July 31, 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Durbin here on the floor today to raise the critical and timely issue of the UN Security Council’s authorization of an expanded peacekeeping mission for the Darfur region of Sudan. Sen. 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’ 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.

Mr. President, 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 under-equipped 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 their 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 more robust UN-AU mission is a step in a 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 UN 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 -- eight 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 – and I quote – “the successful outcome of this historic meeting."

What appears to have been forgotten in November, and again in the current UN 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 UN 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 UN would take “further measures” – in other words, sanctions – in the event of noncompliance. How, Mr. President, 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 two 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 UN’s independent Human Rights Committee said that "widespread and systematic serious human rights violations - including murder, rape, forced displacement and attacks 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 UN 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 UN 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.