[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 157 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10768-S10769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SUDAN POLICY

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to draw the attention of the 
body today to a policy initiative that was put forward by the Obama 
administration last week. It is on a topic a lot of people have been 
involved in for a long period of time. It involves Sudan, Darfur, and 
the genocide taking place in Sudan. It now involves new policy steps 
the administration is proposing to take to build a relationship and 
overtures to the Sudanese Government.
  This is engagement to the extreme because President Bashir of Sudan 
is an indicted war criminal whose government is conducting a genocide, 
as declared by the Congress of the United States and the 
administration. For the first time in the history of America, we would 
be engaging an individual who is both an indicted war criminal, being 
pursued by the International Criminal Court, and also who has conducted 
a genocide in Darfur. We are talking about: OK. We need to start maybe 
engaging, and now there have been visas issued to top members of 
President Bashir's inner circle to come into the United States and 
discussion of a carrot-and-stick approach to Sudan, when he is running 
a genocide in Darfur and is an indicted war criminal. This is atrocious 
on its face. It is engagement to the extreme. It is wrong, and it would 
be harmful to long-term U.S. interests.
  What happens the next time an individual is involved in genocide? Do 
we say: If you start behaving a little less worse on your genocide, we 
will start to give you some carrots to help you out. What about the 
next indicted war criminal, do we say: If you are a little less bad, if 
you only kill 500 a day instead of 1,000, we are going to start 
offering you carrots instead of sticks in

[[Page S10769]]

this approach. This undermines the moral authority of the United 
States. It is the wrong thing to do.

  I wish to give a couple historical examples.
  Toward the end of World War II, Heinrich Himmler, who was No. 2 in 
charge--but after Hitler committed suicide was No. 1 in charge--of Nazi 
Germany reached out to the Allied commander, General Eisenhower, and 
wanted to start negotiating with him: If he could be allowed to live, 
they might negotiate some sort of settlement. Eisenhower completely 
ignored it and treated him like the war criminal he was. Can you 
imagine if we would have started negotiating with Himmler at that time?
  Let me give some more recent examples. What about Serbian leader 
Karadzic, the so-called ``Butcher of Bosnia,'' accused of slaughtering 
hundreds of thousands of innocent people? The State Department did not 
say: If you are a little less bad and don't kill quite as many people, 
we will start negotiating with you. They didn't say that. They put a $5 
million reward out to anybody who gave us information leading to his 
capture, and he currently resides in a prison in The Hague.
  What about Charles Taylor, the ``Butcher of Liberia,'' who ran on an 
election slogan--listen to this: ``He killed my pa, he killed my ma, 
but I will vote for him.'' That was his election slogan. Taylor was 
directly involved in coordinating and supporting unthinkable atrocities 
over many years and, after ceding power, was indicted for war crimes 
and crimes against humanity.
  Here is an indicted war criminal. Did we say to him: OK. Mr. Taylor, 
if you start not killing as many people, we will negotiate with you? Of 
course not. What the Congress did was offered and passed legislation 
giving a $2 million reward for Taylor's capture, and he now sits in a 
prison in The Hague.
  It would be unthinkable for us, in those circumstances, to say: OK. 
We will start negotiating with these indicted war criminals, butchers 
of their own people, and we are going to start working with you because 
you are going to act a little less bad. Yet that is what we are talking 
about with President Bashir, an indicted war criminal, conducting a 
genocide in Darfur that we have declared.
  We have had hundreds of thousands of people across America going to 
rallies to save Darfur, and now we are talking about a carrot-and-stick 
approach with him?
  I say no. I say we cannot do this, and if we do this in this 
circumstance, what about future genocidal regimes? What about future 
indicted war criminals? Is there any standard upon which the United 
States can or will stand at those points in time or could we, at that 
point in time, if we do this in this particular case?
  I am all for getting some form of movement on the north-south 
agreement so the south can vote next year and will probably vote to 
secede and form its own country in the south. I think that is prudent 
and wise, after many years of civil war and the negotiations that took 
place to get a north-south agreement. But I do not at all think you can 
trade that for us negotiating with this indicted war criminal.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this effort on behalf of the 
administration to engage a genocidal regime in Khartoum.
  I appreciate my colleagues' attention. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?

                          ____________________