Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
U.N. Security Council Resolution Authorizing an Expanded Peacekeeping
Force for Darfur
As Prepared for Delivery
From the Senate Floor
Download the video (Windows
Media, Quicktime)
or audio
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.
