PRESS CONFERENCE BY BRITISH, FRENCH AMBASSADORS ON SECURITY COUNCIL MISSION TO AFRICA

PRESS CONFERENCE BY BRITISH, FRENCH AMBASSADORS ON SECURITY COUNCIL MISSION TO AFRICA

The top British and French envoys to the United Nations today held a joint press conference at Headquarters to brief on the upcoming Security Council mission to Africa next week –- to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to encourage the political transition in that country, and to the Sudan to press the case for peace and lay the groundwork for a possible United Nations peacekeeping operation there.

Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said that participation in the mission was at one of the highest levels in memory, with at least 10 Permanent Representatives scheduled to depart New York on Sunday, 4 June, and arrive in Khartoum on Monday.  The intent of the visit to Sudan was simple:  to endorse the positive developments in Sudan; to explain what the Security Council and the United Nations wanted to achieve; to encourage the parties and the Government to move forward; and to make it very clear that the Council would be with them on that journey, and it would be watching to make sure that that journey took place.

He said the mission would endorse the crucial role being played by the African Union and welcome the successful result of the Darfur peace talks, but to do that “with eyes wide open” -- to actually see what was happening on the ground, and to see how the Council could help reinforce the African Union mission, and to say to all the parties that it wanted the Darfur peace process implemented.  That was all for the purpose of seeing an improvement in the security and the humanitarian situation in Darfur.

In the whole approach to that complicated situation in Sudan, the range of policy instruments were very considerable, from support for the North-South, United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) on the ground, the efforts towards achieving a peace agreement, implementing it now, working with the Government of Sudan, but, crucially, trying to improve the situation in Darfur.  He said that had been deteriorating, and that process needed to be arrested and moved forward.  The issues were difficult; the Council had tried to grip them.

He noted that the Council had “done the ICC aspect”.  It had imposed sanctions against some, but there was a whole range of interventions calculated to have the maximum impact to bring about a peaceful, sustainable, economically prosperous Sudan where the present problems were put to one side.  That was what he wanted to see.  So, part of the mission’s purpose would be to explain and reassure the Government about the Council’s specific intentions, but it wanted to work with the Government of Sudan, and not against it.

The Security Council wanted to be as positive as possible in consulting the Government, and encouraging what the outcomes it urgently sought, namely to take the decisions to agree that the African Union operation -– which had done credibly in the circumstances –- should be replaced as soon as possible by a United Nations mission, he stressed.  What he envisaged was a United Nations force in Darfur, another in the South, looking after the North-South aspect, under one unified headquarters based in Khartoum, with divisional headquarters running separate operations, under different mandates.  The two operations could take advantage of each, in order to maximize the impact of what had been done on the ground.

That transition to a United Nations operation would be sensitive and militarily complex, but to achieve that meant putting in place the operation to cover those bits of Sudan that he needed to reach, he explained.  It was a Security Council committed to the sovereignty, the unity, the independence and territorial integrity of Sudan.  None of that would be affected by the transition to the United Nations operation.  The one that was envisaged was for the good of Sudan and wanting to work with the Government of that country.  “We think it’s important that the operation should have a strong African flavour”, he said.

He added his hope that the upcoming mission would encourage fast, urgent action, full, rapid implementation of the peace agreement, and that the African Union would urgently agree with the United Nations on the requirements of what it needed to improve the Union’s effectiveness.  Of grave concern were the activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army and to the extent that its activities touched on the south of Sudan and the way in which some of its leaders seemed to move in the south.  He hoped the Council mission could address that issue, as well.  The mission would also take in the Chad dimension.

Concerning the focus of the upcoming mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from 11 to 12 June, the French Mission provided a paper for correspondents on the “terms of reference” for the visit, dated 22 May.  Included in its six main areas of focus, the point was made that the mission would encourage the transitional authorities there to step up their efforts to guarantee the democratic character of the presidential and legislative elections, now scheduled for 30 July.  It would stress the importance of equitable access by candidates to the media, impartial monitoring of the legality of the elections, and voter education.  The mission would stress that the elections must take place in a peaceful environment with the police ensuring law and order at polling stations.  It would also stress that the elections, though not an end in themselves, were an essential stage in national reconciliation and reconstruction.

Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sablière said that the Council, for every year for the last six years, had gone to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, since the establishment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).  It would be going again, for the seventh time to that country, because “the stakes were considerable”, not only for the Congo and the region, but also for the whole of Africa.  That was because of the size of the country, its borders, its population and its wealth.  Another reason for the Council’s repeated visit was because of the size of the United Nations’ operation in that country -- 17,500 security personnel, with a budget in excess of $1 billion.  Thus, it was natural for the Council for have a particular interest in that operation.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo was presently in a key period in its history, he went on.  The transition, under way for some years, had now entered its final stage, and the date set for the elections was upcoming.  So, the end of a process supported by the international community and the United Nations was in sight.  The Council wished to encourage, and even to pay tribute to, the Congolese.  The 25.5 million registered voters really wished to have their voice heard; the Council members wanted to support them in that process.  The schedule was a very busy one, as the Ambassadors would meet with political leaders, media and United Nations Mission personnel, as well as civil society representatives.

Council members wished to convey several messages, including on the progress that had so far been achieved, specifically regarding the establishment of the electoral timetable, he said.  They also sought to send a strong message that the elections should take place according to schedule, namely by 30 July, and that the conditions be such that it could be said that the elections were free, open to all, transparent and peaceful.  The effort of both the international community and the country had been considerable, and the elections had to be successful.  The mission would also seek to convey that the elections were just one stage; not the end of the story, but only one chapter towards stability and democratization.

In the aftermath of the elections, he said, work must continue, particularly in the areas of good governance and security.  It was crucial to accelerate integration of the police and the army, and to complete the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants.  The mission was just going to Kinshasa and not to neighbouring countries, because it just wanted to emphasize the need for the elections to succeed.  But, it would encourage the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours to try to improve relations among themselves.  Both the mission to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were among the most important peacekeeping operations of the United Nations today.

Asked if it was true that there were “deep divisions” within the Security Council on the mission to Darfur, Mr. Jones Parry said he had not thought so.  All 15 Council members would be represented and, he thought, all at the ambassadorial level.  Ten Permanent Representatives reflected the importance of the mission.  There was no question of disunity.  The Council had consistently managed on its resolutions on the Sudan and Darfur to achieve a unified Council position, and that was what it aimed to do on behalf of all 15 -– to deliver some very clear messages and words of encouragement.

So, he added to a further question, the message would be that of a united Council, determined to see Sudan succeed, determined to see the humanitarian situation in Darfur improved, convinced that the United Nations should take over the African Union operation (AMIS), wanting to see that done with maximum efficiency as soon as possible, wanting to see AMIS, meanwhile, doing even better on the ground -– a Council that had always said it reserved the right to put in place sanctions, if necessary; it had done so, and it might well come back to that.  But, the series of policy instruments were there, and the Council members would be delivering those messages consistently and coherently.

Was there a danger, in setting up a peace mission in Darfur, that the dangerous elements would just wander over to Chad?  Was it time to start thinking about an international presence in that country, as well, or was France looking after that unilaterally? another correspondent asked?

Mr. de La Sablière said that, no.  There was an obvious relationship between the Darfur and Chad situations.  The agreement reached in Abuja, which was supported by Chad -- and he wished to underline that -- should not only improve the situation in Darfur, but also defuse the tension in Chad.  The Council should follow the camps in Chad closely.  Chad was a poor country, and the Government could not resolve the problems of the more than 200,000 refugees.  It was also important to implement the agreement between Chad and Sudan.  An international presence had not been requested for Chad, nor did he think that was needed.  What was important was for the international community to be very active diplomatically in assisting Chad.

To a series of questions about the Darfur situation, Mr. Jones Parry said that the signals were slightly confused, but the latest contacts he had had today suggested that there had been agreement for a transition.  His working assumption was that there would be a transition to a United Nations operation, and that would be done with the consent of the Sudanese Government.  The technical mission, which would scope out the details to achieve that, would go into Sudan “very soon”.  That was his “working assumption”, and it was very important to retain that assumption and make sure that that happened.  The Council wanted to encourage that process, which it believed “to be in train to actually take place”.

As for the South, he said, the need was to encourage the United Nations operation there, both the peacekeepers and the civilian elements, to see what the problems were on the ground and, more generally, to study the possible implications for the existing UNMIS and the new operation in Darfur, and understand how those synergies could be brought to bear.  There was also the question of the Lord’s Resistance Army, as well as the question of access being given to people like Joseph Kony.  He had been photographed, or seen, in various places in the South, and that was one thing he would want to look at.

Replying to a question about the reports of daily fighting in Ituri and how that affected people’s ability to register to vote, the French Ambassador said that the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a very large country, very diverse, and some 25 million Congolese would vote.  The security challenges to the holding of acceptable elections, therefore, to both the Congolese and the international community were enormous.  He felt, however, that that challenges had been overcome.  Would it be a perfect vote everywhere, 100 per cent?  He could not make a guarantee.  It was perhaps the largest election the United Nations had ever overseen.  The conditions, however, had been met for credible elections, and security would be guaranteed.

He added that he could not say what was happening in each village in Ituri.  Much had been done in recent years to deal with the negative forces in Kivu and Ituri.  While they were still present, the DRC forces backed by MONUC in Ituri had done “a very good job”.  In Kivu, there was still a problem, and settling the problem was still ongoing.  A main challenge for the Government and the international community following the elections would be to resolve the problem of negative forces, but much progress had been made.  It was not an easy problem, but he was confident that, in Ituri and Kivu, it would be solved in the future.

In terms of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Mr. Jones Parry replied to a further question that rebel group had “wreaked havoc” for 20-something years; 1.5 million displaced.  The Council had a legitimate interest in the Lord’s Resistance Army and its regional dimension.  It also had an interest in supporting the efforts now on the table by the Ugandan Government to try to improve the situation in northern Uganda and really tackle the basics.  The Council would see whether, given its interest in the regional issue, the Council could add anything to the aggregate effort at the moment.

Regarding Mr. Kony, he had been indicted, he said.  And, as the man who had had the most responsibility for the actions of the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Council’s general view was that the indictments should be implemented and Mr. Kony should face justice.  The photographs taken in the last week, he thought, were the first that had been made public in a long time.  He had some questions about his funding and how he was able to move about, without much hindrance, as freely as he did.  Someone was obviously funding him.  He wished to see whether there was a potential role for the Council after the questions were asked and answered.

He said, to another question, that all recent statements amounted to the same conclusion, namely that the African Union had done well, but the scope of the operation and what was now needed, and the pressure to sustain such an operation, all pointed to the United Nations taking that over.  The Council’s assumption was, through the aggregate efforts now being made, that it was going to happen.

“I think the failure would be for the people in Darfur not to have the right sort of force, which, for them, would deliver better security and permit the humanitarian access to take place.  That’s the goal.  And, if the international community fails to ensure that that is actually delivered, in better order and quickly, then we will all fail”, he replied to a follow-up question.  That was why the responsibility on all to try to deliver that outcome was obvious.  That was why he and Ambassador de La Sablière had been working on that particular dossier together for the better part of three years, specifically to try to get Sudan onto the agenda, Darfur onto the agenda, and measures in place.  A lot of those were in place, but they had to keep at it.  “There is no simple solution, and this must continue until there is a drastic improvement in the situation”, he said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record