"I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Somaliland government. I also met with President Yusuf. On Somaliland, the US would follow the lead taken by the AU. We would encourage dialogue between them but I said we would take the lead by AU.

U.S. Assistant-Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer

Addis Ababa, February 5, 2007 – U.S. Assistant-Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer was in Addis Ababa for the eighth AU summit of heads of state and held talks with several African leaders.

On Tuesday she held a press conference with journalists and shed some light on what has transpired during the discussions on Somalia, Darfur, Guinea, etc.

Following is the transcription of the Q and A session with Assistant-Secretary Jendayi Frazer. Excerpts.

The U.S. is calling upon the Somali government to hold a dialogue with the UIC fundamentalists. If President Abdillahi Yusuf rejects talks, what would be the US government's stand?

The US has never asked the TFG to negotiate with terrorists. That is not our position. What we have said is that there are individuals who are members of UIC who should be part of the inclusive dialogue as individuals.

Can you name some of the individuals, for example?

I can't name the individuals that the transitional government should negotiate with. We've been saying that this is an internal Somali affair. It should take place inside Somalia. There has never been a point in which we've asked President Yusuf or Prime Minister Ghedi to negotiate with Aweyes. We did, of course, push for negotiations in terms of the Khartoum dialogue with the UIC. But it was the UIC that refused to continue that dialogue.

Given the fact that five countries are willing to contribute peacekeeping forces to Somalia, have you any idea realistically when they will be on the ground?

Well, we've been working mostly with Uganda as far a way as November and December when UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706. I understood from president Musevini that Uganda's parliament would meet today (Tuesday) and take a decision on deployment. And we hope that they decide positively and that Ugandan forces would be deployed next week.

Of course, it has to be coordinated with the decision by the African Union. The AU clearly has the lead on trying to do the planning for the peacekeeping force.

Would you expect the deployment to be bit by bit rather than at once?

I'm not the planner but my concept is that they would be phased in just as the Ethiopians would be phasing out. I think that we all hope to avoid a scenario in which there is a gap.

Regarding the situation in Darfur, many times Sudanese officials have made it clear that they do not want an international force in Sudan. Do you think that after the meeting between the UN secretary and President Bashir Sudan will accept this force?

I haven't had the chance to hear the results of that meeting directly from either participants. I understood that President Bashir had already accepted in principle the three phases of the Addis Ababa and Abuja agreements as he wrote a letter to Kofi Annan. So we would hope that he hadn't gone back on that letter he wrote.

Certainly Secretary Ban Ki-moon would be looking for a firmer commitment from him particularly on the hybrid force.

I think that the African Union, in the selection of its leadership, clearly demonstrated that the time has come to end the crisis is Darfur. I hope that President Bashir had heard the message loudly and clear.

For a stabilization force to move into Somalia, there has to be stability on the ground. Does that mean that the U.S. will stop launching air strikes?

The stabilization force will help provide security on the ground. So the first part of your statement is not exactly accurate. The second part of your statement is not also accurate. I think you're referring to the two A130 air strikes which were in a remote part of Somalia close to the Kenyan border. The first strike was targeted at a convoy of 20 vehicles and the second time about 8 with terrorists in those convoys.

The stabilization force would be deployed in Mogadishu probably as the first step. So I don't see the relevance, frankly, of the question.

Is the U.S. ready to offer logistical support for the deployment?

Yes, we offered to airlift in the Ugandans with Contract Air, to provide some equipment and financial assistance. But the actual coordination of this assistance is going through the AU. We are working with the peace and Security commission in the AU to figure out what support they actually need from the United States.

Extremists are vowing to kill peacekeepers. Will the U.S. assist the transitional government in cases where the peacekeepers cannot withstand attacks from UIC members?

The situation is difficult. It does not surprise me that you would find that type of extremists' message on a website. The Council of Islamic Courts made similar threat against Ethiopia and the transitional government.

The real message behind it is to try to intimidate the African Union and the international community not to assist the people of Somalia.

Once you get your targets in Somalia, does that mean that business is over for you?

Our policy in Somalia is a long-term plan whether to support the TFG, to establish inclusive governance, to provide humanitarian assistance before and after the UIC, or before the TFG was in Mogadishu and will continue after that. That is a long-term commitment.

Also we have a commitment to support AU in getting that force to Somalia and provide the security environment so that Somalia won't become a threat to its neighbors and a safe haven for terrorists. Our interests are broad and long-term.

You said that you won't pressure president Yusuf on holding dialogues. But what about the will of the people? What about the will of the Somaliland people for succession?

I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Somaliland government. I also met with President Yusuf. On Somaliland, the US would follow the lead taken by the AU. We would encourage dialogue between them but I said we would take the lead by AU.

Some say that U.S. air strikes are a smart move by the US to share victory with Ethiopia in Somalia. Your comment?

I don't think anyone is trying to ape anyone. We have been partners in trying to address the extremists problem in the Horn of Africa. We want to work in partnership. Whenever there are extremists who attack our missions as in Kenya and Tanzania, we will take actions.

A lot of that action is to talk to those who harbor terrorists to hand them over. We did this with the UIC before, too.

Sudanese officials accuse the U.S. of pressuring African leaders to take similar stand with the U.S. on the issues of Darfur. What is your comment?

My comment is that it is unfortunate that Sudanese officials don't understand yet that African leaders find what's going on in Darfur unacceptable in this continent. And they do not want to be led by a government that hasn't addressed that problem. That was true a year go and continues to be true.

It doesn't take external pressure for African leaders and African people to see that the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur has to come to an end. And I think it is underestimating the sense of outrage that is reflected among the leadership of the African Union. It is an unfortunate analysis.

Almost all African governments, especially in the Horn region, agree that there should be a peacekeeping force in Somalia, except for the government of Eritrea. Are you talking to the Eritrean government to play a constructive role?

And how confident are you about the so-called moderate UIC members whom you want included in the peace process? Aren't you concerned that they could disrupt the peace process? After all, they used to be allies of extremists like Aweyes.

The government of Eritrea was providing arms to the Shabath militia which was the most extremist of the UIC. We would hope the Eritrean government would play a constructive role in terms of support to the transitional government and not continue to support the remnants of the UIC.

I sent that message. I asked our ambassador to send that message. As you probably know, our lines of communication with the government of Eritrea aren't that great. So others will have to send that message as well. But, clearly, we would want the government of Eritrea to act constructively towards Somalia and give a chance to the TFG and the people.

Regarding the second question, I don't have confidence or pessimism about moderates in the UIC. What I judge US Policy options on is on whether there is actual action.

The transitional government granted amnesty to UIC members who give up terrorist acts. I take the government at its words. I think the UIC was hijacked by the extremists from within. And there are members who want negotiation to participate in national reconciliation.

President Isayas has been making strong statements against the U.S. What is the current status of the diplomatic relationship between Eritrea and the U.S?

We have an ambassador in Eritrea and Eritrea has an ambassador in the United States. We continue to have diplomatic relationships. As I said, our lines of communication aren't that great. But we are not as concerned about the statements coming out of Eritrea against the US government. We think those statements have more to do with the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue than anything else.

I think that Eritrean president Isayas felt that the US government could somehow solve the Eritrea-Ethiopia border problem. He had been fairly aggressive in terms of his statements towards us since then. But we don't mind. We can manage.

Sorry, but he said on Aljazeera TV that the UIC is not defeated. Won't that imply that he will continue to assist them?

If he continues to fund insurgencies, it would be consistent with funding of insurgencies in other areas as well. That would be unfortunate. We as a region, have to deal with what role Eritrea would be playing. Is it a constructive country in the Horn of Africa? Or is it not? Those countries that have an open communication with Eritrea should counsel it to play a constructive role in the Horn of Africa.

Regarding the all inclusive dialogue in Somalia, do you share Ethiopia's view on who should be included?

I'm not aware of the Ethiopian government saying who should be included. We've said that it should be inclusive not in terms of individuals but in terms of constituencies like civil society groups, women groups, clans, sub-clans, religious leaders.

For six months, when UIC was in control, people felt that they have brought stability to the country. Do you think that the transitional government can bring about the same level of stability?

I think that that characterization is false. They might have brought stability in Mogadishu, removed road blocks, and we hope the transitional government would learn from what the UIC did. But Kismayo was not peaceful under the UIC. Most parts of Somalia were not stable under the UIC. The UIC continued to move militarily and aggressively. There was a terror attack at the parliament building in Baidoa.

So I can't accept the characterization that the UIC brought stability to Somalia. But I do accept that they brought greater security to Mogadishu. I hope that the transitional government likewise bring about that security within Mogadishu.

But the problem with that, potentially, is that remnants of UIC members may be attacking people and the transitional government police. That could be a problem. And hopefully, those elements that are conducting these attacks, whoever they are, will become part of the process of bringing about that idea of peace across Somalia, an idea that hasn't been achieved for sixteen years.

Source: The Reporter