[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21555-21558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                GENOCIDE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is a day which can be historic. 
Important items will be discussed on the floor of the Senate, including 
health insurance for literally millions of American kids. At the same 
time, there is a debate that has been started in New York at the United 
Nations Security Council. It is a debate about a genocide.
  It is, thank goodness, rare that we have to address the issue of 
genocide in this world, but today we must. We are talking of a genocide 
today, in New York, at the Security Council, that has caused untold 
human misery, mass murder, dislocation, torture, rape, and the torching 
of entire villages. For 4 years the world has watched this tragedy. 
That's right, for 4 years.
  Haven't we learned our lesson when it comes to letting genocide 
continue without taking action?
  There is a great Senate story involving former Wisconsin Senator Bill 
Proxmire. In 1967, Senator Proxmire began a streak in the Senate that 
has never been broken. Mr. President, 18 years earlier, in 1949, 
President Truman had sent the United Nations Genocide Convention to the 
Senate for advice and consent. In 1967, it was still languishing, held 
up by a small band of Senators who opposed it. Many Senators just shook 
their head because of this opposition. Bill Proxmire rose to his feet.
  Starting in 1967, Senator Proxmire made a speech every day the Senate 
was in session, for 19 years, imploring the Senate to adopt the 
Genocide Convention. All together, he gave 3,211 speeches--each one of 
them different. In 1986 the Senate gave its consent to the treaty.
  Why did Senator Proxmire continue to give all those speeches, day 
after day, year after year? It wasn't just stubbornness. It was a moral 
obligation, and because he understood genocide was happening again. At 
that time it was happening in Cambodia.
  Between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge murdered 2 million people. The 
United States wisely and bravely led the international effort to hold 
the Nazi co-conspirators to account at Nuremberg. We and the rest of 
the world failed to act while Cambodia was being turned into killing 
fields.
  In 1994 we failed to act again when between 800,000 and 1 million 
people were murdered in Rwanda in 1 month.
  Sadly, we have failed to take the necessary action to stop the 
genocide in Darfur. More than 2\1/2\ years have passed since the U.N. 
commission of inquiry concluded that:

       Crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed 
     in Darfur and may be no less serious and heinous than 
     genocide.

  Earlier this year, President Bush declared:

       For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the 
     hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, 
     murder and rape of innocent civilians. My administration has 
     called these actions by their rightful name: genocide. The 
     world has a responsibility to put an end to it.

  Yesterday, the new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said in a 
joint press conference with President Bush that:

       Darfur is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces 
     today.

  Yet it is not simply enough to acknowledge genocide. We need to 
follow Senator Proxmire's example in having the courage, in real time, 
to act against it.
  The crisis in Darfur has been repeated over and over. Paul Salopek, a 
Chicago Tribune reporter, was captured and jailed by the Khartoum 
government for 34 days last year. He wrote a haunting description of 
what one sees when you fly over the villages of Darfur. This is what he 
wrote:

       Their torched huts seen from the air, look like cigarette 
     burns on a torture victim's skin.

  Most recently, Refugees International released a report documenting 
that:

       Rape on a mass scale is one of the hallmarks of the 
     conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. An estimated 300,000 
     people in Darfur have been killed during this genocide; 
     300,000 people in a country of 40 million. In the United 
     States that would be the equivalent of over 2 million people 
     killed.

  Incredibly, the Sudanese Government claims the atrocities are part of 
their war on terror. At a press conference in Washington earlier this 
summer, Sudan's Ambassador to the United States compared the slaughter 
to a family quarrel, and he said:

       Just you and your cousin fighting with you.

  Just this last week, Sudanese President Bashir visited Darfur and 
said:

       Most of Darfur is now secure and enjoying real peace.

  People there are ``living normal lives.''
  These are lies. This is genocide. It is calculated. It is happening 
on our watch, in our time.
  This week, the global community has a chance to finally make a 
difference. I am going to join today with Senators Feingold and 
Menendez in calling for a decisive vote at the United Nations on an 
expanded peacekeeping force and renewed diplomatic effort in Darfur. 
The U.N. Security Council will vote this week, maybe even today, on a 
new United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force that can make a 
dramatic difference in stemming the violence in Darfur. It also 
provides an equally important opportunity for peace negotiations.
  After years of duplicity in the genocide, Sudanese President Bashir 
agreed last month to the significant expanded joint United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force. Yet a series of his recent comments 
contradict that commitment, and a history of involvement in violence 
makes immediate action all the more important.
  The need is simple--rapid deployment of the new peacekeeping force 
and a renewed diplomatic effort at a long-term political settlement.
  I have tried in some small way to urge the members of the United 
Nations Security Council to act swiftly. I discussed urgency of these 
matters with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and the Ambassadors of 
China, Ghana, Republic of Congo, Russia, and South Africa. All were 
current or permanent members of the Security Council. It is the first 
time I have ever picked up the phone to call Ambassadors from other 
countries about a vote in the United Nations Security Council, but I 
think it is that important. It is my hope that our U.N. Ambassador, 
Zalmay Khalilzad, will work closely with these nations and Secretary 
General Ban to make these steps a reality.
  I stressed to the Secretary General and to the Ambassadors that the 
Security Council should be firm in its mandate. We need a force with 
sufficient resources and numbers; a strong mandate to protect 
civilians, peacekeepers, and humanitarian workers; a clear U.N. command 
and control structure, and benchmarks with the threat of sanctions that 
hold the Sudanese Government accountable; no room for further stalling 
or delay by the Sudanese Government; a renewed diplomatic effort to 
bring about a long-term political settlement, including naming a 
Special Representative of the Secretary General to monitor 
implementation of a comprehensive peace agreement; and the force must 
be deployed as quickly as possible.
  Congress, the administration, and the private sector--we all need to 
take action to end the genocide in Darfur. In Congress we have passed 
the Genocide Accountability Act, which allows the prosecution of 
genocide committed by anyone currently in the United States, regardless 
of where the genocide occurred. We have passed language in the Iraq 
supplemental bill that requires the Treasury Department to submit to 
Congress a report that lists the companies operating in the Sudanese 
natural resources industry, and requires the General Services 
Administration to report to Congress on whether the U.S. Government has 
an active contract with any of those companies.
  Later today the House is expected to pass a bill that would support 
State and local divestment efforts, require

[[Page 21556]]

companies to disclose Sudanese-related business activities, investigate 
whether the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board has invested 
funds in any of these companies operated in Sudan, and bar the U.S. 
Government from operating with any companies operating to benefit the 
Sudanese regime.
  A few weeks ago, the Senate passed the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Enhancement Act, which increases civil and criminal 
penalties associated with violating American economic sanctions such as 
those against Sudan. I encourage our House counterparts to pass this 
bill as well.
  I have introduced legislation similar to the bill the House is 
expected to pass today that would support State governments that decide 
to encourage public funds to divest from Sudan-related investments. 
That bill has strong bipartisan support, nearly a third of the Senate.
  We tried to pass it, but someone in the Senate has put a hold on that 
bill. They have decided we should not move quickly to try to divest and 
discourage genocide. I urge whatever Republican colleague on that side 
has put a hold on this bill to seriously stop and consider the impact 
of this political move. We need to make sure the House and the Senate 
are on record on a bipartisan basis, clearly, unequivocally.
  I have also included in the Senate Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Act language requiring the administration to 
report on the effectiveness of the current sanctions regime and 
recommended steps Congress can take.
  Personally, some of us have decided to divest from Sudan-related 
investments in our own portfolios as a gesture of solidarity. The 
administration has taken some important steps. In April of this year, 
at the Holocaust Museum, President Bush declared rightly that the 
United States has a moral obligation to stop the genocide in Darfur. 
Recently the President took the first step toward meeting that 
obligation by ordering the U.S. sanctions against Sudan be tightened.
  The Treasury Department is adding 30 companies that are owned or 
controlled by the Government of Sudan to a list of firms that are 
barred from U.S. financial assistance. The Office of Foreign Assets 
Control within the Treasury Department, working with other agencies, 
has worked hard to tighten economic and political sanctions.
  Although these are important steps, I wish the U.S. Government, the 
Congress, and the President, had taken these steps sooner. Ultimately, 
we and the private sector must do all we can to ensure the genocide in 
Darfur once and for all is brought to an end.
  I am going to end today with a quote from Nobel laureate and 
Holocaust survivor Eli Weisel:

       Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the 
     victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the 
     tormented.

  I see on the floor my colleagues from Wisconsin and New Jersey who 
join me today in this floor effort, this message to the United Nations. 
I wish to thank Senator Menendez for his continuing interest in this 
Darfur genocide. He has carried on in the Senate a tradition started 
when I first came here by his predecessor, Senator Corzine.
  I also wish to thank Senator Feingold, who is chairman of the African 
Subcommittee of Foreign Relations. He has a special interest in that 
continent and a special dedication to ending the genocide in Darfur.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Durbin, for bringing us together today to talk about 
the ongoing genocide in Darfur and, more specifically, the upcoming 
U.N. Security Council resolution and for his continuing efforts in the 
Senate.
  I am also honored and pleased to be with Senator Feingold, who has 
been such an incredibly powerful voice on this issue, both in his 
position as the chairman of the African Subcommittee on Foreign 
Relations and in his principle position itself. I am honored to join 
with them in this effort.
  Today, as we speak on the Senate floor, the U.N. Security Council is 
negotiating a new Darfur resolution. So today we are on the Senate 
floor to send a loud and clear message to the United Nations. The 
people of Darfur need a strong and meaningful resolution that puts into 
action the end of the genocide and ensures that a United Nations-
African Union troop force gets into Darfur.
  Today, we are here to add our voices to those who call for a U.N. 
resolution with strong authority, for a robust hybrid United Nations-
African Union force, and a full mandate and speedy deployment. It has 
long been clear that the overstretched and underfunded African Union 
troops cannot end the genocide. If this new force is not allowed in, 
the carnage and the destruction we have witnessed now for over 4 years 
will continue.
  We have known that a U.N. force is the key to ending the violence in 
Darfur, and we have tried in the past to put it into place. Over a year 
ago, when I first came to the Senate, I got the Senate to pass an 
amendment for $60 million to fund the U.N. peacekeeping force in 
Darfur. I was joined by my colleagues in that effort.
  Almost 1 year ago, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1706, 
which called for 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers to support the 
African Union force in Sudan. Yet we still see no hybrid force on the 
ground. We still hear of attacks on humanitarian workers, we still 
learn of atrocities against civilians.
  The lives of these millions of displaced persons now hang in a 
delicate balance between life and death. If we were in the refugee 
camps being attacked, who among us would be content with the counsels 
of: patience, patience, and delay. Who?
  Let's be frank; it has been the Government of Sudan that has kept 
this force from entering. Now they recently have agreed to allow a 
force in. Yet we have heard these words before. Words mean little 
without real action. That is why I am pleased this new U.N. Security 
Council will likely include the transfer of authority to a hybrid 
United Nations-African Union mission that will allow the use of force 
to ensure the security and movement of the mission's personnel and 
humanitarian workers.
  But to be meaningful, this force must be deployed, and it must be 
deployed as quickly as humanly possible. I am disappointed, however, 
that after rounds of negotiations, the resolution was ultimately 
watered down. From what I understand, there will be no reference to 
sanctions, there will be no right to seize and dispose of illegal arms, 
there will be no reference to the jingaweit, the brutal pro-Khartoum 
militia force responsible for many of the atrocities.
  While I understand the need to negotiate a resolution that will pass, 
ultimately, we cannot let this manipulation continue. We cannot let 
Sudan's Ambassador have veto power over these lives. We cannot let 
nations with permanent seats and veto power on the Council continue to 
act irresponsibly. That is where I wish to close.
  China says they generally approve, generally approve of the new 
resolution. They have been working, however, behind the scenes to 
weaken it. They reportedly helped remove references to sanctions. They 
reportedly objected to its ``controversial tone'' about genocide. 
Simply put, they continue to act in their own economic interest. We 
have seen them take some positive steps in the past, and it is positive 
that they are reportedly not going to block this resolution and that 
they may even support it.
  But such a small step when China is under public international 
pressure is simply not enough. That is why I am pleased my resolution 
on China and Darfur passed the Senate last night. This resolution, 
which my colleagues on the floor supported, calls on China to use its 
unique influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide and 
violence in Darfur.
  China has longstanding economic and military ties with Sudan, and 
they must use their economic leverage to do more than fill their 
wallet. As China prepares to host the 2008 Olympic Summer Games, we 
must hold the Chinese Government accountable to act consistently with 
the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity around the world, 
including in Darfur.

[[Page 21557]]

  Once again, the international community finds itself with another 
opportunity to bring about real change in Darfur. The resolution being 
passed by the U.N. Security Council will only be meaningful if measures 
with teeth are included.
  As John Prendergast, senior adviser to the International Crisis 
Group, said recently in testimony before Congress:

       Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of 
     giving comfort to the enemy.

  Time has run out for negotiations. Time has run out for the Khartoum 
Government to balk. Time has run out for watered down U.N. Security 
Council resolutions. We must get that hybrid force on the ground. We 
must end the genocide.
  If ``never again'' is to have real meaning, if those words we use are 
to have real meaning, it has to have strong action to stop the 
genocide, strong action that history will judge as among the righteous, 
anything less will lend to our collective condemnation, and to the 
ever-nagging conscience that will not rest as others die.
  That is the choice before the U.N. Security Council. I am glad those 
of us here are making our voices felt so, hopefully, the Council will 
act and we can have meaningful action to ``never again.''
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on 
the floor today to raise the critical and timely issue of the U.N. 
Security Council's authorization of an expanded peacekeeping mission 
for the Darfur region of Sudan. Senator Durbin has been a stalwart 
advocate for the people of Darfur for years and I admire and appreciate 
his dedication to keeping their plight at the top of Congress's agenda 
and to making sure we finally take strong action to help the more than 
2 million displaced Darfuris who are languishing in squalid camps and 
punish those who continue to be responsible for their plight.
  The United Nations Security Council is currently considering a 
resolution expected to authorize a robust peacekeeping mission to 
protect the innocent people of Darfur. This is of course a welcome, and 
overdue, effort. By now, there is little disagreement anywhere in the 
world that the current force of just over 7,000 courageous but 
underequipped and beleaguered African Union peacekeepers is not 
adequately protecting civilians or aid workers from attacks by rebels 
and government-sponsored militias, nor are they able to sufficiently 
safeguard humanitarian access to the tens of thousands whose survival 
now depends upon outside assistance. The AU force in Darfur has 
repeatedly been deprived of adequate resources and equipment, and yet 
despite this inconsistent support they have remained committed to the 
job. Support from the United Nations has been in theory forthcoming, 
for quite some time. In principle, the roadblocks have been many and 
the unfortunate result of this hobbled mission transition has been more 
violence, more displacement, and more death throughout Darfur.
  The recent acceptance to expedite the transition of this mission to a 
more robust U.N.-AU mission is a step in the right direction, but we 
must bear in mind the number of agreements that have long since been 
overlooked, ignored, or flat-out rejected by the Sudanese Government.
  And while a draft resolution being circulated indicates that the 
international community is actively moving forward to deploy this 
hybrid force, I am very disappointed that the resolution's cosponsors 
have succumbed to pressure from the Sudanese and deleted language which 
condemned the government for violations of past U.N. resolutions and 
peace agreements and removed the threat of sanctions in the event of 
continued noncompliance. The United States Ambassador to the United 
Nations, Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad suggests that the United States has been 
``flexible'' and ``open minded in terms of non-core issues'' when 
negotiating this resolution, and I can only hope the administration 
will not .show flexibility when firmness is required. I certainly 
understand the necessity of diplomatic compromise; however, I feel 
strongly that the draft resolution being circulated in New York has 
been unacceptably weakened.
  The amended resolution begins by ``Recalling all its previous 
resolutions and presidential statements concerning the situation in 
Sudan.'' In fact, however, this new proposal steps back from nearly a 
dozen Security Council resolutions, dating back to July 2004. Those 
resolutions were not just addressing the ``situation in Sudan''--they 
were expressing concern over the rising violence in Darfur and the role 
of the Sudanese Government in perpetuating the conflict. The 
distinction here is an important one and should not be overlooked.
  The preamble goes on to detail the development and endorsement of the 
so-called Addis Ababa Agreement, which laid out the three-phased 
approach to an unprecedented joint United Nations-African Union 
``hybrid'' peacekeeping mission. At that time--8 months ago--then-
Secretary-General Kofi Annan seemed confident that troops would be 
mobilizing soon, and the U.S. administration promptly welcomed what it 
called ``the successful outcome of this historic meeting.''
  What appears to have been forgotten in November, and again in the 
current U.N. debate, is that in August of 2006--just about a year ago--
the Security Council passed Resolution 1706, which authorized up to 
22,500 U.N. troops and police officers for a robust United Nations 
peacekeeping force with the power to use all necessary means to protect 
humanitarian aid workers and civilian populations, as well as to seize 
and dispose of illegal weapons. The new resolution currently being 
considered in New York does not reference Resolution 1706 or the 
Sudanese Government's defiant refusal to comply with its provisions. 
Nor does it draw the appropriate lessons from the failed attempt to 
deploy U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur almost a year ago.
  Rather than include stronger monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to 
ensure that the Sudanese Government and other parties to the conflict 
abide by existing agreements and cooperate with the new peacekeeping 
mission, the resolution's cosponsors appear to have backed down to 
Sudanese pressure. Their weakened resolution omits a condemnation of 
Sudan for failing to ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need, 
deletes reference to evidence of violations of the UNSC-mandated arms 
embargo--which many outside experts have noted has been repeatedly 
violated with little consequence--drops a request that the Secretary 
General immediately report any breach of this or previous resolutions 
and agreements, and removes a threat that the U.N. would take ``further 
measures''--in other words, sanctions--in the event of noncompliance. 
How can we believe that individuals will be held accountable for their 
actions when we have seen such entrenched impunity?
  In terms of the peacekeeping mission envisioned for Darfur,this new 
resolution is much less ambitious than Resolution 1706. The new 
``UNAMID'' mission is referred to as an ``operation,'' rather than a 
``force,'' and rather than giving peacekeepers the authority to ``use 
all necessary means'' to protect civilians and aid workers, the new 
resolution allows them only to ``take all necessary action.'' These 
semantic distinctions reveal a worrisome retreat from the robust, 
capable mission authorized in Resolution 1706. And yet, the Sudanese 
Government has criticized even this diluted resolution. As I said 
before, diplomatic compromise is important, but not as important as 
making sure we finally have the tools to punish and put a stop to 
atrocities.
  Sudan's obstruction of this most recent international effort to end 
the genocide in Darfur should not surprise anyone. After all, this is 
the same regime we saw attack its own citizens in indiscriminate 
bombing raids and obstruct humanitarian access during 2 decades of 
bloody civil war with southern Sudan. These same tactics are being used 
today in Darfur.
  Last week, in its first overall review of Sudan's record for more 
than a decade, the U.N.'s independent Human Rights Committee said that 
``widespread and systematic serious human rights violations--including 
murder, rape, forced displacement and attacks

[[Page 21558]]

against the civil population--have been and continue to be committed 
with total impunity throughout Sudan and particularly in Darfur.'' The 
only thing more disturbing than the Sudanese Government's practice of 
organized atrocities as a method of governance is the inability of the 
international community so far to put a stop to these crimes and secure 
justice for the victims.
  How many more families must be displaced? How many more innocent 
lives lost? How many more U.N. resolutions, presidential statements, 
political speeches, and public rallies will be needed? How much 
evidence of calculated persecution will it take before the 
international community stands up to the Sudanese Government and the 
rebels, brings them to the negotiating table, and deploys an expanded 
peacekeeping mission to protect civilians and ultimately, help secure 
the peace, in a region that for too long has received much attention 
but little action?
  Although the revised resolution omits the original reference to Chad 
and the Central African Republic, it does express ``concern that the 
ongoing violence in Darfur might further negatively affect the rest of 
Sudan as well as the region.'' The short- and long-term impacts of the 
crisis in Darfur are real, far-reaching, and very troubling. The 
humanitarian consequences will require massive logical coordination and 
rehabilitation assistance. Economically, the rebuilding of 
infrastructure and livelihoods will demand additional resources and 
technical support. And this will be required not just for Darfur but 
for the whole of Sudan, as well as the broader region.
  If this U.N. resolution is passed as it currently stands, we can 
expect the Sudanese Government to try to evade its requirements and 
agreements without a single consequence. Should that happen, the toll 
of the genocide in Darfur will continue to mount--in lives lost, in 
persons displaced, and in fundamental human values that the 
international community has failed to uphold.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time remains in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute on the Democratic side 
and 1 minute on the Republican side.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield back the remaining time on our side and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________