State Dept. Noon Briefing, Friday, Oct. 6, 2000
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000 2:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
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 US 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 UN efforts, bombing US 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 US 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 UN sanctions against Sudan, and there is some momentum towards
having these revoked or repealed? What is the US 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.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)
10/6/00