Once again, the USA is fighting for the oppressed, the beaten, the victims while the left in America fights for the rights of the jihadis.
Today, the USA stands apart in its fight to stop the Islamic jihad against the people of Darfur in the Sudan.
Remarks by Ambassador Jackie W. Sanders, Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs to the United Nations, on Sudan and other matters, at the Security Council stakeout, August 17, 2006
Ambassador Sanders: Hi, I just thought it would be helpful perhaps for you to hear what we did in the Council today, particularly on the Sudan resolution. Today we introduced a resolution along with the United Kingdom to move forward on Sudan. We have an experts meeting planned for tomorrow on this issue. We want to get it moved forward and hopefully get a resolution adopted quickly and hopefully unanimously. So we just wanted to let you know we are pushing ahead on Sudan, on transition from AMIS to UNMIS and we hope the government of Sudan will do its part. If anybody has a couple of questions, I can take them.
Reporter: Ambassador, on that last point, President Bashir said as recently as yesterday that not only will he not welcome a UN force, he would attack it. What do you plan to do about that?
Ambassador Sanders: Well, there are a number of high level dialogues going on including from the United States. The UK is sending an envoy to the region to speak with him, and I think - as was discussed in the Council today - all the countries of the Council and any country that has any influence with this government is welcome and encouraged to use its influence to get the president to get on board with this. We’ve been pushing this since at least February when we were president of the Security Council, and it’s six months later. It’s becoming more violent on the ground, and the humanitarian situation is getting worse as well. So we really need to move this forward.
Reporter: There was a request on Monday by Human Rights Watch to the members of the Council to consider imposing individual sanctions on leaders of Sudan that are blocking the UN going in. Does the US have a position on that request? Has it been discussed in the Council?
Ambassador Sanders: We haven’t gotten into the details of targeted sanctions lately in the Council. I think it’s something that we certainly need to look at carefully, and we would be supportive.
Reporter: Ambassador Sanders, as you well know from your trip to Darfur, the big sticking point was whether the troops would have Chapter VII or not. Chapter VII was seen as a red flag but we still have Chapter VII mandate for the troops. Is there any wiggle room on that?
Ambassador Sanders: Well, I think - if you look carefully at the resolution we just put forward, it’s on the model of the last resolution, which was 1590, where there was a combination of Chapter VI and Chapter VII and the government of Sudan has accepted that in the past so we expect they should be able to accept it this time as well.
Reporter: Is the consent of the government of Sudan required by this resolution as far as you see it?
Ambassador Sanders: I would say it is not required. The fact of the matter is it’s in our job description to get this thing adopted, then it’s in the job description of the government of Sudan to consent to it and to move forward. And that’s what we are expecting and that’s what we’re going to work toward.
Reporter: Sorry, you just said not required?
Ambassador Sanders: The consent is not required in the resolution.
Reporter: But it’s required for the force?
Ambassador Sanders: Well practically speaking, it’s going to be useful to have the government on board to get this accomplished.
In other words, the US is going top save lives despite the murdering Sudanese Islamic government. Any word yet from Coffee Enema?