We cannot post Bloomberg reports.
Link is
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDNXqYudDVlk&refer=top_world_news
Bush's words:
___
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 20, 2006
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BUSH
AND NATO SECRETARY GENERAL JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER
IN A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
The Oval Office
10:16 A.M. EST
PRESIDENT BUSH: Fine-looking crowd we've attracted here, fine-looking crowd.
Mr. Secretary General, thanks for coming. We've just had a wide-ranging discussion on a variety of issues, which is what you'd expect when allies and friends come together. We discussed Iraq, and I want to thank NATO for its involvement in helping train Iraqi security forces so they can end up protecting the Iraqi people from the -- from those who want to kill innocent life in order to affect the outcome of that democracy.
I want to thank you very much for your strong involvement in Afghanistan. A NATO presence in Afghanistan is really important. I learned that firsthand when I went to Afghanistan and talked to President Karzai and his government. They were very supportive of the mission -- and thankful for the mission. NATO was effective, and that's one of the things that really important for our citizens to understand, that our relationship with NATO is an important part of helping us to win the war on terror.
We also talked about Darfur and the Sudan. I'd called the Secretary General earlier this year. I talked to him about a strategy that would enable NATO to take the lead in Darfur. However, some things have to happen prior to that happening, and the first thing is that the African Union must request from the United Nations a U.N. mission to convert the AU mission to a U.N. mission, at which point that's done, the -- NATO can move in with United States help within -- inside of NATO -- to make it clear to the Sudanese government that we're intent upon providing security for the people there, and intent upon helping work toward a lasting peace agreement.
And so I appreciate your understanding of that. The first time I made the phone call to the Secretary General he fully understood the challenge, fully understood the need, and it was great to work with a friend in peace to devise a strategy on how to move forward.
So thanks for coming. Looking forward to the meeting later on this year, big NATO summit. And I'm convinced that, like the last summit we had, you'll lead that meeting with the efficiency and professionalism that you're known for.
SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me echo what the President has been saying about NATO delivering, about NATO making the difference. In Afghanistan the fight against terror is an extremely important element there. NATO indeed assists in the African Union in Darfur, and I'm quite sure, as I've told the President, that when the U.N. comes, the NATO allies will be ready to do more in enabling the United Nations force in Darfur.
NATO assisted after Hurricane Katrina. NATO had a major humanitarian operation in Pakistan. NATO is in the Balkans. All 26 NATO allies participate in one way or the other in the training mission in Iraq. Now I want to see NATO-trained Iraqi officers taking their responsibility in fighting the terrorists in their own country.
In other words, NATO is delivering. And in the run-up to the NATO summit in Riga at the end of the year, as the President mentioned, we'll make sure -- NATO will make sure that this will be an important event.
In NATO's outreach, as he mentioned -- the Middle East, North Africa, Israel, Jordan, the nations of the Gulf -- NATO's contacts with other nations who share our values -- we have Australia, Japan, South Korea -- in other words, we'll see to it that the military agenda of NATO and the political agenda of NATO will be very seriously addressed in Riga. And I'm very glad for the support, the permanent support, and the friendship of our most important ally, the United States, and its leader, President Bush.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. Yes, good. Thank you.
END 10:20 A.M. EST
___
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/03/bush_meets_with_nato_chiefjaap.html
I thought Bush didn't like Black people? What he doing helping out in Sudan?
This is from the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty (April 4, 1949). Bold text has been highlighted by me.
Sure sounds like ethnic strife in Sudan fits NATO's mission statement perfectly. /sarcasm off/
What does the U.N. say???
What are they doing???(...crickets....)
Why doesn't Bush tell France "it's your turn".
The constant use of taxpayer money to control every spot on the globe is killing this nation's taxpayers. I was born a USA citizen--Bush is forcing me to be a planet earth philanthropist.
I'd view this as another positive post-ports development. I'm guessing Bush is feeling some pressure to act in the wake of the Dubai scandal. I give him credit for recognizing the popular sentiment of US Christians. This ratchets things up a notch, and is sure to anger Islamofascist sympathizers here and in Europe forcing their hand.
I fully expect French military and/or intelligence officials to leak info to the Sudanese government similar to what they did in operational phase of the Kosovo military deployment.
Chirac's family is very close knit to the board members of Total Fina Elf, the 2nd largest oil producing corporation in Sudan.
De Hoop Scheffer said that when the UN request is made, ``the NATO allies will be ready.''
De Hoop Scheffer is either loudmouthed or he has assurance of President Bush that 20.000 GIs are going to Darfur. Nobody in Europe is interested in this conflict - no matter what lip-service is done - and nobody will send troops in noteworthy amount. I.e. the French (the by far closest ally of Germany) want to have a European security force in Kongo (BTW - something quite senseless) and in the moment we have a really fierce discussion here in Germany if we will provide the (really "frightening" - bad bad sarcasm) force of 500 (!) men. In Sudan Germany has even less interests. Maybe we Germans will provide 150 men or even 200, since Merkel (in difference to Schroeder) does not want to provoke anybody in Washington. Anyway it will not help Sudan and it will be a dishonest gesture.
Maybe a discussion is nessecary about the future role of NATO. While most Europeans just see it as a solely defensive alliance restricted to defensive actions, America obviously want to solve the global threats offensivley through preemptive strikes with the help of NATO. Such a doctrine will not be enforceable in Europe. Since NATO is -just like the UN- a multilateral organisation, it will be difficult to use it the way President Bush likes to. Therefore it would be just honest to redefine it and to search for a compromise that correlates to the interests of both sides of the Atlantic. Sometimes a peaceful divorce is better than a poisoned marriage.
We already had troops in Sudan since about 2002. It was in very limited and in part "clandestine" until a little was reported on in 2004 or so. These missions are still ongoing.
Sudan is part of the much bigger GWOT. Bin Laden spent quite a bit of time there. Some of the people who we are fighting in Iraq are actually from there. The government in Sudan was backed by some of the more vicious Arab/Islamic states for a long time.
Example: Saudi Arabia use to send lots of aid there. However, in 1991 they realized that their "Muslim brothers" are rooting for the bad guy (aka Saddam) and the tap from the Saudi government was shut off. In fact Bin Laden who swore to over throw the government of Saudi Arabia ended up staying there for some time to the Saudi's dismay.
What you have in Sudan is a situation where the Muslims were backed for years by some Arab states and were basically committing genocide on the Christians in the South. While not a religious issue for us, it surely was one for those in power in Sudan. Nevertheless, Sudan was and remains a breeding ground for Jihadists. It's a good place to go unnoticed and slip away for some time if need be. Sudan is in the much larger international threat picture a problem not because Sudan can launch a missile or develop a nuke like Iran soon will if unchecked, but because it's a breeding ground and "no mans land" where bad guys can safely hang out. Sudan tends to be a place not were the money comes from, but the "bodies" that do the fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
It was just a matter of time before the Liberals got us involved in Africa. They were on CSpan a few weeks back detailing plans to do just this. (Small room, fifteen people at the seminar). Africa was to be the US top priority, and they were moving heaven and earth to make this happen. Looks like they made it happen.