Congressional Record Statement of Senator Feingold on the Situation in Darfur February 2, 2005 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the United Nations' Commission of Inquiry on the crisis in Darfur reported to the Security Council on Monday of this week. Like every credible account of what has happened in Darfur, the report makes for grim reading. The Commission pointed to the ``killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence'' in its discussion of the violations of international law that have occurred in the area, and also found that there may have been Sudanese Government officials and others who acted ``with genocidal intent.'' This report stands in stark contrast to the positive news that emerged from Sudan last month, when a comprehensive agreement to end the decades long, devastating north south civil war was signed. I welcomed that agreement, and I hope it is successful. But the truth is that I have little confidence in the Government of Sudan, and I see no reason to believe that a north south peace agreement will awaken that government to its responsibility to protect all of its citizens. Just days after the historic peace agreement was signed, I visited the refugee camps of eastern Chad and spoke to Sudanese citizens who had fled Darfur. They spoke of their desperate need for basic security back at home, and they are right. Consistent reports indicate that the violence in Darfur has continued. The Commission of Inquiry's recent report serves to remind all of us, Mr. President, that tragedy persists in Sudan, and the world has not done enough to stop it. Much of the attention surrounding this report, Mr. President, has focused on the Commission's recommendation that the International Criminal Court, or ICC, take up the Darfur issue with the intention of trying those responsible for atrocities. Just as the question of whether or not to use the word ``genocide'' was, for some time, a debate that distracted attention from the need to take meaningful action to bring security to the people of Darfur, I fear that a new issue the question of whether or not the crimes committed in Darfur should be taken up by the International Criminal Court may soon dominate the debate. Mr. President, the administration is implacably opposed to the ICC. Frankly, this is a subject on which the President and I share some common ground. I have not supported joining the ICC as it stands. I want more protection for our troops to ensure that they will not be targets of unjust and politically motivated prosecutions. But I do believe that it was a mistake to walk off in a huff as the ICC was taking shape. It is hard to protect our troops from unfair prosecutions if we aren't at the table to win those protections. I also believe that threatening our allies and trying to bully them into changing their position on the ICC, rather than sitting at the table to work these issues out, was a mistake. There are ways to protect our interests that do not involve infuriating the allies that we need to win the war on terrorism. Certainly there are better ways to protect our interests than to stand in the way of trying people guilty of what our own administration has called genocide. The American Servicemembers Protection Act, which Congress passed to give concrete form to the objections that many have to the ICC, contains a provision stating: Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. It seems to me that the crisis in Darfur may be precisely the kind of situation that such a provision was intended to cover. We have an interest a moral interest and a political interest in refusing to accept impunity for the grave abuses that have been committed in Darfur and in promoting long term stability by insisting on accountability. There is no question of American troops or political figures being involved. The legitimate concerns that we have with the ICC simply are relevant to this situation. The administration's position today, as I understand it, is that we should create an entirely new international tribunal for Sudan. If that is what it takes to bring some justice to the people of Darfur, so be it. But it is not really difficult to understand why other members of the international community would be resistant to creating an entirely new structure, potentially every time that serious crimes against humanity occur, when a structure already exists for the express purposes of dealing with these issues. Particularly when our own administration has been pressing existing ad hoc tribunals to wrap up their costly but important work, it seems odd to create another ad hoc mechanism when the ICC exists. Most worryingly, it gives those who would rather continue to wallow in endless reviews and deliberations while people in Darfur die another opportunity to delay reviews and meaningful action. So I believe that the administration should think about what makes good sense in this case. Efforts to bring an end to the crisis in Darfur have faltered, time and again, due to a lack of multilateral political will. Security Council members were unable to do more than contemplate the possibility of sanctions in the face of a terrible man made catastrophe. We must continue to build a solid international coalition to pressure the Sudanese regime. I know that many of my colleagues and many in the administration share my frustration with the grace periods, the delays, the empty threats, and the hesitations. It is well past time, then, to do something about that. If we can send a former Secretary of State around the world to encourage others to relieve Iraqi debt, then we can appoint a very senior Presidential envoy to focus on this problem, to drum up support in capitals around the world, to squeeze every drop of potential cooperation from others with intense discussions and negotiations. The Government of Sudan should feel intense pressure every day, not hear mild scoldings and mixed messages every month or so. And the U.S. should not muddle our message by getting tangled up in our contorted position on the ICC. Now the Commission of Inquiry's report has the potential to prod other states into action. It would be a terrible shame if the United States, once at the forefront of urging action on Sudan, now became a part of the problem.

# # #