[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 5708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE SITUATION IN DARFUR

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the ongoing crisis 
in Darfur, a region in western Sudan that has been the site of 
atrocities for months. A recent report from the International Crisis 
Group spells out the horrifying facts of the situation. The report 
indicates that 830,000 people have been displaced as a result of the 
conflict, and thousands have been killed. Government-supported militias 
have deliberately targeted civilians, sometimes focusing on unprotected 
villages with no apparent link to the rebels other than their ethnic 
profile. According to credible reports, militia atrocities have 
included indiscriminate killing and mutilation, rape on a massive 
scale, and the looting and destruction of food reserves and other 
property. Outright and indiscriminate government bombing has also been 
verifiably reported since the conflict began.
  We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what can be done to help 
the innocent men, women, and children caught up in this nightmare? The 
U.S. must work with the international community to signal our 
collective resolve and to insist that the Government of Sudan stop 
playing games with humanitarian access. Khartoum needs to feel the 
pressure, and all parties need to work urgently for a settlement.
  But we must also ask, what do these developments in Darfur tell us 
about the Government of Sudan? The reports from the region seem to 
confirm that the Government of Sudan has no qualms about backing 
attacks on innocent civilians.
  I want the administration's extremely laudable peace initiative in 
Sudan to succeed. Many dedicated professionals have devoted countless 
hours to this enterprise, and many courageous Sudanese have taken 
difficult steps in the pursuit of a just peace. But my doubts about the 
prospects for a future of peace and cooperation are growing, rather 
than dissipating, at each new report on the Darfur crisis. I doubt the 
stability and sustainability of a peace agreed to by a party that 
accepts organized atrocities as just one more tool in its toolbox of 
governing. What kind of peace can be achieved with this kind of 
partner? Can we truly have confidence in this government's good faith? 
What kind of future cooperation can we realistically expect?
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on 
African Affairs, I have been engaged on issues relating to Sudan for 
many years. I was proud to work with my colleague on that subcommittee 
for several years, Senator Frist, on the Sudan Peace Act. I recognize 
the complexity of Sudanese dynamics, and I certainly understand that 
the situation in Darfur is different from the conflict between the 
Government of Sudan and the forces of the south, most prominently the 
Sudanese People's Liberation Movement. But some of the elements of the 
Darfur crisis are, unfortunately, quite familiar. We have seen 
obstacles thrown up to humanitarian access, we have seen the near-total 
abdication of responsibility for the basic security and well-being of 
Sudanese civilians, and we see government-backed militias employed to 
keep some of the dirtiest of the dirty working at some token distance 
from officials.
  On December 16, 2003, the State Department issued a statement 
expressing ``deep concern'' about the humanitarian and security 
situation in Darfur. The statement indicated that:

       the United States calls on the Government of Sudan to take 
     concrete steps to control the militia groups it has armed, to 
     avoid attacks against civilians and to fully facilitate the 
     efforts of the international humanitarian community to 
     respond to civilian needs.

  But it then contained this final sentence:

       The fighting in Darfur is not linked to the ongoing peace 
     talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's 
     Liberation Movement/Army in Kenya.

  I am among many observers who fear that this sentence was interpreted 
in Khartoum as a signal that the disincentives articulated by the U.S. 
in the context of the peace talks will not be applied because of abuses 
in Darfur.
  I urge the administration to insist that the Civilian Protection 
Monitoring Team be permitted to investigate alleged attacks on 
civilians throughout the country, including attacks in Darfur. The 
Government of Sudan should have no formal or informal veto power over 
this team's investigations. The team was established as a confidence-
building measure, and it was agreed to by all parties. But to suggest 
that the Government of Sudan should be able to pick and choose areas in 
which the team is permitted to conduct its inquiries undermines 
confidence.
  I do respect the fact that delicate diplomacy is ongoing, and I want 
to be able to celebrate a lasting end to Sudan's north-south civil war 
as much as any Member of this body. But none of that changes the fact 
that what is happening in Darfur is inexcusable, it is undermining the 
Naivasha peace process, and it is casting a pall over the future of 
Sudan at a time when light had finally begun to shine on that long-
suffering country. It is time to stop expressing quiet concern, and to 
start treating this crisis with the urgency it deserves.

                          ____________________