[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5922-S5923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 SUDAN

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I try to come to the floor each week to 
address the issue of the ongoing genocide in Darfur. I am troubled that 
so much time has passed and so little has been done. When a great 
nation such as the United States declares a genocide in some part of 
the world, I think we have a moral responsibility to do something.
  Imagine, transport yourself back in time to the genocides that have 
occurred in the past. Imagine a declaration by the United States of a 
genocide involving Jewish people and others during the Holocaust of 
World War II. Imagine that we had recognized that was going on and 
announced that our Government knew it was going on and ask yourself, if 
we had done nothing at that point, having made the announcement, what 
it says about the United States.
  President Bush and his administration have done the right thing in 
declaring a genocide in Darfur. The President, a few weeks ago, gave a 
speech in which he said we have to go beyond this declaration to do 
something. Yet it has not happened.
  I want to give the President and the Secretary General of the United 
Nations adequate time to respond in a way that will save lives, but as 
we wait and negotiate and think about it, people suffer. Millions 
remain displaced, unable to return home. Humanitarian assistance coming 
into Darfur continues to hang by a thread. It could be snapped at any 
moment by escalating violence or chaos in the region.
  There were several developments this past week that reflect the 
turmoil and complexity of the Darfur situation.
  The shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway, in Omaha, NE, at their annual 
meeting, rejected a proposal that would have required this giant 
investment firm to sell its investment in PetroChina, the large oil 
company in the Sudan owned by the Chinese. PetroChina is a subsidiary 
of a Chinese Government firm known as the China National Petroleum 
Corporation. It is the largest company operating in the Sudan, drilling 
and exporting much of China's oil. Berkshire Hathaway is the largest 
independent shareholder in PetroChina in America.
  The second development was the release of a new report by Amnesty 
International detailing the transfer of arms to the Sudanese 
Government. Many of these arms have been supplied by Russia and China.
  Another thing happened this week: China announced that it was sending 
a unit of military engineers to assist the African Union peacekeeping 
mission in Darfur.
  I would like to speak for a moment about these three developments.
  First, the vote at Berkshire Hathaway was a disappointment. Warren 
Buffett is my friend. I respect him very much. I think he is one of the 
nicest people I have ever met and is certainly one of America's great 
business leaders. I used to look forward, when I owned one share of his 
class B stock, to his annual report. I thought it was probably the most 
honest analysis of business and business decisions that one could read 
in the course of a year in America. I had hoped, when the shareholders 
came together in Omaha, they would decide to make an issue of this 
ownership of PetroChina.
  The Los Angeles Times, last Friday, detailed how Berkshire's 
investments in PetroChina are particularly challenging for the Gates 
Foundation. Berkshire chairman, Warren Buffett, has pledged $31 
billion--that is $31 billion--worth of Berkshire stock as a donation to 
the Gates Foundation. That is an amazingly generous donation to an 
organization that is doing life-changing work for the world's poor and 
suffering.
  According to the L.A. Times, in its own investments, the Gates 
Foundation also currently holds about $22 million in firms operating in 
Sudan that benefit the Sudanese Government.
  A Gates Foundation spokesperson stated that:

       Bill and Melinda [Gates] have initiated a process to assess 
     the asset trust investments in Sudan.

  These numbers really illustrate the complexities of this situation, 
when even mammoth foundations that do enormous good work across the 
world have to take an honest look at their own investments. I believe 
each of us should do the same. It is not an easy process. Subsidiaries 
may be hidden from open view, and it is difficult to know what exactly 
lies beneath the mutual fund statements we might receive.
  My mutual fund statements certainly have far fewer pages than Mr. 
Buffett's or Mr. Gates'. I have still wrestled with how to ensure that 
my investments do not include funds related in some way to companies 
operating in Sudan. I am trying to make this process honest but easier 
for all Americans.
  The second development I mentioned that took place this week was the 
release of a new report by Amnesty International. The report states:

       [In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available] 
     Sudan imported $24 million worth of arms and ammunition from 
     the People's Republic of China, as well as nearly $57 million 
     worth of parts and aircraft equipment and $2 million worth of 
     parts of helicopters and airplanes from China. . . . During a 
     meeting in Beijing, the Defense Minister of China reportedly 
     told Sudan's joint chief of staff that military relations had 
     been ``developing smoothly'' and said: ``[We] are willing to 
     further develop military co-operation between our two 
     countries in all areas.'' . . . [A Chinese company] recently 
     delivered six K-8 military training/attack aircraft to the 
     Sudanese Air Force and a further six will follow soon, 
     according to a military magazine. . . . Amnesty International 
     is concerned that the Sudan Air Force . . . is highly likely 
     to use these newly acquired jets, as it has other aircraft . 
     . . for indiscriminate attacks in Darfur in violation of the 
     UN arms embargo and international humanitarian law.

  This report from Amnesty International details the ways in which the 
Sudanese Government violates the United Nations' arms embargo and 
disguises some of its military operations in Darfur. It offers a number 
of recommendations to close loopholes in the arms embargo and to better 
monitor the flow of goods into Sudan. The report also calls on all 
states to immediately suspend the transfer of all weapons, ammunition, 
and military equipment and ``dual use'' equipment likely to be used in 
the commission of human rights violations in Darfur. The report 
concludes that a global arms trade treaty is needed to prevent the flow 
of arms from fueling such catastrophic conflicts in the future.

  We must see what we can do to prevent future disasters like the one 
playing out in Darfur.
  Finally, I would like to mention the third development of the week. 
The Chinese Foreign Ministry announced to the press and in a letter to 
Members of Congress that it was sending a unit of military engineers to 
participate in the peacekeeping operation in Darfur and assist the 
African Union. This unit is expected to number perhaps 300 engineers. 
It is a welcome gesture.
  China has taken other positive steps as well, such as helping to 
convince Khartoum to agree to the deployment of 3,000 U.S. 
peacekeepers.
  Those steps must be juxtaposed, however, against some realities: 
China helping Sudanese President Bashir build a new Presidential 
palace; against China investing billions of dollars in the Sudanese oil 
industry; against China reportedly transferring arms to Sudan and 
seeking expanded military cooperation; and against China's opposition 
to sanctions against Sudan.
  The international community has to do more to stop the killing in 
Darfur. China has to do more, and so do we as American individuals and 
as a nation.
  On April 18, President Bush stated in his speech at the Holocaust 
Museum that Sudan had a short time to end its obstructions and accept a 
full-scale peacekeeping mission or face serious consequences. I 
applauded that statement.
  I have spoken to the President personally about this statement, and I 
told him I believe those words were important for the world to hear. I 
understand President Bush did not impose a new sanction on that day 
because he wanted to give the Secretary General

[[Page S5923]]

of the United Nations several weeks to seek a diplomatic solution.
  A short period of time is coming to a close. I am ready to work with 
the President and my colleagues in Congress to find new tools to bring 
to bear in order to stop the violence in Darfur.
  Along with several colleagues, I am preparing to introduce 
legislation to provide some of those additional tools in this effort.
  The most effective policy instruments will be multilateral, meaning 
many nations involved in achieving this goal. But in the meantime, the 
United States must act. We cannot let more months pass while people 
continue to suffer.
  I hope by next week the President of the United States will have 
reached a conclusion that the Secretary General has had his 
opportunity, that the United Nations may not be able to broker some 
diplomatic resolution. I hope at that time the President of the United 
States--and I will urge him to--will make a decision that we should 
step out in terms of sanctions against the Sudanese Government.
  What is at stake? Two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand 
innocent people who were killed--men, women, and children whose 
villages were destroyed, whose homes were destroyed, children were 
killed, terrible atrocities against humanity. Over 2 million people 
were displaced, forced to trudge across the desert to try to stay alive 
to make it to a refugee camp. Why? Because the Government of their 
country in Sudan has, frankly, ignored the obvious, that the jingaweit 
militia and other forces are killing their own people. That is clearly 
genocide, and it is a situation we can no longer tolerate.
  I hope we can find bipartisan support for decisive action. I hope we 
can say to the Chinese: Yes, we applaud your sending 300 engineers into 
this region that is as large as the State of Texas. Yes, we applaud the 
public statements you have made encouraging the Sudanese to accept the 
U.N. peacekeeping force. But the Chinese can and must do more.
  China is the biggest customer in the world for Sudanese oil. If the 
Chinese make it clear they are not going to continue their relationship 
with Sudan unless something is done to end this genocide, it can make a 
big difference. I think it is important they do these things. 
Certainly, to condemn violence on one hand and then sell the arms and 
ammunition to the Sudanese that is being used against their own people 
is duplicitous. It is not consistent. The Chinese should think long and 
hard about whether they can serve both roles and try to convince the 
world they are doing something meaningful.
  In the meantime, I think we need a divestment strategy. I think it is 
time for the United States, first, to change the law so State and local 
governments can make decisions to divest in mutual funds, in investment 
funds that relate to companies doing business in Sudan. Right now the 
courts have stopped that kind of divestment. We can change that law, 
and I have pending legislation to do that. We need to have our own 
policy in this country to put pressure on the Sudanese to accept the 
U.N. peacekeepers--not American soldiers but U.N. peacekeepers--who 
will come to the rescue of these poor people who are suffering in 
Darfur. This is a situation which calls on the United States to keep 
its word. When the President announced the genocide in Darfur, he 
reminded us of what happened in Rwanda. Under the previous 
administration in Rwanda, the genocide occurred which claimed as many 
as 800,000 innocent lives. The administration at that time, under 
President Clinton, was warned and took no action, would not declare a 
genocide. As a consequence, the massacre occurred. We know it could 
have been averted with very few soldiers, maybe even as few as 5,000 
soldiers. Supplementing the U.N. peacekeeping force could have saved 
800,000 lives. It is unimaginable that we did not respond, or at least 
help others to respond.

  President Clinton, reflecting on this, has said it is one of the real 
disappointments and failures in foreign policy during the terms he 
served as President. Let's not repeat that mistake.
  I have urged President Bush, with a year and a half left of his term, 
and so many other things that he has to consider, to remember a promise 
he made when he announced the genocide in Darfur. He said: Not on my 
watch.
  Well, Mr. President, your watch is drawing to a close, and you have a 
chance, you have the power, unlike any other person in the world, to 
make a difference in Darfur. If the Secretary General of the United 
Nations will not respond in a timely way, we must respond. Some may 
argue it might fail. Maybe we won't succeed, but at least we will have 
tried.
  I always think, when we come to these discussions about this kind of 
challenge, about one of my favorite movies: ``Schindler's List.'' At 
the end of ``Schindler's List,'' Oskar Schindler, if you will remember, 
was a businessman who started off with the goal of making money and 
then decided that he had a bigger goal in life, and that was to save as 
many Jewish people as he could by declaring that they were workers and 
employees in his plant. He managed to save so many lives.
  At the end of the movie there was this graphic scene where the 
workers--the war was over and the workers were finally free, and they 
wanted to show their gratitude to Mr. Schindler. So they asked the 
workers to give up the gold fillings in their teeth, and they knocked 
out the gold fillings in their teeth and melted it into a ring that 
they gave him as a gift for saving their lives.
  There was this touching scene at the end of the movie where Liam 
Neeson, who was playing the role of Oskar Schindler, was standing by 
this car about to leave the factory, and they presented him with this 
ring. He broke down, and his words are unforgettable. He said: I should 
have done more. I should have done more.
  I think about that in the context of Darfur. When it is all over, and 
history is written, I don't want to have to stand here and ask any 
Senator to say: I should have done more. We need to do something, and 
we need to do it now. If it is not successful in ending the genocide in 
Darfur, at least we can say we have given it our best effort. But today 
we can't say that. We haven't done nearly as much as we should or could 
do to help these suffering people.
  When history is written, it will perhaps applaud our declaration of 
genocide, but there won't be much applause for the little action that 
has followed. It is not too late.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________