[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9620-S9622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 DARFUR

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple minutes talking 
about Darfur as well. I know my colleague from Kansas addressed this 
issue. I know my colleague, Senator Durbin, as well, has been working 
on this issue for a long time. Many of us have been watching this 
situation. Senator Barack Obama, I know, cares about this issue. And 
many members of the Foreign Relations Committee have talked about it. 
We heard Senator Boxer, a moment ago, talk about her deep concern.
  There is a tremendous amount of interest about what is happening and 
great concern. It is the moral responsibility of nations around the 
globe to help end the genocide in Darfur.
  Even as we speak here this afternoon, in the closing days of this 
week's work, we are moving backwards in Sudan. Earlier this week, U.N. 
Secretary General Kofi Annan sounded the warning that Darfur is about 
to enter a new phase of needless bloodshed and suffering on a 
catastrophic scale. I do not think we ought to let this happen. It is 
not just our responsibility but certainly the United States should and 
can take a leadership role here in marshaling the forces to stop the 
events as they unfold to these poor, poor people who are caught in this 
dreadful situation.
  The blame lies squarely, of course, first and foremost, with the 
Sudanese Government's intransigence and murderous Darfur policy. Since 
February of 2003, when rebel groups attacked government outposts, the 
Sudanese Government has used the janjaweed militia to systematically 
decimate tribal groups of African descent in Darfur.
  The warfare has exacted a tragic toll. Men, women, and children have 
been slaughtered in front of their families. Women and girls are 
regularly raped. Entire villages are routinely destroyed and property 
looted by marauding militias.
  Estimates suggest that the conflict in Darfur has killed as many as 
300,000 people and driven 2.5 million people out of their homes. The 
United States has rightly labeled the Sudanese Government's actions 
``genocide.''
  I remember, with great clarity, former Secretary of State Colin 
Powell appearing before a Senate committee on which I served calling 
the actions in Darfur genocide, loudly and clearly. And I commend him 
for it. He was one of the earliest voices to do so. We know what the 
word ``genocide'' means and its full ramifications.
  Yet there was a glimmer of hope for the violence to end in May of 
this year with the conclusion of a peace agreement brokered in large 
part by the United States. The agreement called for a cessation of 
hostilities between the Sudanese Government and one of three major 
rebel groups in Darfur.
  But it is time to face the facts in Darfur. The peace is over. In 
fact, it never really had a chance. Hostilities between the government 
and the other two rebel groups never ended and are

[[Page S9621]]

heating up again fast in that part of the world. Thousands of Sudanese 
troops are massing for a fresh offensive against rebel groups. The 
International Rescue Committee has noted an upswing in sexual violence 
around refugee camps.
  Meanwhile, from the very beginning, the Sudanese Government has 
thrown up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle in the path of the 
African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur.
  A New York Times report earlier this week describes these obstacles 
and the mission's lack of funding and authority in Darfur. A telling 
example is that every evening, the African Union soldiers have to turn 
over control of the main military airstrip in Darfur to government 
troops. These troops steal jet fuel from the mission and use the strip 
to launch attack helicopters while the African Union troops stand by 
helplessly. Sudanese officials have also managed to reduce the 
mission's already limited patrols and humanitarian efforts in Darfur.
  The mission's courageous yet failing efforts to maintain the peace 
led the United Nations to issue Security Council Resolution 1706 on 
August 31 of this year. This resolution calls for the deployment of a 
more robust, 20,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force.
  Yet precisely because such a U.N. force would have teeth, Sudan's 
President has rejected it on the grounds of sovereignty. This is a 
flimsy excuse. There are nearly 10,000 U.N. troops stationed in 
southern Sudan to maintain a separate peace agreement. And now the 
Sudanese Government has asked African Union troops to leave by 
September 30--a few short days from today--when the mission's mandate 
expires, unless they are able to raise additional funds.
  It is all too clear that the Sudanese Government is not interested in 
peace in Darfur. And why should it be? Sudan has friends like Russia 
and China who place a far greater premium in their commercial interests 
in the Sudan rather than on their responsibility to stop this genocide. 
In 2005, China purchased more than half of Sudan's oil exports, and is 
one of its largest suppliers of arms. Both countries, Russia and China, 
abstained in the most recent vote on deploying U.N. troops. They 
continued to give political cover to the Sudanese Government.
  Yet it is also clear that the United States and the international 
community have a responsibility to protect and prevent genocide in 
Darfur. The world's heads of state affirmed this precise commitment 
last September as part of the Outcome Document of the High-level 
Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The document 
calls on the international community to protect people from ``genocide, 
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity'' on a case-
by-case basis should their own governments fail to do so.
  What could be more clear? What could be more precise? What could be 
more important for us to respond to?
  The case for Darfur is painfully clear. And yet a year after making 
this commitment, we and the rest of the international community are 
already on the verge of reneging on it. Our ability to act remains 
hostage to a government that continues to perpetrate terrible crimes on 
its own people.
  Yet instead of tightening the screws on this government, our 
administration, the administration here in the United States, 
unfortunately, is not doing what it ought to be doing. We are dangling 
the incentives of talks with President Bush before the Sudanese 
President in exchange for his accepting a U.N. force. It is almost 
unbelievable.
  The administration refuses to talk directly to Iran and North Korea 
about their nuclear programs. And yet here it is bandying Presidential 
talks with the head of a regime that our own Government has declared 
guilty of genocide.
  This is typical, unfortunately, of the administration's bumbling 
approach to diplomacy. It simply does not know when to talk and when to 
brandish the stick. Clearly, the stick is necessary here. Days and 
hours stand between us and an incredible mass of genocide.
  The fact is, we need to take a harder approach on Sudan. So what can 
we do from here on? How do we ratchet up the pressure on the Sudanese 
Government and get it to stop?
  First, I think the United States needs to expedite the appointment of 
a special envoy to Darfur.
  Let me add, by the way, Senator Brownback mentioned Bob Zoellick. He 
did a fantastic job, by the way, but he is out of government now. He is 
in the private sector. Unfortunately, we do not have a Bob Zoellick 
within the administration right now who understands it and cared about 
this issue to the extent he did. But I believe there are people who 
could be asked to perform this appointment of a special envoy from the 
United States. That might be enough in the short term, to begin to put 
the brakes on.
  I recently joined colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush 
calling for his immediate attention. With the departure of Deputy 
Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who played a very important role in 
negotiating the May peace agreement, a vacuum has emerged that needs to 
be immediately filled to ensure a coordinated, focused, and effective 
policy.
  Our Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs was made to wait 
3 days--3 days--before meeting with Sudan's President, only to hear him 
reject the U.N. force. This special envoy must be someone of greater 
stature and seniority who can command an audience and forcefully convey 
a message. Moreover, the envoy and President Bush himself must, in 
concert with our allies, publicly reject Sudan's demand that African 
Union troops leave and insist on the deployment of U.N. forces.
  Secondly, the United States needs to convince states like China and 
Russia and the Arab League to apply pressure on the Sudanese Government 
to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force. Unless Sudan feels the heat from 
its business partners and friends, my fear is they will not budge.
  Thirdly, the United States needs to ensure that the United Nations 
moves forward with deploying a peacekeeping force. Should Sudan 
continue to put up a wall, then I think we must implement a tight 
sanctions regime against the Sudanese Government, rebel forces, and 
others responsible for the atrocities that are being committed there.
  We must also consider deploying troops regardless of Sudanese 
consent. For many this may raise a red flag, but, again, it is an 
international commitment and a moral obligation agreed to under U.N. 
auspices.
  Should the U.N. fail to rapidly muster the requisite troops, I 
believe we ought to deploy an interim NATO force with U.S. 
participation to Darfur. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already 
provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce 
a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 
1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur.
  U.S. participation, even in a limited capacity, is critical to 
showing the world that the U.S. is not just about fighting terrorism 
when it serves our interests but also about fighting injustice, 
terrorism and mass murder when it affects others far away from us; that 
the U.S. will fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and 
life, and not just lecture others about them.
  Fourth, despite this administration's absurd rejection of 
International Criminal Court, the ICC can and must play a critical role 
in bringing to justice those responsible for committing genocide in 
Sudan. Last March, Darfur became the first-ever case to be referred by 
the U.N. Security Council to the International Criminal Court for 
investigation.
  The U.S. unconscionably abstained on this vote. My country abstained. 
When it comes to conducting an investigation of the Sudanese Government 
for what our own Secretary of State has called genocide, we abstained.
  And we wonder why public opinion of the United States around the 
world is dipping. One reason is because the administration talks the 
talk but does not walk the walk when it comes to upholding our Nation's 
principles. From military tribunals that don't allow due process of law 
to warrantless surveillance, the administration simply thinks it is 
above domestic and international law. Its doublespeak continues to 
squander our country's political and moral authority. The U.S. needs to 
lend its full support to the ICC's efforts to bring to justice those 
found guilty of genocide in Sudan.
  Mr. President, 12 years after Rwanda--and I am glad my colleague from 
California raised Rwanda, and Senator

[[Page S9622]]

Brownback has as well, along with others in this body--we remain 
haunted by the massacre which occurred. Former President Bill Clinton 
publicly expressed his deepest regret at the U.S. and the international 
community's collective inaction to stop the killings in Rwanda. Twelve 
years from now, none of us in this body or the administration want to 
be forcing the same regrets about Darfur.
  Yet, if we fail that--and it is not a matter of weeks or months, it 
is a matter of hours--then the very kinds of genocidal mass murder that 
occurred in Rwanda will continue to occur in Darfur and grow worse.
  Sudan has been wracked by four decades of violence and instability. 
The scars of that war cut deep throughout their country. Currently, it 
is experiencing what the U.N. has described as the world's greatest 
humanitarian crisis. We stood by during Rwanda. We cannot stand by this 
time. We must not let history repeat itself. We must act. The 
international community has a responsibility to protect and the U.S. 
must lead by example. Let us not fail this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut 
for that extremely eloquent, passionate, and urgent message to the 
administration about what needs to be done in Darfur. I could not agree 
more. I have come to the floor on other occasions to speak on the same 
issue. We know that thousands--in fact, 2 million people--find 
themselves in camps with no place to call home, in a situation that is 
absolutely outrageous.
  So I thank my colleague for coming to the floor and speaking on this 
important subject. I am very hopeful that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle who have spoken to this will find that their words are 
heeded by the administration and they will act urgently to save lives 
and stop the genocide.

                          ____________________