U.N. Envoy Answers Questions on Darfur Crisis

JAN ELIASSON: Well, it's always a risk that you take when you simplify, but in the past Darfur was an independent country. It was a sultanate which lived in peace. It was led by the Fur tribe. That's why the area is called Darfur; it means "the land of the Furs." That majority was a majority that ruled the sultanate in peaceful fashion.

There were two elements of the population -- there were Arab tribes in the North that were cattle breeders, and there were farmers in the South of African origin. And in that period, the cattle breeders went south and exchanged the chance to get their cattle to graze to, with merchandise, or meat.

When, then, the drought occurred in the mid-1980s, the grass lost, so to speak, and the cattle breeders in the North got more desperate and they took the land, more and more, from the farmers in the South.

But, if it had only been a matter of grass versus sand, this matter, this conflict, could have been solved through irrigation projects, development activities for the government or from outside.

But, unfortunately, and very sadly and tragically, a racial dimension was added -- Arabs versus Africans. And when that racial dimension was added, then you lost out of the basic principle of every human being is of equal value. You start to look at someone from another ethnic origin or race in the terms of destroying their property and destroying their people. And that, I think, was the -- what happened. This conflict degenerated; it was a tribal and racial conflict. And that explains that mass killings of 2003 through 2005.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you share the view that then the Sudanese government, back in Khartoum, then exacerbated and exploited those racial divisions?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, it was self-evident that the -- two of the groups that were in the battlefield, the groups that were used in the worst part of this conflict were Janjaweed militia, militias from certain tribes who, with their camels, came and destroyed villages. And, of course, they were working on behalf of the government, no doubt.

And by the facts -- through the fact that they represented Arab tribes, of course, that division between Arabs and Africans which, I think, is basically artificial -- came out very clearly.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, last Friday on the program, you said that the prospects for getting the government and the rebel factions to the table -- which you've been working on -- were pretty bleak, in part because, in good part, you said because the rebel factions couldn't even agree among themselves.

Were you saying that at the moment, actually, the Darfur rebels are a greater impediment to solving the crisis than the Sudanese government?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, we have problems with both sides. With the government, there is grave problems of a speedy deployment of U.N. and African Union peacekeepers. With the rebel movements, we have the problem that they simply have not unified as one movement to come to the talks. They were up to 20 when I started together with Salim [Ahmed] Salim, my colleague from the African Union, last year. Now, they're down to five.

So, we have worked hard ourselves, but among all of the different movements that try to unify, now there are five groupings. And both I and Salim, the movements of three movements, do realize that they would be very weak if they come [to a] negotiation without coordinated positions.

So, we are waiting for them to unify, and pushing as much as we can, and helping them to unify, so that they can also come to the negotiation table.

That process is going on, but of course, this whole process now has been destabilized, and hurt very much by the recent military developments, which means that, for us, now, we have to probably let the dust settle before we can get going again.

MARGARET WARNER: The military developments being --

JAN ELIASSON: Being the activities inside Chad, with the attempt to force President Deby out of office. But also, the fact that these troops, to a great degree, are based in Sudan, and that also groups in Chad are based in Chad, but also working inside Sudan. And of course, this is what, what is basic for this conflict, is that you cannot divorce the situation between Chad and Sudan, from getting peace in Darfur. I go as far as to say that without normalization between Chad and Sudan, we will not reach peace in Darfur.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, both the Chad government and the Sudan government accuse the other government of using rebels in their own territory to try to destabilize their neighbor. In other words, they're both making the same accusations. And then both governments are denying that they're doing any such thing in their neighboring country. Are both governments trying to destabilize the other?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, let me put it this way -- the relationship between President Deby and President Bashir in Sudan, the relationship between the leadership in the countries is a very strange relationship.

One of my main worries last fall was the deterioration of the relationship between Chad and Sudan. We had incursions into Chad from the Sudanese side by the rebels who are based there, and then we had just a week or two after that attacks from the Chadian side into Sudan including, I must say, which was very regrettable, aerial attacks on the Sudanese territory.

So, when now, this latest move came, it didn't come as a complete surprise. We have seen a gradual deterioration between Sudan and Chad for the last four or five months.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you're calling on the international community to resolve that conflict, just so you can clear the way for you to try to resolve something in Darfur. In a nutshell, what can the U.N. international community do?

JAN ELIASSON: I think they can do a lot. That's why I was in the Security Council, and one of my most important messages was this, that what a mediator can do is limited, when it comes to the relationship between two sovereign nations.

But nations in the Security Council -- some of them with great power, the permanent members, particularly -- have relationship to the two governments and they should exercise their influence to send that message. That it is in the enlightened self-interest of the two countries to stabilize this relationship. This is a very dangerous development for both of them, in the long term.

And, for instance, to put it very clearly, China has very good relations with the Sudan, and France has very good relations with Chad. And these are just one example of the influence that can come from diplomatic dialogue between these members of the Security Council, and the concerned countries.

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I wish I knew. It's very sad. Unfortunately, part of the reason is the tribal divisions. Sudan -- like many countries in Africa, and we've seen recently, this in Kenya -- under the surface of political parties and movements, you have tribal realities. And you have very important tribes that have a -- very much of an identity.

So, I think those, historically, tribal realities that they wrote, and then, of course, as always, unfortunately, competition for power. Who is in the lead? This is a classic problem in most conflicts.

MARGARET WARNER: And why do you think -- and we've heard this from several of our viewers -- why are tribal considerations so important in Darfur and in Chad?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, you have to go back, almost to our -- to the history of Africa and the history of colonialism. If you look at the borderline between Chad and Sudan, it's drawn by a ruler in Berlin, 1885. It's a straight line. It doesn't, in any way, reflect the ethnic or tribal realities in that area.

The Zaghawa tribe, for instance, of Darfur has many people, many members inside Chad. In fact, the president of Chad is a Zaghawa. So, they speak the same language, are of the same origin. And this identity is often much stronger than the national identity. Especially if, in this case, the Darfur area has been so neglected economically through the decades of the past.

So, when you have a very strange relationship or a difficult situation -- and you can look both at Darfur and Kenya right now -- you scratch the surface, and the tribal divisions come out in a very dramatic fashion.

MARGARET WARNER: We had many, many questions, of course, on what the world can do about the situation in Darfur. And a big one was, "Why can't the U.N. intervene more forcefully than it is now?"

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I was foreign minister of Sweden, and I asked that question back in 2003, 2004, 2005. But the Security Council wasn't ready to take very muscular action at that time. We have seen tragic examples of that in Africa in the past; Rwanda is a terrifying example. And the -- there was no preparedness at that time. And this was one of the weaknesses in the development of the Darfur situation, that the Security Council was not unified.

Now, the resolution that was accepted and adopted this summer was a good step forward, which showed that the international community was coming together in a way that was not the case in 2003 to 2005. By the decision of the 31st of July, the force that is now in place -- 7,000 African Union -- will grow into 20,000 by the middle of next year -- middle of this year -- and also 5,000 police.

So, I think there is now an improvement in the work of the Security Council on Darfur. And I hope that we will not see another nightmare explode there.

MARGARET WARNER: But if you had to sum it up, I mean, is it economic considerations that makes the U.N. willing -- different countries that makes the U.N. members reluctant to get involved? Is it old, old ties? Is it just not wanting to commit resources?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I think there are a combination of factors. Some nations have, of course, very strong bilateral ties -- both political and economic nature, to different other member states in conflict.

But there is also, of course, very clearly a physical element -- the element of the risks. If you go into a situation where a conflict is raging between two parties, it requires a tremendous operation. I would call it, not peacekeeping, but peace enforcement. And that would carry with it great dangers for the soldiers that are being sent in. And democratic countries and parliaments sending troops into such situations is not an easy decision.

MARGARET WARNER: And then, of course, you have a government saying they're not going to take any kind of Western troops, and in fact, making it difficult even for non-Western troops to join this force.

JAN ELIASSON: Yeah, I find that sad, that we develop what I would call an "a la carte" menu style -- to choose nationalities for peacekeeping operations. I'm a U.N., United Nations purist, as a former president of the General Assembly, and I think once you set up an international force, you should forget the nationality, you represent the organization, as such. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.

And when you start the selection process from one side, then unfortunately, you can see demands for selection also from the other side. When I was out in Darfur a couple of weeks ago, I was met with the requirements that certain other nationalities should not take part, if the government has the right to choose their representatives in the peacekeeping force.

MARGARET WARNER: So, one of our viewers, Willie Herd of Las Vegas, asked, "How can the Sudanese government set these conditions on the peacekeeping force, or bar the peacekeeping forces, when the U.N. has authorized the force?" Doesn't -- he was asking, "Doesn't some kind of international law supersede what the Khartoum government is willing to accept?" Or no?

JAN ELIASSON: Yeah, that's a very good question. There are so-called "Chapter Six" operations which require the acceptance of the countries concerned. Then there are "Chapter Seven" -- use of force -- operations where, in fact, these questions should not be raised.

But, by -- through the years there has been more and more concern about the security of these operations. We have had tragic examples, also, U.N. soldiers getting killed. And if then the government says that the nationality is not accepted, and by that it is implied that security cannot be guaranteed, then member states take that into consideration and draw consequences.

I find it very sad that that is the case, and of all, that United Nations solders, peacekeepers, become targets. It's a degeneration of the multilateral system. And I think the member states have to really consider this for the future, this is not a very healthy development.

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I think all nations who have that capacity should feel that they are, they could contribute, and by that strength of the authority on standing order force. I think there are 10-15,000 helicopters in NATO and also other countries will have capacity. And we are looking for 24.

But, of course, factually speaking, the security component is probably the main reason why this is not coming forth, these offers are not coming forth.

MARGARET WARNER: Our online visitors, many, many of them wanted to know, bottom line, what could and should the United States do to help resolve the conflict? What more could it be doing that it isn't?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I think to continue to try to come out, come with common positions in the Security Council, so that the veto doesn't come out, and stop an action that's necessary, to work in that spirit in the Security Council is important.

And then, of course, to use its considerable influence -- vis-à-vis, not only countries in the immediate vicinity of Sudan and Sudan proper, but also in the world -- to bring about the reduction of violence, not just between Chad and Sudan and reduction of tensions between Chad and Sudan, but also work very hard now for the demand that I also brought out in the Security Council, and namely that we must have an immediate cessation of hostilities.

And then, also, do its utmost to stop arms from trickling into Sudan. I think the U.S. has a good monitoring capacity and could help with that.

And then continued the humanitarian assistance to the people in need -- the people of Darfur, particularly, down in the camps -- but also help non-government organizations and others -- the Red Cross -- to get to the areas which are under rebel movement control.

And then plan for a future for a country in peace. And use -- instead of using this money now, as we do, for food and medicine, to the camps -- use that money for irrigation projects to bring water to the people of Darfur, health clinics and schools, so that they can come back the old Darfur, where people lived in peace, together.

MARGARET WARNER: A viewer in Austin, Texas, and others, wanted to know why the U.N. and the U.S. can't do more to pressure China, which -- as you pointed out -- has extensive oil interests in Sudan. And which is in a position to pressure the Sudanese government to stop the aerial attacks, to disarm the Janjaweed, ensure the safety of the peacekeepers and the aid workers.

Why isn't there more pressure being put on China, and would that be effective?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I always ask myself whether pressure is the right word to use, or the right method. But to ask China to use its influence to move the situation to normalization is, indeed, the right thing to do, and I have done so myself.

And I would say that China has cooperated with all of the efforts to bring about peace in the last year that I have worked with the conflict. China went along with this very substantial increase of peacekeepers in Sudan, and I know that they also exercised their influence with the government of Sudan.

And I am in frequent contact with the Chinese, as I am with all members of the Security Council -- particularly the permanent members -- on the political process. And they have designated a special envoy for also the political process with whom I am in contact.

So, I think it is good to expect from China, and send the message to China that they have an important role. Their growing role in Africa is also a role of bringing about peace. And I think they are growingly accepting this responsibility in the Darfur crisis, and I do hope that it will continue. It's very crucial that that is the case.

MARGARET WARNER: So, you're saying they are playing a constructive role now?

JAN ELIASSON: In the peacekeeping operations they have played a positive role, and also sent engineers to Darfur. I'm just sorry that my own countrymen, the Swedes, and also my neighboring country, Norway, could not contribute engineers also.

But there is a very effective engineering force already starting work in Darfur, and we hope that China will, in different ways, be in contact with the government of Sudan to speed up this deployment, which is so important.

Because, the speed up of deployment, for me, is also important from the point of view of giving a sense of security for the people of Darfur. It's only when we have a sense of security that they will believe this peace process. And it's, in fact, so that even one of the movements that we tried to get to the talks, say that their presence at the peace talks is conditional to the increase of security.

So, there's a direct relationship between the deployment of troops and the peace negotiations. And there China, of course, can play a role in influencing the government of Sudan.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, of course, we had many questions about what individuals in the United States and elsewhere can do. Leigh Coffey of Oregon, Judy Sameh in Washington state -- those are just a couple of the many, many e-mails we got -- asked, "Which aid organizations are working most effectively to get assistance directly to the people who need it most? And how do average citizens help support those?"

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I'm happy to say as, again, a former president of the General Assembly that the United Nations organizations are doing a tremendously good job. The Office of Coordination of Internal Assistance, which I started back in the early 1990s as you said in your introduction, is now a major coordinator and player and World Food Program and UNICEF, the United Nations fund for children -- are playing a very important role.

U.N. Aid is working with refugees in Chad, in a very, very effective way, and then a number of non-government organizations -- Save the Children, and the Red Cross of Switzerland, of course, they are all cooperating and working in a very good manner.

But I think it's important for me to convey to the American audience, that these days when the United Nations is criticized, and has been for some time by many -- and rightly so -- but I still think it's time to also remember what is being done on the ground by heroic aid workers who are risking their lives almost -- not almost, but really -- under very dangerous conditions, that they are doing a very good job for the, not only the cause of the United Nations, but also to help people in Darfur.

MARGARET WARNER: So, if individual Americans who don't donate directly to the U.N., wanted to give money -- how do they find the best groups to give to? How do they determine that?

JAN ELIASSON: Well, I think that you -- one can donate to UNICEF, and one can also give contributions to the World Food Program. But the non-governmental organizations are, of course, very, very important also. And Save the Children and Oxfam, I can't enumerate them all -- but all of that information is available, I think, inside the United Nations which has a list of the different non-governmental organizations in Darfur.

I think whether you give them directly to the United Nations or directly to an NGO, is secondary, just as long as you check that it is a bona fide organization.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Eliasson, thank you so much for doing this, for being with us, and good luck in your mission.

JAN ELIASSON: Thank you. I need all the best wishes I can get.