After President Bush spoke on Friday, a senior State Department official said the US proposal continued to be "to strengthen the AU" until UN forces arrive late this year.
While Mr. Bush spoke of "a NATO stewardship," the American officials cautioned that NATO would command only logistical operations, not the AU troops.
They reiterated that Washington would send no American troops. In Congressional testimony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We are prepared to talk with our NATO counterparts about what more we can do to support" the AU forces "until we can get the UN forces" into Darfur.
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Carpenter, said in Washington that no decisions had been made on NATO's role, but "NATO could potentially be a significant leader" in UN peacekeeping. Full report (NYT) via Sudan Tribune 19 February 2006.
That Darfur should become a Nato stewardship, until UN peacekeeping troops are deployed, is a fascinating idea. However although Nato now has a 20,000 strong rapid reaction force, the member nations may be reluctant to send their troops out of area as is the case with Afghanistan, for example; we're already seeing this with the US who made the proposal - they are refusing to send their military.
ReplyDeleteThe absence of compensation - common funding - for sending NATO troops on peacekeeping missions will be a constant barrier. Unless the United Nations can use its funding mechanisms innovatively to pay for such public goods. (A UN peacebuilding Commission was approved by UN members recently)