Related articles and links |  1 of 2

In 2005, President Bush appointed John Bolton, a persistent critic of the United Nations, as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. In part due to a filibuster by Democrats, Senate supporters had insufficient votes for confirmation. But in August, Bush made a "recess appointment," which allows Bolton to serve on an interim basis, most likely until January 2007.

Since last summer, Bolton has pressed forward on multiple fronts, including the ongoing genocide with an estimated death toll of 200,000 or more in Sudan's western region of Darfur, peace efforts in southern Sudan, Iran's secretive nuclear program, the ongoing conflict in Iraq, and U.N. reform. Tony Carnes, senior writer for Christianity Today, and another journalist talked recently with Ambassador Bolton at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York.

How do you assess the plan for U.N. peacekeepers to take over the African Union's mission to stop genocide in Darfur?

There is a lot of work to do. We're pushing a resolution that will take into account not only the period when there's a U.N. force that replaces the African Union force, but also strengthens the African Union force [until then]. We've run into opposition in the Security Council. But our view is, because of the deteriorating security situation in Darfur, we have to move now. We have to move ahead as rapidly as we can.

Are peace negotiations having any effect?

In Abuja [Nigeria], the negotiations between the Darfur parties and the government in Khartoum [Sudan] have not been without difficulty, because the rebel groups themselves are fragmented and don't have a common position. We're working with the rebel groups to have a common negotiating front, so that Khartoum can't split them apart. The main aspect of our effort is to bring peace inside Sudan. The main problem is the government of Sudan is not protecting its own citizens. In many respects, Sudan is responsible for the conflict and for the abuses of human rights, the genocide, the turning of whole populations into refugees and displaced persons. That's really what we're focused on, to bring security back to Darfur, so people can return to normal lives.

There are Sudanese refugees stranded in Egypt. Should they be allowed to seek asylum in the United States or elsewhere?

Our real effort for these people is to give them the opportunity to go back to their own homes and villages and farms, to get them out of the refugee camps or the displaced persons camps, where the conditions are far from ideal and where they're not living their own lives.

Does focusing attention on Darfur mean we are not paying proper attention to the peace agreement in southern Sudan?

If you look at [U.N. special envoy to Sudan] Jan Pronk's report, he lays out some aspects not only in southern Sudan, but also in eastern Sudan, where the security situation has worsened. It remains a very complex situation. If Darfur doesn't get resolved, it could have implications that spill over or put at risk [Sudan's] government of national unity.

We've put so much effort into trying to stop the North-South conflict. We need a much larger effort in Sudan. It's not a question of shifting resources from the South to Darfur. You're talking about a substantial expansion of the U.N. mission in order to deal with Darfur.

Will there be enough food in the region?

I don't think there's a lack of food overall. It's the ability to deliver food to certain regions, where AMIS [African Union Mission in Sudan] isn't present or the conflict is still boiling over.

next page... |  1 of 2

May 2006, Vol. 50, No. 5