Alfonso, from Madrid (Spain) writes:
What role should Europe play in the dealing of the Darfur problem? Any joint team should be established between the US and Europe to solve the crisis?

Andrew S. Natsios
We are working closely with our European allies to bring about an end to the violence in Darfur. As President Bush mentioned in his speech today that the U.S. Holocaust Museum, the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the Arab League, the government of Sudan, the United States, and 12 other nations reached another important agreement at a meeting in Addis Ababa last November 2006. Among other things, this agreement called for a joint U.N.-AU peacekeeping force to go into action, a force that would be nearly three times the size of the existing African Union force. We – and our allies in Europe – have called upon Sudanese President Bashir to immediately agree to accept all phases of the hybrid force so peacekeepers can be deployed to help bring about an end to the crisis.

We consult regularly with our allies in Europe at all levels, and I have visited several European capitals to raise the issue of Darfur since I became Special Envoy in September 2006.

Victor, from Las vegas writes:
Why has the United States not sent any troops to Darfur? What are we doing to help the people that really need us?

Andrew S. Natsios
The United States has been a strong supporter of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) which has about 7,000 peacekeeping troops on the ground. But we – and our allies – know that AMIS needs to be strengthened. That’s why we are insisting that the Sudanese live up to their commitment to accept the United Nation’s Security Council Resolution 1706 which allows for the deployment of an AU-UN peacekeeping force of 20,000 under U.N. command and control. The supports 34 AMIS camps and maintains vehicles and communications equipment. Since 2004, the United States has contributed more than $350 million to AMIS.

Sudan is one of the highest foreign policy priorities of the United States. We are committed to helping the people of Darfur, and we are the leading international donor of humanitarian assistance. We provided over $2.6 billion in aid to Eastern Chad and Sudan between 2005 and 2006, and we are set to continue spending at that pace.

Roy, from Arlington, VA writes:
It seems we've waited too long to intervene into these horrific circumstances in the Sudan. Given the role the Chinese play in the region and the interests of America, what can we really do at this point?

Andrew S. Natsios
Over the past several years, the United States has been both vocal and active in protecting the lives of civilians in Darfur. During FY 2005 and 2006, the United States spent more than $825 million on humanitarian programs in Darfur and Eastern Chad to provide food, shelter, water, sanitation and other services to protect refugees, internally displaced persons and other vulnerable groups affected by the conflict. We are deeply concerned about the safety of the civilian population and continue to take steps to protect these groups.

Along with humanitarian assistance, the United States has financially supported the deployment of African Union troops to provide physical security throughout Darfur through the construction of base camps and provision of logistical services.

While the US has pressed the Sudanese government directly, we are also working with many other governments to convince Sudan to end the conflict. Regarding your reference to China, I visited Beijing in January of this year and had positive meetings with senior government officials. I believe that the Chinese have been working quietly behind the scenes to prompt Sudan to cooperate with the international community.

We continue to press the Government of Sudan to ensure the protection of the civilian population and the humanitarian agencies in Darfur, to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement reached in May 2006 and to allow a hybrid force of United Nations and African Union troops to operate in Darfur. The UN has just received agreement from Sudan to send 3000 additional UN-AU troops into Darfur to strengthen the existing AU operation. Finally, we are strongly pushing both the Government of Sudan and the rebel groups that have not signed onto the Darfur Peace Agreement to negotiate a political solution to the conflict as this is the only way we will achieve a lasting peace.

Jeffrey, from Hod HaSharon, Israel writes:
Dear Mr. Natsios, I am in 10th grade and I am studying in Israel right now for a semester abroad from my school in Los Angeles. We just finished our unit on the Holocaust and we concluded by thinking about modern genocide. There is too much evidence of genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. What is the U.S. government doing to prevent the atrocities happening in Sudan right now?

Also-what can I do to help the refugees in Sudan and help evacuate those still stuck there?

Thank you very much, J.R.

Andrew S. Natsios
Thanks for your question, J.R. As President Bush said today in his speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, “It is evil we are now seeing in Sudan -- and we're not going to back down.” The President stressed that the brutal treatment of innocent civilians in Darfur is unacceptable to him, to Americans, and to the United Nations.

The United States believes that only a political settlement will end the crisis in Darfur. We also need to deploy a robust force of United Nations-African Union international peacekeepers. The President said that the Government of Sudan must act to allow the peacekeepers to deploy. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, is now in discussions with President Bashir to get the government of Sudan to meet all its commitments.

If President Bashir does not fulfill the steps that President Bush has outlined above in a short period of time, the United States will tighten economic sanctions on Sudan, including target sanctions against individuals responsible for the violence. In addition, the Secretary of State will prepare a new United Nations Security Council resolution which will apply new sanctions against the government of Sudan.

Matthew, from Wilmington writes:
Why has it taken (and still taking) so long for the government to address the situation in Darfur seriously? What, if any, actions have been discussed? How does the White House plan on raising awareness and keeping the public informed?

Andrew S. Natsios
The United States has been active in protecting the lives of civilians in Darfur since the start of the conflict. During FY 2005 and 2006, the United States spent more than $825 million on humanitarian programs in Darfur and Eastern Chad to provide food, shelter, water, sanitation and other services to protect refugees, internally displaced persons and other vulnerable groups affected by the conflict. We are deeply concerned about the safety of the civilian population and continue to take steps to protect these groups.

Along with humanitarian assistance, the United States has financially supported the deployment of African Union troops to provide physical security throughout Darfur through the construction of base camps and provision of logistical services.

We continue to press the Government of Sudan to ensure the protection of the civilian population and the humanitarian agencies in Darfur, to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement reached in May 2006 and to allow a hybrid force of United Nations and African Union troops to operate in Darfur. The UN has just received agreement from Sudan that they will accept 3000 additional UN-AU troops in Darfur to strengthen the existing AU operation. Finally, we are strongly pushing both the Government of Sudan and the rebel groups that have not signed onto the Darfur Peace Agreement to negotiate a political solution to the conflict as this is the only way we will achieve a lasting peace.

For more information on the U.S. response to the conflict in Darfur, you can visit the websites of both the White House and the U.S. Department of State.

Matt, from Fair Haven, NJ writes:
What are your feelings towards current U.N. inaction towards the Sudan? Is some of the corruption and complacency at the U.N. during the Rwanda Genocide still present at the international body today? Do you have more confidence action will be taken under Ban Ki Moon's leadership?

Andrew S. Natsios
The United Nations, under both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, has been very focused on finding a solution to the conflict in Darfur. I speak regularly with Ban Ki Moon and his Special Envoy for Sudan, Jan Eliasson and have every confidence in their leadership and ability to move forward on finding a solution to end the situation in Darfur.

Sergei, from Pennsburg, Pennsylvania writes:
After hearing about reports of thousands of deaths in Sudan region of Darfur would you classify this escalating crisis as "genocide"?

Andrew S. Natsios
In December 2006, President Bush stated that our nation is appalled by the genocide in Darfur. In addition, the State Department’s Human Rights Report for 2006 called events in Darfur a genocide. As President Bush said today, “The human toll has been staggering in Darfur. More than 200,000 people have died from the conflict -- or from the malnutrition and disease that have spread in its wake. And more than 2 million people have been forced from their homes and villages into camps both inside and outside their country.”

Ending the violence in Darfur requires better security for the people of Darfur; it requires progress toward political reconciliation. But there continues to be an overall degradation of the security situation due to inter-tribal fighting, sporadic Janjaweed attacks on villages and general banditry and looting.

Against this backdrop, however, there are some small signs of hope and progress. Credible reports from Darfur indicate that there has been a slow, steady decrease in civilian causalities since January 2007 and direct fighting between the Sudan Armed Forces and non-signatory rebel groups has virtually ceased in the past months.

Amy, from Tennessee. writes:
Why has there been absolutely no news concerning Darfur and other such places? There are children being forced to fight and kill other children. So far the United States has done nothing about it, and if you keep ignoring the problems that are there, there will be no people left. Instead of focusing on the War in Iraq, why not focus on something that has been taking place for longer than the War in Iraq. Why hasn't anything been done to help these people? All they want is to carry on with their lives in a SAFE environment, and so far, that hasn't been shown to them.

Andrew S. Natsios
The United States has been actively engaged in Sudan and Darfur for many years. In fact, the United States helped broker the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between North and South Sudan, ending 21 years of civil war. That agreement was signed in January 2005.

The American people are providing more humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur than any other country. Last year, the U.S. Agency for International Development provided more than 50 percent of the food aid for Darfur. Each month, 40,000 metric tons of food aid is sent to Darfur.

Thanks in part to the United States, brave humanitarian workers in Darfur has done a remarkable job of providing life-saving assistance to more than 2.5 million Internally Displaced People in Darfur and eastern Chad.

All of us would welcome additional news coverage of events in Sudan so the American people can see what is going on there. But journalists – like some humanitarian workers – have had problems with gaining access to the region. And the Government of Sudan has harassed humanitarian relief workers by imposing bureaucratic obstacles.

Steve, from Tallahassee, FL writes:
Do you support the efforts of some in Congress to require divestiture from the Sudan?

Andrew S. Natsios
As I told the Senate Foreign Committee last week, there is a great deal of concern about divestiture legislation. There are several reasons for it. My concern about it personally is from our past experience with divestiture legislation, it would take a couple of years before it had an effect, and we don't have a couple of years. Divestiture legislation is not going to have an effect on the Sudanese economy in the next year, even if it passed immediately, was immediately enforced. It will take a while. We don't have a while. There is a reluctance to support this because allowing each state and municipality to conduct their own foreign policy could create chaotic conditions.

There is now a Supreme Court ruling that has three conditions for any state or municipality to do divestiture, and it's a hard standard. And I think one statute in Illinois has already been ruled unconstitutional.