SUDAN

WILLIAM F. SCHULZ, Amnesty International Executive Director, October 5, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What is preventing the United States government from taking a position of non-alignment in the dispute but sending troops to guarantee that food and supplies reaches threatened populations and maintaining troops to safeguard people against the threat of genocide?
SCHULZ: I suspect that the US is extraordinarily wary, given the level of troop commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, of becoming involved in still another foreign engagement. The truth is the African Union is willing to supply the troops and the Sudanese Government has said that they will receive additional AI personnel, but without adequate material support that offer and response are meaningless. Therefore the most important role for the US at the moment is to provide the AU the resources that will allow it to do its job.

AMY COSTELLO, FRONTLINE/World Reporter, January 12, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What is preventing American involvement in seeing that people at least get food and supplies and that they are protected against being slaughtered? Some have said there are troops and volunteers in other countries that are available to provide these protections, but not the resources. What is preventing American from at least seeing that humanitarian assistance in provided, regardless of any political and other factors?
COSTELLO: The United States has been a generous donor to the humanitarian relief effort in Darfur. I saw bags of grain marked “USAID” being distributed in camps in Darfur, just as I’ve seen U.S.-sponsored food and non-food items being given to hungry people all over Africa.
Many American aid agencies are also working on the ground in Darfur, providing critical assistance to the hungry and injured.
However, this is the kind of assistance that many argue is “easier” to supply than committing soldiers. Troops could ensure that aid convoys aren’t attacked while also protecting civilians from harm. The United States and Europe are right now unwilling to deploy their thinly stretched troops to yet another region. The African Union forces now on the ground in Darfur remain under-funded and under-equipped. Many say the U.S. and others should provide more logistical assistance and support to these A.U. troops.

JEMERA RONE, Human Rights Watch Africa Division Counsel, June 16, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Have you considered inventorying the number of people in Darfur who are on life support? When you present that number to President Bush and urge him to err on the side of life, perhaps then he will take action to save the lives of people threatened by crises.
RONE: That’s an excellent suggestion that I hope one of the groups rallying U.S. citizens, especially students, to work on Darfur will take up.

KEITH RICHBURG, Washington Post Foreign Editor, June 29, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: There are 2,000 African Union troops protecting about two million people from threats of violence and death. Why hasn’t the Bush Administration agreed to provide assistance to prevent further acts of genocide?
RICHBURG: That’s a great question for the Bush Administration, and for our White House and Pentagon reporters next time they are on line. I might venture to suggest that perhaps the U.S. military already feels itself stretched, with ongoing operations now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JOSEPH BRITT, writer, July 14, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: It is my understanding there are a handful of troops attempting to protect millions of people from potential genocide. Isn’t this a perfect example where American assistance is necessary? The response I get is our troops are already spread too thin. Yet, it is also my understanding that not many troops are needed, and indeed what may be needed is more in terms of supplies and seeing that delivery is provided to those who need it. Again, how may we continue to issue an appeal to react now, and not in a few years when a movie comes out that shocks the public into recognition of our inaction?
BRITT: Darfur has gotten the American government’s attention as of several months ago. There is evidently a concern about the timing of aid from Europse that has been pledged but not delivered.
It’s too late. We should have reacted sooner. And—I hate to be a broken record about this---we have no excuse for trying to solve problems in Darfur by ourselves without ever asking publicly why Arab governments are indifferent.

DAVID RUBINSTEIN, Save Darfur Coalition Coordinator, August 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see the need for American assistance that could at least guarantee that food and supplies gets to threatened population and that people are protected from genocide? If the African Union is unable to do the full job, why don’t we at least see that lives are saved? RUBINSTEIN: I think that American assistance on the ground might do more to increase violence, and, in any event, would not be supported by domestic or international political realities.
But we don’t need Americans on the ground; the African Union, with western support, can and should do this job.
A more complete answer to why our nation is not responding more aggressively and what people of faith can do:
The issue of genocide—which is what are facing now in Darfur—should be one which calls out to the conscience of all people. However, it can be difficult to engage people when Danfur can feel so far away. One of the best ways to encourage action from your church and your pastor is to show them humanity of the people of Darfur, through testimonials, pictures, and documentaries. There are many compelling photo-essays on the Internet, as well as an excellent multi-media presentation discussing why we should care about Darfur. Furthermore, protecting civilian lives against genocidal forces is a bi-partisan issue, evidenced by the collaboration of Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ).

RUTH MESSINGER, American Jewish World Service President and Executive Director, April 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What is preventing the United States from acting in a purely humanitarian effort to have troops protect people from attacks and to guarantee that food and essential supplies are delivered? It is my understanding that American troops may not even bee needed but that we could see in other fashions that these humanitarian efforts are successful. Again, what is the hesitation on the part of our government?
MESSINGER: Hopefully, the hesitation will be less after the rally. Right now the U.S. is not welcome by Sudan (which is perpetrating the genocide) so the groups doing the humanitarian work must depend on this very weak African Union force. That is why a good next step would be to strengthen them with numbers, money, and materials. Why we hesitate seems to be out of our “respect” for Sudan, but I think we must stop that as long as they continue the violence.

MIA FARROW, actress and UNICEF Ambassador, June 28, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: It is sad that we do not act to prevent genocide. It is my understanding that our military presence is not necessary, but that our backup support for
African Union soldiers to protect the public and our humanitarian assistance is what is most needed. Why do you think we have been so slow to respond with what is required?
FARROW: The international community left the job of protecting the people of Darfur to the African Union. But the world utterly failed to provide the African Union with any kind of meaningful support, training, resources, and they are near bankruptcy.
CZIKOWSKY: While people are dying of starvation and being slaughtered by soldiers, there has arisen a cry that we need to stand up, not to take sides in a dispute, but to respond to prevent genocide. This has led to an academic debate in this country as to whether calling this “genocide” is correct or not.; Do you have any opinion on whether it is fair to label what has happened in Darfur as genocide?
FARROW: My personal opinion: it is nothing less than a genocide but the semantic are less relevant. What we have is a defenseless civilian population of six million being attacked by a government. You can call it what you like. But bottom line, it is unacceptable and we need to get in there and help.
` CZIKOWSKY: What are the levels of illnesses in Darfur and approximately how much medical staff and supplies is available? What health care responses are most urgently needed?
FARROW: While we were in Darfur there was an outbreak of cholera. Disease and malnutrition are threatening hundreds of thousands of lives.
For example one camp had only one doctor to treat 40,000 people. Humanitarian agencies badly need your support. For example, UNICEP has only 20% of funding it needs to continue its work in Darfur.

SIMON CRITTIE, United Nations World Food Programme Spokesman, June 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the current status of the African Union? There have been articles written indicating it is not as potentially effective as it was a few years ago. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment?
CRITTIE: The African Union is the first to admit it has big problem in Darfur. The Darfur region is the size of France but there are only 7,000 AU peacekeepers on the ground. They don’t have enough equipment and their mandate is limited. This is why the international community has pushed so hard to get more peacekeepers into Darfur. But it will take time to roll out the new force and in the meantime the AU peacekeepers are coming under fire, losing men regularly.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK, State Department Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion Member, August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts about the government in Sudan, and whether there should be a regime change because of genocide, and whether a regime change could be kept to one that does not support terrorism?
MURAVCHIK: Sudan is not only a country with a rotten government, it is a failed state, and it has been embroiled in various north-south civil wars as long as I can remember.
I think our goals there have to be pretty modest. Stopped the slaughter in Darfur is enough of a goal for now, and even that has been beyond the will of the international community for years already.

DAVID MILIBAND, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, September 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What actions can be taken to protect people in Sudan against genocide and see that they receive adequate access to food and medical supplies?
MILIBAND: The passage of July’s UN Security Council resolution must be turned into deeds on the ground. That means troops preventing killing, a political process that engages all sides and economic, social, and humanitarian assistance. Global public opinion has played an important role in pushing the Darfur situation up the international agenda and I welcome that.