MuseumDESCRIPTION:
Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a founder of the ENOUGH Project, responds to President George W. Bush’s speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum last week where he announced several policy options the United States will pursue to stop the genocide in Darfur; what has become known as Plan B.
TRANSCRIPT:
JERRY FOWLER: My guest today is Gayle Smith. She is Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress where she is Director of the International Rights and Responsibilities program. She served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of African Affairs at the National Security Council from 1998 to 2001. She also is a found of the ENOUGH! Campaign. Gayle, welcome back to the program.
GAYLE SMITH: Thanks for having me Jerry.
JERRY FOWLER: Well Gayle, Sudanese President Bashir recently agreed to allow additional United Nations support for the African Union Mission in Sudan. First, could you just give us an overview of what he exactly agreed to and whether it is significant?
GAYLE SMITH: Well what he has agreed to most recently is the deployment of three thousand United Nations troops in support of the African Union mission. On the one hand that is a concession, but it is a very very small concession for a number of reasons. Three thousand is far fewer than are needed. There was not a timeline set for when they could be deployed; no discussion of mandate. I think the significance is that he seems to once again have offered up to the international community a small tidbit and enough to lead people to believe that he might do more and that there was an opening. When in fact I think he is again slow rolling the entire world and just forestalling the deployment of the robust force that is needed.
JERRY FOWLER: So on the one hand in the press this was a step forward, but on the other hand you are suggesting that it was more of an illusion, that the devil still is in the details.
GAYLE SMITH: Oh absolutely, both the devil is in the details and it is also much much less than what is needed on the ground. So if this were real progress there is no reason that President Bashir could not have said “we will allow immediately the deployment of the entire United Nations force with full support, with everything they need they will have our backing and acceptance.” What he did was agree to, and he phrased it very cleverly, three thousand troops in support of the African Union. Now that may mean that those are troops just there as a protection force for the African Union. It could mean troops that are there to provide logistical assistance. It does not amount to anything near what is needed to ensure civilians on the ground are indeed protected.
JERRY FOWLER: Now there is a lot of speculation that the timing of this concession, or apparent concession, was tied to the fact that President Bush was making a speech on Darfur last week where he was going to roll out the elements, where he did role out the elements, of what has been widely called Plan B. Let me just ask you first, do you think that there was that kind of connection? That Bashir was tailoring what he was doing to the prospect that the President was going to announce some steps.
GAYLE SMITH: Well if past patterns are anything to go by with the Sudanese government, I would say yes. He also had John Negroponte up there, senior United States diplomat, had heard a message from the United States that unless you act to fully comply with the will of the international community as expressed through United Nations Security Council, there will be measures taken against you. So I think his timing was in fact deliberate. I think his cleverness was in doing something that looked a lot bigger than in fact it is.
JERRY FOWLER: Right, when you talk about the idea of fully complying with the will of the international community, I guess you have already said this but he is very far from fully complying.
GAYLE SMITH: Oh absolutely, it is a tiny tiny step, and again it is enough to cause many people to look at it and say, “oh there is an opening,” some indeed regarded it as a break through. But if you look at the situation on the ground, the acceptance of three thousand peacekeepers is almost an insult to the hundreds of thousands of men and women in Darfur that are waiting for the world to step in and protect them.
JERRY FOWLER: Well let me ask you about that, because one of the people who seem to view this as a breakthrough, or counted it as progress was the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon who took office at the end of January. Why is it that the Secretary General would see this as significant progress and progress such that he encouraged the United States to hold off on actually implementing this so called Plan B?
GAYLE SMITH: Well the Secretary General is new to the scene. One mistake that should never be made about this government in Khartoum, they may be the perpetrators of genocide, they may be evil, they may be the polar opposite of democratic and peace building, but they are also very very smart and they know very well how to play the international community. I am sure that the new secretary General just arriving on the scene, seeing an absolute stalemate, gets an utterance from Khartoum that they will allow some United Nations forces in and wants to play that out. So I am not surprised that he made that move. I wish that there had been a focus on past practices with Khartoum, because then he would have understood, that again this is insufficient. So, I think it is just beginner’s bad luck if you will.
JERRY FOWLER: I want to talk about the details of the Plan B that President Bush spoke about last week. But before I get to that, at least on his face, President Bush kind of grudgingly said that he was delaying any new steps at the request of the Secretary General, and you suggested that well this is beginner’s bad luck on the part of the Secretary General. But the United States did not really think that this was progress. Why were not other countries putting pressure on the Secretary General to see this for what it was?
GAYLE SMITH: You know, that is a really tough question and I wish I knew what the real answer is, because there seems to be a tremendous patience for Khartoum and a great willingness around the world to wait until Khartoum decides that it will acquiesce and allow the rest of us to do something to protect its own citizens. I think there is a lack of coordination on this. There has been a failure I think of the United States and of other countries to coordinate their actions in the way they did around for example Southern Sudan and really present a united face to Khartoum. It has been a lot of drive by diplomacy with individual countries making statements here and there, rather than again a tightly woven concerted effort to make clear to Khartoum there is no way out. Right now I think Khartoum figures well the United States gets a little angry we will play to the United Nations, the United Nations gets tough we will play to the European Union, the European Union gets tough we will play to the United States again. And quite frankly we are collectively giving them that opening.
JERRY FOWLER: What would be necessary, either from actions by the United States or initiative by someone else to close that opening? To get this greater level of coordination that you are talking about?
GAYLE SMITH: Well I think there are a couple of things. One, I think we need sustained active full time diplomacy and not the occasional visit to Khartoum. People need to be on this at the highest levels of government on a full time basis. Lining up that support there should be regular summits of countries in the world that are concerned about this and should be concerned about this, rather than just the odd meeting. The second thing that is necessary is agreement on the kinds of pressures that are going to be applied against Khartoum to get them to pay attention and understand that there is a cost for their actions. There is talk of some kind of sanctions in the United States; vaguely in London; occasionally in the European Union; at times that of the United Nations Security Council. Those things need to be lashed up very very tightly. Multi-lateral targeted sanctions are the kind of tool that can have some impact on Khartoum because they can’t get out from under it. But again that needs sustained diplomacy and for this to be a greater priority. This gets a lot of attention in the words of politicians but in terms of action this is still nowhere near the priority it should be for any government in the world.
JERRY FOWLER: Would you include the United States government in that?
GAYLE SMITH: I would. I think there has been more stated by the administration, they have appointed an envoy, but quite frankly this Plan B has been threatened for five months. The administration has stressed that Khartoum must accept the United States peacekeeping force; the White House submits a budget for the coming year that does not include any funding for a force, which kind of suggests either they don’t believe it will ever happen or it is not that big a priority. I think the United States can be much more forward leaning and I wish that Plan B would have been implemented when we said it was going to be implemented, which would have been months ago by now.
JERRY FOWLER: Right, well let us turn to some of the details of Plan B. As you said, the prospect of such a plan was raised at the end of last year and the original deadline for progress was January 1st and the President announced the details of it then last week. Broadly speaking it would involve strengthened United States sanctions against Sudan or I should say I guess more vigorous enforcement of sanctions that were already in place and then additional sanctions against some Sudanese companies and individuals, and the possibility of seeking additional United Nations sanctions from the Security Council. I guess the first question is, is that a serious plan, one that would be calculated to bring about greatly increased pressure against Khartoum?
GAYLE SMITH: Well, yes and no. It has got some elements that are important, but there are a number of flaws in it. First and foremost, it is a very strange thing to leak the details of Plan B which has happened over the last three months or so. If for no other reason than it gives Khartoum time to plan how to get around them. As well, it does not leave any mystery to Khartoum. If Khartoum knew that the United States was planning a robust Plan B, and the leak was hints at military or economic pressure but without any specifics, Khartoum might be a little more nervous than it is; knowing now what we might do later in great detail. Couple of things that are important in this. The United States is now implementing a number of sanctions on regimes around the world. The sanctions talked about here could be broader, they could target more companies and more individuals, but it takes a lot of resources and staff to both monitor and track enforcement of those sanctions. It is not very helpful to impose sanctions and not pay attention to where there are violations. This is one of the problems we have on arms embargos for example; they are put in place but nothing really happens if you violate them. So an additional thing that is needed is to make sure that we are dedicating the resources and personnel to make sure that the sanctions have real teeth. The third thing is I appreciate the sentiment behind the President saying that we would consider even going to the Security Council. I would have hoped that senior United States diplomats would be around the world working on lining that up already and we would already have it in place. I think it is a mistake to say we are going to process these sanctions on the part of the United States and then we will start on a process of trying to line up others. That should all be teed up right now.
JERRY FOWLER: One of the obstacles for the Security Council has been China. Recently a relatively high-ranking envoy went from China to Khartoum and it is tough to know exactly what was said, but some of the press accounts were that this was an expression of Chinese frustration with Sudan. What is your perception of where China stands and if they are ready to put more pressure on Khartoum than they have to date?
GAYLE SMITH: The signs of the last couple of weeks are hopeful and they certainly suggest that while China is not very open to any one else telling them how to conduct their business or foreign policy or where they should get their oil, they are receptive to the notion that the world sees China as something other than a leader. I mean China is the world’s greatest emerging power, it has enormous influence and I think they want to be perceived as having generally positive influence and not just power. So my hope is that what has registered with the Chinese is that the world is saying that you China are linked to and enabling a genocide in Darfur, and they do not want to be linked to part of that. I think it may be one of the few countries that can get Khartoum to listen when they speak. We will see what happens from here on out, but I would say on the surface of it this looks to be a pretty positive development.
JERRY FOWLER: A number of people have called for the imposition of a no fly zone over Darfur and just within the last couple of weeks there was a United Nations report by a panel of experts that documented the bombing of villages by the Sudanese government with airplanes, including airplanes that were disguised to look like United Nations aircraft. The President made a somewhat veiled reference in his speech to possibly seeking a no-fly zone in the future. I guess the first question on that is: is it really feasible to apply a no-fly zone and what would be needed politically to make that happen?
GAYLE SMITH: Well a no-fly zone is a great thing to illustrate but it is a very hard thing to implement because there are a lot of implications to it and one is the humanitarian operation. One of the many tragedies of Darfur is that the world has left not just the African Union but the international humanitarian NGOs holding the bag and they are the only thing that are standing between a lot of civilians and death. So the need to make sure that the humanitarian operation can still run is one peace. The second peace is that while the air does give the Sudanese government tactical advantage in terms of both attacks and re-supply, they also have a considerable strength on the ground and a no-fly zone will not constrain ground operations. The third thing is it takes a lot of resources, intelligence, personnel, aircraft, and technical equipment to implement and maintain a no-fly zone particularly in an area the size of Darfur. Now none of that means it cannot or should not happen. It is my view that the planning for a no fly zone should have commenced a long time ago, because I think in a situation like this use should have at your disposal and ready to go, any possible instrument that can help get you to the finish line, which in the first instance is protection of the civilians. So I think the planning should go on; I think it is important that we do not underestimated how difficult it is to implement.
JERRY FOWLER: Just recently the High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Gutierrez, visited the region and he commented that in terms of protecting civilians, even a hundred thousand peacekeepers or United Nations forces would not be enough unless there is a political solution. I think you kind of referred to this earlier, with regards to Southern Sudan there was a coordinated effort to negotiate a political solution. What is necessary to get a coordinated unified negotiation process going for Darfur?
GAYLE SMITH: Well I mean I think at one level Antonio is right, and he has certainly been impassioned on the matter of Darfur. I think the fact is that at this junction we need both. To get a peace process started and a viable peace process, I think that there needs to be recognition number one that the Darfur Peace Act (DPA) is not sufficient to do what is needed here; to provide for lasting and durable settlement.
JERRY FOWLER: This was the agreement that was agreed to about a year ago now between the government and one faction of the rebels.
GAYLE SMITH: Right, and that is one of the reasons it is flawed, but it also does not have a clear timeline or implementation plan in it. It is inadequate according to a number of the parties on compensation, which in Darfur is a specifically challenging issue both in way of tradition and also the damages that have been incurred. And I think part of what is needed is a sustained negotiations process. One of the reasons the agreement came about when it did was that the negotiators, including the United States kind of laid down a deadline and said if you all do not sign on the line by tomorrow we are out of here. Well they got signatures on the line but they did not have a sustainable agreement. It is not going to be easy to get an agreement that satisfies everybody, that can bring what is now a growing number of rebel factions on board, but I think we need to make a stab at it. Now we have a new problem in that the rebel groups have split in to a multiplicity of organizations. In an ideal world they would negotiate on the basis of some unity, so there is a separate track of negotiations that needs to happen on that front, to get people around the same table. A third piece, and a really critical peace, is the actual people of Darfur. Some of them may view that their interests are represented, but at the end of the day they need to somehow be at the table, because they are the ones who are going to live or die by virtue of this agreement’s success or failure. Finally, I go back to what I said earlier. We cannot get a sustainable peace agreement on the cheap. It is not as easy as putting together something that may make sense to a team of people in Washington or London, ask people to sign on the dotted line and cross this off the list. We are going to need sustained full-time high-level well-supported diplomacy ideally coordinated with other countries to get a sustainable peace agreement.
JERRY FOWLER: We are coming to the end of the time we have, and before we leave I wanted to talk a little bit about the ENOUGH! Campaign. I mentioned that you are a founder of it, it has just been launched. Tell me what is going to happen with ENOUGH!?
GAYLE SMITH: Well the ENOUGH! Campaign, was put together by the Center for American Progress and the International Crisis Group as a way to focus on a number of things. First, we have the crisis in Darfur but we also have, as you well know, multiple other crises including in that immediate region in Northern Uganda and in the Congo, and we really wanted to focus attention on those. Also we wanted to try to contribute to a growing and really impressive movement by offering in to the mix some policy analysis both from the field and from people who have spent time in government, that can take our collective activism a couple of layers deeper, in other words going to policy makers to say that we need movement on four fronts. First, what we call the three P’s, adequate investment in peace and the negotiations to get there, second, what is needed to ensure the protection of civilians, and third the punishment or pressures that are needed to hold accountable the perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocity. The fourth is on the prevention side. It is our strong belief that as a broad community we really know what it takes to stop these crises in their tracks, but also what it takes to prevent them, and it is our hope that we can make a contribution by doing a great deal of analysis and advocacy about what is needed to prevent these mass atrocities and genocide. As much as I respect this program and you and all the work you do, I do not want to be on the phone in four years talking about mass atrocities somewhere else. I would like to be on the phone in four years saying that collectively we have put in place some of the things we need to make sure this stops happening rather than happen again.
JERRY FOWLER: That would be tremendous progress of course. If people want to find out more about ENOUGH! is there a website?
GAYLE SMITH: There is a website: www.enoughproject.org.
JERRY FOWLER: Gayle Smith is the senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and is Director of their International Rights and Responsibilities program. Gayle thanks for taking the time to be with us.
GAYLE SMITH: It has been a pleasure, thanks so much.
