Darfur

DARFUR -- (Senate - April 24, 2007)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and this administration's inexcusable failure to do all it can to stop the violence there. We all understand the monumental challenge we face in ending the violence in Darfur, but this administration's behavior and recent statements on this issue suggest that it simply does not know when to stop talking and when to start acting. And all the while innocent people continue to needlessly die under our watch.

Last fall, the President's Special Envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, announced that if the Sudanese Government did not accept a U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force by January 1, the administration would implement punitive measures as part of its Plan B.

Well here we are today. Over 100 days have passed since January 1. And what do we have to show for it? No U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force on the ground in Sudan. And no Plan B.

Meanwhile the death toll has risen. Over the course of the conflict, 200,000 people have been killed; 2.5 million displaced. Families and villages have been decimated; women and girls have been raped.

Fighting has infected Sudan's neighbors, leaving scores dead along the Sudan-Chad border. One U.N. official recently described the scene of dead bodies in the area as ``shocking and apocalyptic.''

So much death and destruction, 2 1/2 years after this administration stated that genocide was indeed occurring in Darfur. More than 100 days after Mr. Natsios's deadline, the killings continue.

Earlier this month, Mr. Natsios testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on Darfur and Plan B. His testimony only deepened my concerns about the administration's Darfur paralysis.

When asked repeatedly by Senator Menendez to answer yes or no as to whether genocide was occurring in Darfur, he did not answer yes. Instead his response was that the violence has abated in Darfur and that the rebel groups were also engaging in killings. His answer was incredibly disturbing to me and to other members of the committee.

Now I understand Mr. Natsios's desire to convey the complexity of the situation and the complicity of various parties on the ground, but the fact is that the primary party responsible for the killings is the Sudanese Government and its Janjaweed proxies. For Mr. Natsios to be unable to state that genocide is occurring in clear terms seems to me a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. It also raises a question of credibility. After all, how can this administration stop a genocide when its special envoy won't even fully acknowledge it?

Mr. Natsios also stated that although the President is supposedly angry about the situation in Darfur and has recently proposed certain sanctions, he has acceded to a request by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to delay any implementation of Plan B for another two to four weeks to give the Secretary-General time to convince the Sudanese Government to accept a peacekeeping force.

Now 2 to 4 weeks may seem like nothing in the context of protracted and complex diplomatic negotiations, but this is no treaty that is being negotiated. There are lives at stake every day here and we just cannot afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach.

Recent reports suggest that the Sudanese Government has agreed to a hybrid force but based on its previous track record, I will believe it when I see some additional boots on the ground. In the meantime, a pause on the administration's part is simply unacceptable.

And so I believe that even as the modalities of a peacekeeping force, that may or may not materialize, are worked out, the administration must begin implementing certain elements of Plan B immediately. Not 4 weeks from now. Not 2 weeks from now. Immediately.

Select punitive measures as described by Mr. Natsios at the hearing include imposing personal sanctions on certain members of the rebel groups and the Sudanese Government; curbing the Sudanese Government's access to oil revenues; and increasing penalties on companies operating in Sudan.

There is nothing revolutionary about these measures. They were leaked to the public and have been under discussion for some weeks. The question in my mind is not so much about whether we should implement them but why haven't we already implemented them.

As chairman of the Banking Committee and a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am absolutely willing to work with the administration to put these measures into force and look forward to some clear answers from the administration on this.

Now let me be clear about what I mean in saying we should go ahead and implement elements of Plan B. I fully appreciate the sensitivities of our diplomatic efforts related to Darfur. I fully agree with the importance of working this issue through the U.N. in a multilateral manner. But if there are certain steps that the United States can take on its own account and indeed was supposed to take over 100 days ago to pressure the Sudanese Government, then what are we waiting for?

The time has come to delink certain elements of Plan B from our broader multilateral strategy to pressure Khartoum. The time has come to act where and when we can. This administration has shown no compulsion in acting unilaterally in the past. It did so by invading Iraq with disastrous consequence. Why does it continue to keep one foot on the side lines 4 years into this genocide when it not only has the ability but also the moral responsibility to act?

Moreover, we must not stop at implementing long overdue sanctions whose credibility has been called into question because they have yet to be implemented. We must also consider a more robust role for NATO forces, including their deployment to Sudan if the Sudanese Government continues to obstruct a hybrid peacekeeping force.

Even if the Sudanese Government consents to the U.N.-AU force, the United Nations may fail to muster the requisite troops within an acceptable period of time. In such a scenario, we should consider the deployment of an interim NATO force with U.S. participation. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Resolution 1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur.

Naturally, special attention will have to be paid in any operation to the security of refugee camps and aid workers but to those who say that military action will make things worse, I have only one thing to say: we are already at rock bottom.

The authorization of force is one of the most critical decisions a member of Congress has to make, especially if it entails sending our brave men and women into harm's way on the ground. U.S. participation however in any such action, even in a limited capacity, is critical to showing the world that America is not just about fighting the war against terrorism but also is willing to fight against injustice and mass murder. That we are prepared to fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and life, and not just talk about them.

In advocating certain measures outside the framework of the United Nations, I do not intend to dismiss the critical role that the U.N. and other countries can play. The fact is that the U.S. has limited leverage over Sudan and we need all the help we can get. We must work within the U.N. system, and also press other key countries that deal with Sudan such as India and China to do their part. China in particular has a crucial role to play in changing Khartoum's behavior.

But even as we assess the role and responsibilities of others, we must never forget our own. We must lead by example. Over the past few years, I have voted for legislation sanctioning the Government of Sudan. I have delivered floor statements and attended hearings on Darfur, where witness after witness has testified to the ongoing atrocities. I have sent letters to the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs and others urging them to use their clout with Sudan.

Yet after all such actions and deliberations by members of this body and after all the punitive authorities granted to this administration, to see it temporizing and regressing to a point where we are debating whether genocide is even occurring is utterly unacceptable.

The time for action is now, not in a few weeks. We are at rock bottom and the administration needs to deliver on its threats and translate its rhetoric into action. We must do everything in our power to end the genocide in Darfur immediately.

Source