[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1326-1327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 DARFUR

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the United Nations' Commission of 
Inquiry on the crisis in Darfur reported to the Security Council on 
Monday of this week. Like every credible account of what has happened 
in Darfur, the report makes for grim reading. The Commission pointed to 
the ``killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, 
destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence'' in 
its discussion of the violations of international law that have 
occurred in the area, and also found that there may have been Sudanese 
Government officials and others who acted ``with genocidal intent.''
  This report stands in stark contrast to the positive news that 
emerged from Sudan last month, when a comprehensive agreement to end 
the decades-long, devastating north-south civil war was signed. I 
welcomed that agreement, and I hope it is successful. But the truth is 
that I have little confidence in the Government of Sudan, and I see no 
reason to believe that a north-south peace agreement will awaken that 
government to its responsibility to protect all of its citizens. Just 
days after the historic peace agreement was signed, I visited the 
refugee camps of eastern Chad and spoke to Sudanese citizens who had 
fled Darfur. They spoke of their desperate need for basic security back 
at home, and they are right. Consistent reports indicate that the 
violence in Darfur has continued. The Commission of Inquiry's recent 
report serves to remind all of us, Mr. President, that tragedy persists 
in Sudan, and the world has not done enough to stop it.
  Much of the attention surrounding this report, Mr. President, has 
focused on the Commission's recommendation that the International 
Criminal Court, or ICC, take up the Darfur issue with the intention of 
trying those responsible for atrocities.
  Just as the question of whether or not to use the word ``genocide'' 
was, for some time, a debate that distracted attention from the need to 
take meaningful action to bring security to the people of Darfur, I 
fear that a new issue--the question of whether or not the crimes 
committed in Darfur should be taken up by the International Criminal 
Court--may soon dominate the debate.
  Mr. President, the administration is implacably opposed to the ICC. 
Frankly, this is a subject on which the President and I share some 
common ground. I have not supported joining the ICC as it stands. I 
want more protection for our troops to ensure that they will not be 
targets of unjust and politically motivated prosecutions.
  But I do believe that it was a mistake to walk off in a huff as the 
ICC was taking shape. It is hard to protect our troops from unfair 
prosecutions if we aren't at the table to win those protections.
  I also believe that threatening our allies and trying to bully them 
into changing their position on the ICC, rather than sitting at the 
table to work these issues out, was a mistake. There are ways to 
protect our interests that do not involve infuriating the allies that 
we need to win the war on terrorism.
  Certainly there are better ways to protect our interests than to 
stand in the way of trying people guilty of what our own administration 
has called genocide.
  The American Servicemembers Protection Act, which Congress passed to 
give concrete form to the objections that many have to the ICC, 
contains a provision stating:

       Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from 
     rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to 
     justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, 
     other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and 
     other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or 
     crimes against humanity.

  It seems to me that the crisis in Darfur may be precisely the kind of 
situation that such a provision was intended to cover. We have an 
interest--a moral interest and a political interest--in refusing to 
accept impunity for the grave abuses that have been committed in Darfur 
and in promoting long-term stability by insisting on accountability. 
There is no question of American troops or political figures being 
involved. The legitimate concerns that we have with the ICC simply are 
relevant to this situation.
  The administration's position today, as I understand it, is that we 
should create an entirely new international tribunal for Sudan. If that 
is what it takes to bring some justice to the people of Darfur, so be 
it. But it is not really difficult to understand why other members of 
the international community would be resistant to creating an entirely 
new structure, potentially every time that serious crimes against 
humanity occur, when a structure already exists for the express 
purposes of dealing with these issues. Particularly when our own 
administration has been pressing existing ad-hoc tribunals to wrap up 
their costly but important work, it seems odd to create another ad-hoc 
mechanism when the ICC exists. Most worryingly, it gives those who 
would rather continue to wallow in endless reviews and deliberations 
while people in Darfur die another opportunity to delay reviews and 
meaningful action.
  So I believe that the administration should think about what makes 
good sense in this case. Efforts to bring an end to the crisis in 
Darfur have faltered, time and again, due to a lack of multilateral 
political will. Security Council members were unable to do more than 
contemplate the possibility of sanctions in the face of a terrible man-
made catastrophe. We must continue to build a solid international 
coalition to pressure the Sudanese regime. I know that many of my 
colleagues and many in the administration share my frustration with the 
grace periods, the delays, the empty threats, and the hesitations. It 
is well past time, then, to do something about that. If we can send a 
former Secretary of State around the world to encourage others to 
relieve Iraqi debt, then we can appoint a very senior Presidential 
envoy to focus on this problem, to drum up support in capitals around 
the world, to squeeze every drop of potential cooperation from others 
with intense discussions and negotiations. The Government of Sudan 
should feel intense pressure every day, not hear mild scoldings and 
mixed messages every month or so. And the U.S. should not muddle our 
message by getting tangled up in our contorted position on the ICC.
  Now the Commission of Inquiry's report has the potential to prod 
other states into action. It would be a terrible shame if the United 
States, once

[[Page 1327]]

at the forefront of urging action on Sudan, now became a part of the 
problem.

                          ____________________