[Peace-discuss] Fw: NATO rejects Darfur force

[Scott Edwards]

>NATO rejects Darfur force
>
>
>By Gareth Harding Mar 30, 2006, 17:48 GMT (UPI)
>
>
>BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- NATO has categorically ruled out sending troops
>to Darfur despite pleas from U.S. President George W. Bush and several
>high-ranking senators for a more robust alliance role to prevent further
>bloodletting in the war-torn Sudanese province.
>
>
>Last month, Bush phoned NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to
>press the case for the 26-member military bloc to 'take the lead' in
>stopping the slaughter in Darfur. At a White House meeting last week, the
>U.S. president repeated his demand for the alliance to adopt a more
>muscular stance on Sudan. Bush said that if the African Union, which
>currently heads the peacekeeping effort in Darfur, hands over its mission
>to the United Nations later this year, 'NATO can move in with United
>States` help ... to make it clear to the Sudanese Government that we`re
>intent upon providing security for the people there.'
>
>
>Prominent U.S senators have also called on the Brussels-based military club
>to become more involved in Darfur. Democrat Joseph Biden of Delaware and
>Kansas Republican Sam Brownback last month tabled a resolution calling for
>NATO troops to be sent to the region and for the alliance to enforce a
>no-flight zone over Darfur.
>
>
>However, there seems to be little appetite for a greatly enhanced NATO role
>within the alliance. 'No one is discussing, planning or considering a NATO
>force on the ground in Darfur. That is not one of the options,' spokesman
>James Appathurai told reporters Wednesday after a meeting of NATO
>ambassadors.
>
>
>Speaking on condition of anonymity, a NATO official told United Press
>International that the idea of the alliance dispatching ground troops to
>the troubled province was a 'non-starter with the Africans, a non-starter
>with the United Nations and a non-starter with NATO.' Officials in Brussels
>also criticized the U.S. president for sending out confused messages about
>what he expects from the alliance. 'Bush has been a little bit unclear in
>his language,' said one, referring to the president`s call for 20,000
>peacekeepers to be sent to Darfur under NATO`s command.
>
>
>There are currently 7,000 poorly-equipped African Union troops in Darfur,
>an arid and impoverished region of Sudan that has been racked by conflict
>for almost three years. About 200,000 black Africans -- mainly Christians
>or animists -- are believed to have been killed by pro-government, Nilotic
>Muslim militias during the bloody war. A further two million have fled
>their homes and are now living in makeshift camps. The United States has
>described the slaughter in west Sudan as 'genocide,' although the United
>Nations and European Union have both stopped short of using the term.
>
>
>NATO last year agreed to airlift African Union troops to Darfur, which is
>roughly the size of France, and help train its soldiers. 'I`m quite sure,
>as I told the president, that when the U.N. comes, the NATO allies will be
>ready to do more in enabling a United Nations force in Darfur,' De Hoop
>Scheffer told reporters after his meeting with Bush.
>
>
>U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan Monday phoned De Hoop Scheffer to ask the
>NATO chief to develop a range of possible options for supporting the
>African Union mission and its possible takeover by the United Nations. But
>officials said there was unlikely to be a step-change in the alliance`s
>military commitment. 'There will be a beefed up NATO role, but there will
>be no NATO lead in Darfur. People here are talking about more of the same,
>maybe with more planners and logistical help,' said one. Appathurai said
>the 57-year old bloc would look at Annan`s request 'in the context of what
>NATO is already providing.'
>
>
>NATO`s reluctance to get dragged further into the Darfur conflict, which is
>already spilling over the borders into Chad, is partly explained by the
>fact that its member nations` troops are already bogged down in Iraq, the
>Balkans and Afghanistan. But there is also strong opposition to
>international peacekeepers arriving in Darfur within Sudan. Earlier this
>month, thousands of protestors marched through the capital Khartoum to
>voice their resistance to United Nations soldiers taking over peacekeeping
>duties in Darfur. 'U.N. troops bring your coffins with you,' said one
>banner at the demonstration. One NATO diplomat told the International
>Herald Tribune that neither the Sudanese government nor the African Union
>'want to see white, European troops coming into Sudan,' adding that the
>idea of a no-flight zone over Darfur would be impossible to implement.
>'Which NATO country would be willing to shoot down a Sudanese plane?'
>
>
>With the African Union running out of money to pay for its $24 million a
>month Darfur mission, EU ambassadors Tuesday agreed $60 million in
>emergency aid to keep the peacekeeping force afloat. The European
>Commission has already given $195 million to the pan-African body to
>bankroll its military operation in Sudan.
>
>
>Copyright 2006 by United Press International
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sarah Margon
>
>
>Conflict Policy Advisor
>
>
>Oxfam America
>
>
>1100 15th Street, NW, Ste 600 (please note our new address)
>
>
>Washington DC 20036
>
>
>+1 202.452.7383 (tel)
>
>
>+1 202.496.1190 (fax)
>
>
>smargon at oxfamamerica.org
>
>
>www.oxfamamerica.org
>