[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    COMPREHENSIVE PEACE IN SUDAN ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 6, 2004

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, since February 2003, over 50,000 deaths have 
occurred during the conflict in Darfur. The execution of civilians, 
mass rapes, and the raiding and burning of villages which characterize 
this conflict have resulted in massive displacement to areas that 
cannot provide vital sustenance. Of the 1.65 million people that have 
been displaced, over 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad with 
projections that more lives may now be jeopardized by hunger, disease 
and inadequate shelter than by bullets and clubs.
  The President, Secretary of State and Congress, all have formally 
declared that the tragedy underway in Darfur is genocide. Such deeds 
can't be considered in the abstract or simply ignored; nor can the 
legal responsibilities of the U.S. be ducked. Under the Genocide 
Convention of 1951, to which the U.S. is a party, we have a legal as 
well as a moral obligation to act.
  In contemplating actions, we would be wise to review our failed 
policies in the 1990s in East Africa. In Somalia, the initial decision 
to use U.S. armed forces to intervene for humanitarian purposes began 
as a justifiable, perhaps even noble, exercise of American power. But 
the chaos associated with an on-going civil war frustrated our ability 
to provide sustainable support, causing us to choose sides in a 
conflict for which we had inadequate intelligence and no clear tactical 
plan. The trauma of becoming engaged in a civil war not of our choosing 
or clear understanding led to a decision to disengage and a subsequent 
reluctance to re-engage in East Africa when a neighboring country, 
Rwanda, became gripped several years later by genocidal forces. Lack of 
strategic clarity embarrased Washington in the first instance. Lack of 
confidence hamstrung decision-makers in the second. Consequently, the 
world witnessed avoidable tragedies: the massacres of hundreds of 
thousands of innocents.
  The challenge today in Sudan is to accept an obligation to act on the 
diplomatic and humanitarian front without becoming militarily engaged. 
The killing and displacement must be stopped, but little could be more 
counter-productive than a perceived U.S. military intervention against 
a third Muslim nation at this time.
  In this year's presidential race there is a profound debate about 
whether a U.N. mandate is necessary before America can act militarily. 
Both major party candidates have properly noted that the U.S. reserves 
the right to act alone. While each gives different emphasis to the 
wisdom of receiving international sanction, each also recognizes the 
preferability, although not necessity, of obtaining international 
support. What hasn't been discussed is the question of whether the U.S. 
reserves the right not to engage militarily even if there is a U.N. 
mandate to act. The answer is clearly yes. We reserve the right not to 
use force, just as we reserve the right to defend ourselves.
  Sudan is a case in point. The U.S. is attempting to nudge the 
Security Council in a more attentive way, but our emphasis is properly 
on pressing for African Union rather than U.S. force deployment, with 
the understanding that we may have to give material and logistic 
support to African soldiers. Such an approach was well envisioned by 
the founders of the U.N. Indeed, with the principal exception of the 
Korean war, the Big Five of the Security Council have traditionally 
provided the funding for peacekeeping forces, while the troops 
themselves have generally been drawn from smaller or non-aligned 
countries, such as Canada, Nigeria and India.
  In this context, an operation to bring peace to Darfur should involve 
many countries and, as the Special Representative to the Secretary 
General for Sudan Jan Pronk said, be ``broad, big, and quick.'' U.S. 
focus should be on:
  1. Humanitarian assistance. Some aid is already en route, purchased 
with money diverted from Iraq. More is required. The need is dire and 
urgent. People of Darfur lack adequate shelter, potable water and 
health care facilities. They do not expect to see a usable harvest 
until January 2006.
  2. Regional Organizations. To carry out its mission, the African 
Union needs a broad mandate for at least 3,500 armed and unarmed troops 
and authority to use force if necessary. As it is, the AU, currently 
has a limited mandate for a 305-person armed force serving to protect 
100 or so unarmed monitors of the April 8th cease fire between the 
Sudan Liberation Army, the Justice and Equity Movement and government 
forces.
  3. Negotiations. These must be pursued on two fronts. One, to settle 
the 21-year-old conflict between the North (the government) and the 
South of Sudan; the other, to bring peace to Darfur. The two situations 
are interrelated and neither can be credibly brought to a close without 
the other. An agreement between the North and the South hopefully can 
provide a framework for a settlement between the rebels and the 
Sudanese government in Darfur, but progress on the first front should 
not be a condition to seek progress on the second.
  4. Leverage. The U.S. and the U.N. are preparing a list of sanctions 
to induce the Sudanese government to comply. In the bill before us, 
H.R. 5061, the President is empowered to freeze Sundanese assets, 
restrict travel and impose other sanctions. It is a mistake, however, 
to put the heat solely on the Sudanese government. Pressure must also 
be applied on the rebels to stop ambushing humanitarian aid convoys.
  A strong international approach to Darfur has the prospect of 
stabilizing a dire situation and serving as a reminder to all 
governments that sovereignty is not a shield behind which genocidalists 
can hide. Combating genocide is a world responsibility. With 
humanitarian aid, support for the AU, a double-pronged negotiating 
strategy and a carrot-and-stick approach, the prospect that Sudan can 
move toward greater peace and security for its citizens is promising. 
But a timely commitment of the international community is key. It has 
yet to be established.
  This resolution is modest but important step in the right direction. 
I urge its passage.

                          ____________________