have long wanted our allies to pressure the Sudanese Government to comply with international standards on human rights. This isn't the first time the Sudanese ministers have traveled; it won't be the last time they travel and, when they travel, we encourage our allies to make the points necessary. We've met with Sudanese officials; there's nothing strange about that.

QUESTION: And then, one part of the Sudanese rebels has signed some kind of a peace treaty with the government - they signed it in Djibouti and the SPLA has rejected it as being a farce. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. RUBIN: Obviously if you don't have the main rebel groups dealing with the peace agreement, you're not going to have a peace agreement; and we think that the IGAD process is the way to pursue a serious peace agreement and if the Sudanese Government were serious about pursuing a peace agreement, they would be trying to engage through the work of our special envoy and several others who have made themselves available to help; and that this particular development doesn't address the main concern that we've all had that Sudan's crackdown on human rights, its deliberate policies of deprivation and its refusal to approach peace seriously is the ultimate cause of the problem.

QUESTION: Now, bringing this around to my first other question --

MR. RUBIN: You're bringing it all back home?

QUESTION: Exactly. One of the reasons that the foreign minister is traveling to Germany and France - he says - is to present this peace agreement and show the Europeans how Khartoum is committed to peace. Would you like to see the French and the Germans say what you have just said, that you don't think that this agreement, with only one side of the --

MR. RUBIN: It seems like you're really searching to try to create a little news angle here. I think the French and the German ministers know our position quite well and that nothing I've said here today will surprise them at all. I do not expect that any of our allies will suddenly think that Sudan has changed its stripes and is suddenly an advocate of peace and human rights as a result of one visit or one particular action.

..................

QUESTION: There are different sides to the same story. A Canadian company which is one of the foremost investors in the oil in Sudan has applied for application on the New York Stock Exchange. In recent weeks human rights activists, religious freedom advocates, had had met with the President and his National Security Advisor about this. We have yet to hear whether that will be allowed or how it will be interpreted -- as a violation or not of US sanctions against Sudan? Anything on that?

MR. RUBIN: I can try to get that for you. I think there has been no - I have nothing new for you on that.

........................

(The briefing concluded at 2:00 P.M.)

[end of document]