We can't deny that we would of course have liked to see some of the other leading personalities and movement leaders at this meeting no doubt but I still maintain that it is a credible start of a credible peace process. We had originally planned this process in three stages. Something we had worked on for sometime spelt out presentation in different context most recently publicly in an article in the International Herald Tribune where we spelt out that we are working with the first phase of, in this case very strongly and tangibly and visibly show that the political process starts. This is a message to the people of Darfur and also a message to the world which you helped us to convey yesterday. And today more details, more discussions on the general framework, the general views of this process on their side and tomorrow morning hopefully we will start our consultations, Salim and myself, with the government. We will go on to see the movements, we will see the civil society, we will sit down with our regional partners and then they will meet on different consultations, but of course that will be under confidential conditions. Now this is the preparatory phase for the negotiations. We already stated before we started this meeting that the real substantial negotiations will stat when the parties are prepared and when we have gone through the issues. It is well known that we had planned a series of workshops and discussions, particularly with the movements in the three-week period to follow this first week in Sirte and then to start the substantial negotiations so we are on track, on course again without in any way denying that we would have liked to see a full house as the representative of Eritrea said yesterday. This will be my introductory remark. We would of course also be those who have decided not to come to this meeting. There is one category that seem to be very strongly reluctant to attend these talks but there are also others who are seriously interested in the this process, who want to prepare themselves better and we are in serious dialogue with them and find the appropriate ways of communicating with them, you can rest assured.

Question: Will you be heeding calls from the rebels for a postponement?

Salim: We will be heeding calls from the rebels to engage with them. We have been in communications with some of those who are in Juba, some of those who are in Darfur wanting to engage with us, to consult with us and we think that is quite normal. We shall certainly be involved with them, we shall consult with them with a view to determining on the way forward. I think as Jan said before we find it unfortunate that some of the factions are not here. We think they have an important role to play and we shall continue these consultations and we will also continue to try and engage them so at the end of the day they will have a truly all inclusive process. It is my conviction that those who are either in Darfur, who are in Juba who have not been able to come have made it clear to us their commitment to the process, that they would want to take part in the process so it is a question of how we make sure that they take part in the process.

Question: But they are saying that now is not the time for it.

Salim: No, what they are saying is that they need time for them to consult and they have been consulting and we will do nothing to stop them from their consultations. Now how these consultations are undertaken, where they are undertaken are some of the things we will discuss with them but basically our objective frankly is to get them engaged. Let me tell you in the meeting in Arusha during which we met with the seven factions out of the eight, all of them had clearly indicated their commitment to join the peace process, so now that some of them have not come to explain their reason we intend to address these reasons and explain to them the position and we will se how it goes.

Eliasson: I will also be very clear on this. I refuse to state that the peace process is interrupted. The train has left the station for the road to peace. The question is how many passengers will get on the train. We are ready to receive them. But for us this is an absolutely crucial issue. We want this peace process to be irreversible. We have just finished a plenary session. Tomorrow we go into serious discussions but in the mean time we keep contact with those who want to get on the peace process, to take part in the peace process and we are in communication with them already.

Salim: By definition a process is not an event and consequently we certainly look forward to those who are not here to join the process.

Question: You said that these talks are open ended but at the same time what are you doing to make sure that they will produce concrete results as soon as possible?

Salim: We have not put timelines but it is not a process which is of unlimited duration. Clearly our objective is to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Now we have learnt from experience that we should refrain from giving artificial deadlines but you know from one extreme of not giving artificial deadline and the other extreme that this thing can go on endlessly that is not so. How do we draw the balance that will depend on how the situation evolves and I think it is too early at this point to say when the agreement will be there but working to that end we think the situation on the ground is such that it needs for urgent action. We think, at least from the point of view of the mediation, from the point of view of all those who spoke yesterday, the international community which spoke, the countries of the region, and the movements today spoke also, everybody understands the sense of urgency. So we shall be operating on the basis that this is an urgent situation which needs an urgent solution.

Question: You all have spoken several times about the communications that you have been having with the rebel organizations who asking for time to prepare for in the peace talks. Can you tell us with any more detail about the nature of these communications and what kinds of problems are these groups experiencing on the ground that will derail the participation in these talks?

Eliasson: Well I think there are two ways for us to communicate with them. One is through those who are here and who have their colleagues somewhere else, let's say Juba or Darfur, the other is communication that we have directly with important personalities who have expressed an interest in keeping dialogue with us about how we get them to come on board how we could cooperate so that they are part of the process. We will personally be staying here in Libya , in Sirte but our team will have possibilities to be in contact with them. We hope to have people coming in here but there is also a possibility of us seeing them where they are. They have been clear in their desire to invite us to such meetings and clearly stating that they want to be a part of the process. So we hope very much that this will be part of this period of consultations and preparations. Originally we had planned for the three weeks of workshops for this kind for preparation after this first week in Sirte. Those three weeks fall inside our programme and then we will start with substantial talks. So without setting timelines of how long this process will be in our original plan which was well done we had planned for three weeks of workshops on discussions and preparations. We would have preferred to them all here in Sirte.

Question: Just a follow-up question, are the same groups that are issuing press releases to us the same movements sending these different messages to you?

Eliasson: Partly and I suppose that g… will diminish if we are to make progress in our dialogue. We don't interpret their reservations as restrictions from taking part in the process. We think these problems are definitely surmountable because we have detected the political will to take part in the political process.

Salim: There are statements which are made but the communications come to us are quite constructive in nature. We may not agree with the fact that they are not here but clearly in their communication they want to sit down with the mediation team to discuss a number of things. I know of two communications which talk in those terms. One of course expresses support for the mediation, expresses its confidence in the team they want us to discuss. Ideally we would want them to come and discuss here but clearly since we really are serious about this process and we are making plans to engage them through appropriate channels and listen to their positions because really my reading of these messages is that they want to be part of the process. It is a question of what is involved in the time here, maybe they want clarification of the agenda, clarification of the format of the negotiations and these are in my opinion bona fide questions which need to be answered.

Question: At least two rebels I heard today touched on the point of self determination for Darfur which seemed to be going for cessation. What is Mr. Salim's response to that?

Salim: Well you know, I have been involved in these Darfur negotiations for sometime now. All along we know that the concerns of the Darfurians have been marginalization, have been the question that they have equitable power sharing, have been a question of compensation, a question of ensuring that IDP's go back to their homes, their lands, the question of ensuring that they are enabled to be able to start their lives anew, the question of governance and so on. From our perspective quite frankly, I am speaking as an African and with the mandate of the African Union, clearly our mandate does not include disintegration of Sudan . Our mandate includes to look into what can be done address the legitimate grievances of the people of Darfur and we are familiar with those grievances because we have been to Darfur , we have seen people. We have spoken to refugees and IDP's. We have spoken to the civil society, we have spoken to the movements and we know they have grievances and they need to be addressed and redressed effectively.

First and foremost of course the whole question of security. The question of security is fundamental to the people of Darfur . So if you are starting to add other things you know. Of course you cannot prevent anybody from saying what he or she wants. That is the privilege for anyone to say, but from my perspective our mandate is clear

Eliasson: For the sake of completeness let me say from the United Nations side that our starting point is maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan . It is also stated in several of the resolutions that relate to the crisis in Darfur .

Question: What are the groups that say that they may join the peace process in may be few days or few weeks?

Eliasson: I think some of them even made public their letters to us and I think it is no secret to talk about groups related to Khames Abdallah, who in fact has representatives here, Abdul Shafi and his group, JEM, also the Khalil Ibrahim group has been suggesting that we start this kind of dialogue.

Salim: All the factions which attended the meeting in Arusha have never told us that they are against taking part in the peace process. They have explained their reservations, they have explained their modalities and so on but none of them ever said to us that they are against getting involved. In the peace negotiations, without exception I am talking of the seven and those seven factions all of them. Some of them are here some of them are not here but in terms of the principle of taking part in the process none of them said they are oppose to that.

Eliasson: Also the problem that may have arisen before these talks were the demands on the side of the groups that we just mentioned, the personalities we just mentioned is that we delay the talks. We are talking about this seriously, Salim and I. The people of Darfur have been waiting for the last four and a half years, we have been working for ten months for them for this. We have seen delays of meetings and we simply came to the conclusion that we had to since was such a deterioration of the situation on the ground and the division within the movement and as you know within the Government we felt that a delay will be pretty demoralizing thing to do. It was a hard choice. Some of them didn't like it. I hope they respect that you sometimes have to start a process and you want to start it in glory but if you don't start it in glory you start it under the conditions that are possible. But to see in the room today the government of Sudan face several of the movements and several of the leading personalities and speak in a good tone I will say is the beginning of that process which I refuse to accept is interrupted.

Question: Specifically what environment or conditions have to be created in order for those who are absent who want to join the process in a short time?

Salim: Well I think some of them are already creating their own environment. For example when it comes to the question of cohesion and unity, which was the more central issue, the more central issue for example of the Sudan Liberation Movement in its various factions has been the need to a unity and cohesion. Ironically this has been our clarion call all the time from the beginning of our effort we want to see a united, we want to see a cohesive SLM. If that is not possible we are saying, we at least want them to have a common platform, a common negotiating position because it is absolutely inconceivable that we can have really meaningful negotiations that at the end of the day with seven, eight, nine factions and especially when you start discussing issues relating to security arrangements. You cannot have in that situation maybe seven, eight, nine, ten factions or armies. I was telling some friends today that my late president of Tanzania used to say, President Nyerere used to say, in a democracy you can have and you should have a multi party democracy but you cannot have a multi army system. If you have that you have to think of how to at the end of the day you create a manageable situation for the future of Darfur and for the future of Sudan .

Question: What I want to know from you is an explanation of exactly the role of the civil society in the closed door sessions which you are about to begin because some of those I spoke to today didn't think that the structure of the mediation does clearly spell out their role seriously.

Eliasson: We take this participation very seriously. If there are those who interpret their presence here today and yesterday as symbolic it is wrong. We have a serious discussion going on with them on all the substantial issues. The substantial issues will be divided into several categories. Some issues have to be dealt with very soon and could come to decisions very soon. I think the most obvious one is the cessation of hostilities where we both want to have the unilateral declaration by the government observed but also reciprocated by the movements and we are closely in contact about that. So now the issue of security belongs to that category too, perhaps also the business of compensation. When we then move to the issues like power sharing which has to do with the governance not only of Darfur but of Sudan , you have a more complicated type of negotiations and that may sometimes lead to interim solutions. We expound on that in the article in the International Herald Tribune. Thirdly you have issues that are extremely complex that need the involvement of not only the authorities but also the civil society especially the land issues. For that we need to have a credible process. But all these issues we will discuss in our discussions starting tomorrow. The issues to be negotiated, the order in which the parties wish for them to be negotiated and who should be at the negotiation table. If you are at the negotiation table you could be a full fledged member of the negotiations team but you could also be called in in special session so that we hear the voices of those who are affected. Certainly we need to hear from civil society, preferably IDP's, Internally Displaced Persons. We hope they will also be able to come. We are in discussions with Abdul Mohamed's Darfur Darfur Dialogue preparatory committee and our own department of civil affairs group together with our team, the Joint Mediation Support Team. We are now working on this and we are using this period for discussing how they are to be involved in the negotiations process because as Salim has said several times with his Abuja experience we have to make sure that we have strong links to the people of Darfur, before the negotiations, during the negotiations and of course after the negotiations.

Salim: Let me just add one thing, my personal feeling. What was rather impressive demonstration at the meeting today was that the civil society were there and at least you had two women speaking for the civil society. I have been saying it, I used to say it in Abuja and I want to say it again, and I said it during the plenary that really there is no representation at all from the government and from the movement of women and we have asked them and we are urging them that it is really important for women to also form part of the delegations of the movements and also part of the delegation of the government because the women are the actual people who are the victims of this conflict.

And the women's contribution as you would have seen in the plenary there does give a different dimension, does help the whole process. I couldn't resist the temptation to talk about my preferred subject.

Question: You mentioned the groups in the camps what about Abdul Waheed's. I just want to know if you have reached any agreement with Abdul Waheeds group

Salim: Let me say again, Mr. Abdul Waheed is an important leader. His role is important. His presence here would have assisted a lot. That is why in our public statement or pronouncement we always insisted that he should be part of the process. Believe me all sorts of appeals have been made to him not just by the AU/UN because emissaries were sent to him but by others, the European Union, the United Nations Secretary-General himself, the President of Senegal, leaders of civil societies, I know of a group of distinguished group women who had gone to Darfur and went back to see Abdul Waheed in Paris. This group of women included Mary Robinson the former President of Ireland and former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Ngozi Iwualia who used to be the minister for Finance of Nigeria and now has been designated the Managing Director of the IMF and other prominent women. All of them went, made appeals but so far the response of our brother Abdul Waheed is a response which all you have to do you just open Al Jazeera, and I am not complaining about Aljazeera, but just open Aljazeera and you will see the response of Mr. Abdul Waheed. So I can't say more than that.

Eliasson: Can I add something which is related to the Abdul Waheed question. And that is the dialogue that goes on from our side with the Fur leaders of Darfur . We are very encouraged by the many meetings that we have had with Fur leaders in all of Darfur , in Nyala particularly and today we heard a Magdum. These discussions are very important. Also we try also to be in contact with Abdul Waheed's commanders in the field and most importantly what I wanted to stress is that we find it absolutely crucial that we also maintain contacts with the people in the camps, two million people. And we have now adapted to the fact that Abdul Waheed has categorically stated that he is not coming. But I plead with him that he allows his people in the camps to have their voices heard. We want to hear their voices. We have seen them under the most miserable conditions in 45 degrees Celsius heat, in mud conditions and children running around knowing that this is four years. What we want to do is to improve the fate of the people in the camps so that they can get back to their villages. To get compensation for the horrible things they have gone through and the losses they have made. We don't have the IDP's here now. I do not know why but we just hope that Abdul Waheed sees the importance of letting his people's voices be heard.

Can I ask you both about the relationship between this peace process and the deployment of UNAMID forces in Darfur . Do you feel that the forces … does it not put a pressure on you to get a peace deal? Do you think that the peace talks are pre conditions and if you don't get a peace deal will you recommend that force deployment be postponed or put off?

Salim: Well first I think the deployment of UNAMID is extremely crucial, with or without a peace deal. But clearly the efficiency of UNAMID can only be facilitated by a peace agreement. When there is no peace agreement, Natsio was saying yesterday, it becomes extremely difficult for the peacekeepers to fulfill their responsibilities because peacekeepers are supposed to keep the peace which is there. There must be a peace agreement for the peacekeepers to be able to fulfill their role. But as I said, we are under the pressure irrespective of what happened to UNAMID. We are under pressure to have an agreement because of the situation on the ground. We have seen this happening on the ground. We have seen the expectations of the people on the ground. We have witnessed the insecurity. The first thing people tell you is security, security, security. And clearly therefore, the rapid deployment of UNAMID will certainly help in reducing the incidences of insecurity in the place. So the only thing I can say is that the sooner the force is deployed the better it is for the people in Darfur and certainly for helping the peace process which we are undertaking.

Eliasson: Let me also add to this that we consider the peacekeeping deployment and the political talks are mutually complementing processes. The political talks are helped by now the beginning of the deployment. Hopefully that will lead soon to increased security. We need for instances monitoring for the cessation of hostilities. We need more police in the camps and so forth. This is good for the talks. On the other hand for the peacekeepers as we often have said for peacekeeping to be relevant and effective you have to have a peace to keep so there is a hope for the process leading to lasting solutions So when the Secretary-General took the decision to not to delay the talks after our recommendations this was exactly what he said to me: “Stay the course because to have these two processes in parallel is again mutually reinforcing.”

Question: (inaudible)

Eliasson: Maybe I did not put it as clearly as I would have liked to. We are not in any way suspending the talks. We have just finalised the plenary session. Consultations will start tomorrow and will continue about the issues on the agenda. We will be in contact with those who are not here. We will allow time for them to meet here in Sirte. But also those who are outside will also need time to finalise their positions. After that period, we will start the substantial negotiations.

The peace-process is underway, the preparation of the positions is taking place, and the substantial negotiations will start on these particular issues which I have just mentioned: wealth-sharing, power-sharing …etc.

We hope, of course, that the parties realize that we need to have momentum in this process.

Question: Do you actually know when the actual negotiations will begin?

Salim: No, we don't because it is a process. The consultations that will start tomorrow are not only procedural. We are going to discuss with the parties that are here to try and find out their own assessment and their own prescription on how the negotiations should go on. That is quite important in the whole procedure.

As far as the substantial negotiations are concerned, this will depend on a number of things: the preparedness of the parties to start negotiations and it will depend also on the different issues to be discussed.

You see, these negotiations will involve issues like security, power-sharing, wealth-sharing, land, the question of compensations, and the issue of social and economic development.

It was very encouraging to hear from many representatives of the partners and international community in their presentations, yesterday and today, their preparedness to be helpful and to contribute to the social and economic transformation of the place.

The date of when the actual negotiations will begin will have to be determined on the basis of the evaluation. But the process leading to negotiations has begun. That's why we say the Sirte process is a process that we hope will not take too long, but it is not a process that will be over in a week or two, especially when we take into account the complexity of the issues, the differences, and the whole question of building a climate of confidence. If we succeed in creating that kind of climate, this will definitely help when the actual negotiations actually start.

Eliasson: I have dealt with many mediations in the past and sometimes there is an exaggeration of what the mediator's role is. In the end, in conflicts of this nature, it is up to the parties to take the key decisions. I have often said that a mediator is, like a person who brings the horses to the water-hole – and it is a very big job to bring them there, provided all horses are there – I shouldn't say that I suppose - but to force the horses to drink, have you tried that..? We have to know that they have this willingness … that there is a real political will to move. Here is where there is a big problem.

We have been going around this area for 10 months – from Omraya in Northern Darfur to the villages near the Chad side of the boarder - seeing people in Assmara, in Trpoli, in Kampala ….

But they need time to solidify their positions. We understand and support that, but we felt that by starting this effort now, we may indeed have more momentum with this process.

Question: I was in Khartoum when you said then that that was the start of the consultations phase; lots of discussions with the rebels to allow them to carry out the consensus building and get their act together in advance to the talks. This was obviously supposed to be in the next phase, the talks, so why are you now trying to resell this to be the start of the consultations?

Eliasson: On the positive side, after the beginning of the ordeal, where you were present in the beginning, we had a long journey to bring them (the movements) together in Arusha, where they presented a common platform between the 3 rd and 6 th of August.

Four days earlier, the Security Council produced Resolution 1769, with the decision to have a substantial increase (of peacekeeping presence) on the ground. This was one of the factors behind the decisions of Mr. Ban Ki-moon and Mr. Konare to set the date as the 27 th of October and, after some consultations, decided on Sirte.

These are the positive stepping-stones that we have.

The negative side, which also creates a new environment, is the deterioration on the ground. The growing frustration in the camps … I saw 500 people in Kalma camp in June, I could probable not even go there now. We have the Haskanita tragedy. We have the fighting … and those new constellations going on all the time. We have the divisions, not only inside SLM, but also now inside JEM, which did not exist, even in Arusha. So, we had to stop this trend. No, we have at the same place, facing each other, the government of Sudan and ……….

Reporter: Why don't you just accept that your attempt to start the talks has failed?

Eliasson: We have them here in this room … we have them in this place. We have established the process of the peace process.

Salim: I thought you were asking the questions and we were giving the answers. But you keep providing the answers to yourself.

Let me say this … what we were doing when we were in Khartoum , it was a pre-phase negotiation. We were dealing with how to bring these people together. We never discussed the substantive issues. We never sat down with the government of Sudan or with the movements to say: what is your view on power-sharing; what is your view on wealth-sharing; what is your view on security arrangements. All what we are doing at this point in time is to make sure we create conditions for the meetings to take place.

Now here it is a different ball game. We are talking in terms of the issues. Who will be consulted when we talk about consultations on the issues and how do they see these issues being brought about? Whether we discuss the question of power-sharing, for example, what is their perspective on power-sharing and so on. So these are two different phases.

From our perspective, first, you have to appreciate that this is one of the most difficult negotiations you can think of. As Jan says, he has a lot of experience in negotiations. I have also dealt with negotiations. I dealt with Rwanda , I dealt with Burundi , with Liberia … Let me tell you, these are very complicated negotiations, for the simple reason, they have so many factions involved. Today you discussed with this faction, tomorrow, another faction is coming to you. You cannot ignore anybody.

Eliasson: I often ask myself why this was so difficult. I came exactly to that conclusion, which Salem has just mentioned, that it has to fit at so many levels; it has to be right on different circles. You have to be right on the Security Council circle; it was certainly not right when the atrocities occurred 2003-2005. The Resolution 1769 shows a more positive trend in the Security Council level. Then you have the regional level where the regional actors in the past - even the past year – did not pull in the same direction. We have worked very hard to bring in the regional actors and if they are now working side by side with us we have now succeeded to bring, I think, seven of the eight together in Arusha with the help of Chad , Libya , Arusha and Egypt . Then it has to be political will on the side of the government of Sudan and the government that can go to these negotiations and recognize that

Question: We heard that the framework of the discussion is flexible, do you think that the place where they take place is part of this flexibility? Do you imagine that in the next weeks, or the next phase of the discussions they may take place in another town … in another country?

And the other question, don't you think there would be a risk to carry on this weak situation the risk of increasing the divisions in the movements between those who are sitting here and those who are elsewhere?

Salim: First, as far as risk or further division I do not see that risk because frankly those who are here some of them came from Juba so there is a connection between those who are here and those who are in Juba . And secondly, we do intend seriously to engage the ones who are not here so that we can be in a position to help the entire movements engage in the process.

I forgot the first question …

To the best of our knowledge these talks will continue here and I really need to give a better answer than this. When we were consulting with the movements, I should say in fairness with the exception of one that was not there, we asked for their views about the date, timing, and bout the venue …. First, their response was as far as the time is concerned, should not be less than two months … between two and three months. We have literally lived with that request. Secondly, as far as the venue is concerned, it was the movements in their joint position who said to us we want these talks to take place, preferably in a regional country. And by regional country I mean either Eritrea or Chad , Egypt or Libya . So, really, this is not something that is simply arbitrary. When Ban Ki-moon and Konare decided to have the talks here they took into account this particular background. This is why we call it the Sirte process. They believe the Sirte process will proceed as the Sirte process.

Question: After a long period of contacts and negotiations and now that some movements are absent which are fundamental movements, how do evaluate thee two days of this meeting? Do these two days give you hope to achieve peace on the ground in the context of this atmosphere?

Eliasson: We have the beginning of a credible political process. I can't repeat more that we would have liked to see a full house, no doubt. We have the beginning of the process. We were encouraged by the level of the discussions … the level of attendance …. We have very strong support on the ministerial level of the regional countries, the partners we have just mentioned; Eritrea , Libya , Chad and Egypt .

But also the international community which was here in its strength, I would say. That showed that the message by the United Nations Security Council, last Wednesday, was as serious message … strong support of a political process; strong support of cessation of hostilities and also sending words of warning about not participating in this process. So, all in all, this is the beginning of a credible process and it will continue. And I hope that it will gain more momentum. And that is what we are doing now.

Here, in Sirte, the talks are sending a message to other places in the region, both in Darfur and in different parts of Sudan , that the talks will continue. And then of course we hope that substantial negotiations will start within a reasonable period.

Question: Don't you believe the conflicting perspectives and interests in regards to Darfur on the part of the principal regional and international partners; the US , the AU, France … may obstruct the effort to reach a solution to the conflict?

Don't you agree that there is an insufficient level of coordination between the AU UN, the Quadruple Initiative, then there is the Security Council, the international community … the AU …

Salim: Clearly, from our perspective, we are very much encouraged by the existing coordination; we are encouraged by the seriousness … we have reached the international community …. If you saw, for example, the proceedings ….

The participation of the foreign ministers of all the regional countries. There are also two distinguished ministers from Europe; from the Netherlands and from France . And the special envoys, who have come here and who have been here with us and with whom we have had also consultations with. Of course, in international politics, the reality is that you cannot have a total conversion of everything. You cannot have everything. People may have different perspectives on things. But I really think there is an increasing determination on the part of the community to stick with one voice and I think yesterday that voice came out loud and clear. The determination of supporting the process … Some of them went farther and said this is the unique process, this is the last chance … it came from some of the partners who clearly understand the need to treat this matter with a sense of urgency. I think we have achieved that cooperation. But there is always room for more. There is always room, for example, for the international community. .. the international community must do what it says and says what it does, so, there is no conflict in what people commit themselves and what people do. But this is one process … this is one conflict, which has seen the convergence of position of the international community talking together and supporting. The United States on one hand, and China , on the other hand, more or less speaking the same language in terms of the urgency of the process and the need to support. I think you can make the necessary deduction that there is a general consensus on the part of the international community and we need as Special Envoys to capitalize on that. But also brothers and sisters in Darfur need to capitalize on this. When there is such an intention on the part of the international community, when such an expression of concern … it is so important to capitalize on it because when you do so, peace will have its own dividence.

Let's look at what is going on in Somalia . There was a time when in Somalia there was so much attention, focus and so on. Then there was a time when you mentioned Somalia , people did not want to hear about it. I speak from experience. When I was Secretary General for the OAU, and in the aftermath of the experience in Somalia ; when I went to the United States , you can speak with American officials, senators, congressmen about anything, but do not talk about Somalia . They would say we do not want to hear about Somalia .

It is important for people to capitalize on a situation. We must not reach a stage when people say we do not want to hear about Darfur . That, we must not reach that stage.

Eliasson: I have another reflection also on the manner of mediation, when I look at them, we have practically always been negotiating with the parties who have taken up arms. It is even to some a bit ironic. You talk about creating conditions of peace, you practically always talk with those who are taking up arms. We were met with some reluctance among the movements … and you have been asking, searching, probing questions about that. But I can tell you the warmth and enthusiasm by which we were met by civil society when we offered them to be part of this process was striking. They wanted to come here. They actually crowded the plane. They were about to leave. They had difficulties of different nature … All of them were planning to come…. We had thirteen in Sirte out of twenty five. We hope that the others would come in. They want to be here. The faces of Darfur you saw today, it is not fully representative. I miss the internally displaced people and the refugees. But it is an interesting thing to look at the difference of interests and will and lack of pre-conditions, when you invite those who will actually raise the kids, get the jobs, go to schools and build the peace.