[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8761-8762]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE ACTION ON DARFUR: MORE IS NEEDED

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 5, 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I rise today to discuss the ongoing crisis in 
Darfur. As many as 400,000 have died throughout the course of this 
crisis, and more than 10,000 continue to die each month. While the 
death and suffering continues, action on the part of the Administration 
has, in recent months, been subdued at best. A May 3, Op-Ed in the New 
York Times, entitled ``Day 113 of the President's Silence'', points out 
that the Administration's silence on the issue has been noticeable. 
This new stance is extremely perplexing considering the 
Administration's heavy engagement on the issue previously.
  Part of that engagement involved early pressure on the Sudanese 
leadership to agree to a Darfur cease fire. The United States also had 
the distinction of being the first and only major world power to label 
the offenses of the Sudanese government in Darfur as genocide. The 
Administration was also generally supportive of the Comprehensive Peace 
in Sudan Act passed in late 2004, which admonished the Sudanese 
government for its actions in Darfur, provided humanitarian assistance 
for the region, and reiterated United States sanctions on Sudan.
  The United States has also provided large amounts of assistance to 
the Darfur region, totaling some $615 million since 2003 ($357.6 
million in FY 2005 alone). The 2005 Emergency Supplemental agreed to on 
Tuesday included $50 million to strengthen the African Union 
peacekeeping mission in Darfur, as well as $40 million in general 
humanitarian aid.
  Despite the financial assistance, the Administration has been quiet 
on the political front recently. In fact they have seemingly backed

[[Page 8762]]

away from referring to the crisis in Darfur as genocide, and have down 
played the casualty count in the region. As the New York Times Op-Ed 
asserts, Sudan's recent cooperation with the United States on 
intelligence matters, may be placating the Administration's stance 
towards the regime regarding Darfur.
  In the most recent indication of its new stance on Darfur, the 
Administration came out in opposition to the Darfur Accountability Act 
introduced by Senator Corzine. Among other things the act called for 
wide-ranging sanctions against the Sudanese government, the 
establishment of a special presidential envoy for Darfur, and a 
military no-fly zone for the region. The bill also sought to provide 
for the protection of Darfurian civilians by strengthening the African 
Union force in Darfur through a broadened Chapter 7 UN mandate and 
deployment of a supplemental UN force.
  The bill was attached to the Emergency Supplemental which passed the 
Senate in late April, and was awaiting approval in conference 
committee. If accepted the bill would have represented a major step 
forward in bringing peace and security to the people of Darfur. 
However, the Administration made clear its opposition to the bill, and 
it was subsequently deleted from the final Emergency Supplemental 
Conference Report agreed to this week. With the Darfur Accountability 
Act off the table, what will the Administration do now regarding 
Darfur?
  Financial assistance is not enough--there needs to be real political 
action. Though the Darfur Accountability Act was not passed, most of 
its provisions called for action at the Executive level. Thus, the 
Administration still has an opportunity to become effectively engaged 
on the Darfur issue. Most of the solutions to the Darfur crisis will 
entail a multi-lateral effort, so the President must become more 
involved in eliciting a response from the international community.
  Though several UN Security Council resolutions have been passed to 
date, the UN has yet to agree on a comprehensive Security Council 
resolution which would cease the transgressions of the Sudanese 
government and its Janjaweed militia, and provide adequate protection 
for Darfurian civilians. The African Union will not be able to handle 
the situation in Darfur on their own. They need the troops, mandate, 
and logistical resources to effectively protect civilians dispersed 
across an area the size of Texas.
  The Administration can bring this about; they need only increase 
their engagement. To that end the US must provide more leadership in 
the United Nations, especially the Security Council, to get a 
comprehensive resolution passed. It also needs to be especially 
forceful with China and Russia, who have been a major hindrance to 
achieving progress on the Darfur issue. The Administration must also 
sustain pressure on the Sudanese regime. We can not turn a blind eye to 
their transgressions in Darfur, simply because they are now cooperative 
with us on intelligence matters. Not only is that short-sighted, it is 
morally wrong.
  In the cases of the Holocaust and Rwanda, inaction on the part of the 
international community allowed the mass murder of millions of innocent 
people. Now we find ourselves on the brink of a similarly momentous 
error. Once again, politics and national interests are delaying the 
type of action needed to make a significant impact on the Darfur 
Crisis.
  During the observation of the Auschwitz anniversary in February 2005, 
Dr Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, wisely commented that 
``We can't bring the dead back to life, but we can fight for the 
sanctity of life.'' It is my hope that we take up the fight to which 
Rabbi Sacks refers: Unlike the Holocaust and Rwanda, the final story of 
Darfur has yet to be written. We still have the chance, however faint, 
to prevent the triumph of evil. Mr. President, we must do more for 
Darfur. If we choose not to act, history will forever echo our failure, 
and our consciences will forever hold our shame.

                 [From the New York Times, May 3, 2005]

                   Day 113 of the President's Silence

                        (By Nicholas D. Kristof)

       Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a 
     little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur. Is the 
     muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of 
     thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress 
     from taking action.
       Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the 
     Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful 
     step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The 
     bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing 
     assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an 
     internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from 
     strafing villages.
       The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference 
     on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my 
     hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete 
     provisions about Darfur from the legislation.
       Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: 
     ``The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a 
     period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.''
       Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there 
     are other signs that the administration is trying to 
     backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza 
     Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she 
     deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of 
     African Union troops needed there.
       Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick 
     pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past 
     judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick 
     also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death 
     toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many 
     times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for 
     International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a 
     day.
       This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the 
     Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the 
     slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had 
     staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was 
     telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a ceasefire 
     there.
       Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, 
     and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger 
     African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps 
     Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands 
     of lives.
       So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save 
     perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that 
     there are three reasons.
       First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's 
     mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian 
     reasons and ended up with a mess.
       Second, Mr. Bush is very proud--justly--that he helped 
     secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern 
     Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that 
     pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while 
     doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of 
     them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).
       Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation 
     with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. 
     recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for 
     consultations about the war on terror, and the White House 
     doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.
       All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look 
     back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's 
     fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, 
     raped or mutilated in Darfur--and if the situation worsens, 
     the final toll could reach a million dead.
       This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best 
     memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this 
     administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur 
     that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, 
     public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but 
     it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and 
     screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.
       Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was 
     outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, 
     that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself 
     as much to try to save the lives of the two million people 
     driven from their homes in Darfur. So I'm going to start 
     tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the 
     word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing 
     compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the 
     killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's 
     silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch.

                          ____________________