Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Situation in Darfur March 30, 2004 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the ongoing crisis in Darfur, a region in western Sudan that has been the site of atrocities for months. A recent report from the International Crisis Group spells out the horrifying facts of the situation. The report indicates that 830,000 people have been displaced as a result of the conflict, and thousands have been killed. Government-supported militias have deliberately targeted civilians, sometimes focusing on unprotected villages with no apparent link to the rebels other than their ethnic profile. According to credible reports, militia atrocities have included indiscriminate killing and mutilation, rape on a massive scale, and the looting and destruction of food reserves and other property. Outright and indiscriminate government bombing has also been verifiably reported since the conflict began. We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what can be done to help the innocent men, women, and children caught up in this nightmare? The U.S. must work with the international community to signal our collective resolve and to insist that the Government of Sudan stop playing games with humanitarian access. Khartoum needs to feel the pressure, and all parties need to work urgently for a settlement. But we must also ask, what do these developments in Darfur tell us about the Government of Sudan? The reports from the region seem to confirm that the Government of Sudan has no qualms about backing attacks on innocent civilians. I want the administration's extremely laudable peace initiative in Sudan to succeed. Many dedicated professionals have devoted countless hours to this enterprise, and many courageous Sudanese have taken difficult steps in the pursuit of a just peace. But my doubts about the prospects for a future of peace and cooperation are growing, rather than dissipating, at each new report on the Darfur crisis. I doubt the stability and sustainability of a peace agreed to by a party that accepts organized atrocities as just one more tool in its toolbox of governing. What kind of peace can be achieved with this kind of partner? Can we truly have confidence in this government's good faith? What kind of future cooperation can we realistically expect? As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have been engaged on issues relating to Sudan for many years. I was proud to work with my colleague on that subcommittee for several years, Senator Frist, on the Sudan Peace Act. I recognize the complexity of Sudanese dynamics, and I certainly understand that the situation in Darfur is different from the conflict between the Government of Sudan and the forces of the south, most prominently the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement. But some of the elements of the Darfur crisis are, unfortunately, quite familiar. We have seen obstacles thrown up to humanitarian access, we have seen the near-total abdication of responsibility for the basic security and well-being of Sudanese civilians, and we see government-backed militias employed to keep some of the dirtiest of the dirty working at some token distance from officials. On December 16, 2003, the State Department issued a statement expressing ``deep concern'' about the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur. The statement indicated that: the United States calls on the Government of Sudan to take concrete steps to control the militia groups it has armed, to avoid attacks against civilians and to fully facilitate the efforts of the international humanitarian community to respond to civilian needs. But it then contained this final sentence: The fighting in Darfur is not linked to the ongoing peace talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in Kenya. I am among many observers who fear that this sentence was interpreted in Khartoum as a signal that the disincentives articulated by the U.S. in the context of the peace talks will not be applied because of abuses in Darfur. I urge the administration to insist that the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team be permitted to investigate alleged attacks on civilians throughout the country, including attacks in Darfur. The Government of Sudan should have no formal or informal veto power over this team's investigations. The team was established as a confidence-building measure, and it was agreed to by all parties. But to suggest that the Government of Sudan should be able to pick and choose areas in which the team is permitted to conduct its inquiries undermines confidence. I do respect the fact that delicate diplomacy is ongoing, and I want to be able to celebrate a lasting end to Sudan's north-south civil war as much as any Member of this body. But none of that changes the fact that what is happening in Darfur is inexcusable, it is undermining the Naivasha peace process, and it is casting a pall over the future of Sudan at a time when light had finally begun to shine on that long-suffering country. It is time to stop expressing quiet concern, and to start treating this crisis with the urgency it deserves.

# # #