[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15044-15045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD SUDAN

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 6, 2011

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the 
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, 
held a hearing that examined a wide range of issues involving U.S. 
policy toward Sudan, including the ongoing attacks on Southern Kordofan 
and Blue Nile states, the continuing negotiations with the Republic of 
South Sudan on challenges such as the demarcation of the border, the 
fate of the Abyei region, citizenship in both countries and oil revenue 
sharing. Additionally, this hearing provided opportunities to receive 
an update on the U.S. response to the enduring stalemate on Darfur and 
to examine U.S. policy on the release of Sudanese still held in bondage 
throughout Sudan.

[[Page 15045]]

  Two months ago, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human 
Rights held an emergency hearing on the attacks by the Republic of the 
Sudan on its own Southern Kordofan state. The crisis first arose in 
June, shortly after the military forces of the Khartoum government 
attacked the disputed Abyei area. This was apparently a provocation to 
the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, or SPLM, government in what 
is now South Sudan just before that new country's independence.
  This vicious attack didn't provoke the SPLM into retaliation, which 
could have derailed its independence. Nevertheless, dozens of people 
were killed and more than 200,000 were displaced in the immediate 
aftermath of the northern attack on its own territory. This violence 
was a tragic resumption of a prior war by the Khartoum government on 
the Nuba of Southern Kordofan. Beginning in the 1980s, Islamist 
elements in the North began an eradication campaign against the Nuba--
pitting Northern Arabs against Africans to the South.
  Earlier this month, the Sudanese military bombed its own Blue Nile 
state, including attacks on the governor's residence. Nearly half a 
million people were affected by the air and ground assault on Blue 
Nile. It seems the so-called cease-fire in Southern Kordofan was only a 
pretext to facilitate preparations for the assault on Blue Nile.
  The Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the North-South civil 
war was supposed to provide for consultations for both states so 
residents could determine their political future. However, Khartoum 
didn't want to risk their desire to break away and lose them as it has 
South Sudan. The promised consultations were held in Blue Nile, but 
postponed in Southern Kordofan.
  When the SPLM-North members in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile didn't 
lay down their arms in advance of South Sudan's independence, Khartoum 
used that as an excuse to eliminate those who had supported the South 
in the long civil war. A preemptive strike in Southern Kordofan 
evidently was meant to chase out those who had opposed Khartoum. 
Members of SPLM-North were stalked by the Sudanese military, who went 
door-to-door to eliminate them. The similar attack in Blue Nile was 
intended to purge that state of the supposed opponents of the Khartoum 
government living there as well. In fact, the Sudan People's Liberation 
Army--North governor of Blue Nile has been chased out of the capital by 
northern military forces.
  As the world was focused on the January referendum in which 
Southerners voted for an independent South Sudan, human right 
organizations reported rising violence in Darfur. There was a 
resumption of conflict in several locations in North and South Darfur 
between Sudanese government military forces and Sudan Liberation Army 
rebels loyal to Mini Minawi, a signatory of the now-defunct 2006 Darfur 
Peace Agreement. Recently, the Sudanese army clashed with the rebel 
Justice and Equality Movement in the remote area of North Darfur near 
Sudan's triangle border with Chad and Libya. Darfur rebels had attacked 
Omdurman and Khartoum in northern Sudan in 2008, which resulted in a 
massive crackdown on dissidents.
  The brutality by the Sudanese military will not crush the desire for 
freedom in Abyei, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile or Darfur. In seeking to 
prevent the secession of these states and the special administrative 
area of Abyei, Bashir's government may be sowing the seeds for Sudan's 
eventual dissolution. Until that time, however, the international 
community must continue to press for an end to the attacks on Sudanese, 
using all of our available diplomatic and economic resources. The human 
rights of people in the North must be every bit as important to us as 
the rights of those in the South have been.
  Meanwhile, we have known that raiders from the North were killing 
southern men and taking women and children into slavery for decades. 
Reports from human rights groups and the U.S. Department of State on 
Sudanese slavery gained the attention of Members of Congress such as 
myself as early as the 1980s because of the serious human rights 
implications of modern-day slavery.
  I chaired the first Congressional hearing on slavery in Sudan on 
March 13, 1996. Our witnesses included then-Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of State for African Affairs William Twadell; Samuel Cotton of the 
Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan; Dr. Charles Jacobs 
of the American Anti-Slavery Group; Baroness Caroline Cox, the Deputy 
Speaker of the British House of Lords, testifying on behalf of 
Christian Solidarity International, and Dr. Gaspar Biro, Human Rights 
Rapporteur of the United Nations. Fifteen years ago, these witnesses 
cited the gross human rights violations committed by the Government of 
the Sudan and their failure to cooperate in addressing slavery. Special 
Rapporteur Biro referred to it as the ``manifest passivity of the 
government of Sudan.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary Twadell said the 
Clinton Administration acknowledged then that slavery was an ugly 
reality in Sudan.
  Following a visit to the Sudan People's Liberation Army-held portion 
of Sudan in November 2000, then-Assistant Secretary of State for 
African Affairs Susan Rice said that neither the Clinton Administration 
nor its successor would cease working to end slavery in Sudan. Why have 
we not kept that promise?
  When former Assistant Secretary Rice made that pledge, the United 
Nations estimated that there were as many as 15,000 southern Sudanese 
held in bondage after being abducted in raids by Arab militiamen on 
southern villages. While the current exact number of Sudanese slaves is 
unknown, too many people remain in slavery in Sudan and more continue 
to join them each day. The State Department's 2011 Trafficking in 
Persons report lists Sudan as a Tier III country that is a continuing 
source, transit and destination country for men, women and children 
subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. Slavery remains a 
pervasive and deeply disturbing reality in Sudan, and we cannot in good 
conscience allow this to continue.
  We have had active campaigns to end Sudanese slavery, to end genocide 
in Darfur, to end the north-South civil war and now to end to the 
attacks on Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Unfortunately, these 
campaigns have been conducted in isolation from one another. If we are 
to have a successful policy to stop the suffering of Sudan's people, 
our government must devise a comprehensive policy for addressing all of 
Sudan's challenges. To facilitate such a policy consolidation, civil 
society also must support a coordinated policy no matter their 
particular area of concern. Therefore, I call on our civil society 
organizations concerned about the people of Sudan to work together and 
demonstrate to our government the wisdom and effectiveness of a 
coordinated American policy on Sudan.

                          ____________________