The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SUDAN POLICY” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S10768-S10769 on Oct. 27, 2009.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SUDAN POLICY
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to draw the attention of the body today to a policy initiative that was put forward by the Obama administration last week. It is on a topic a lot of people have been involved in for a long period of time. It involves Sudan, Darfur, and the genocide taking place in Sudan. It now involves new policy steps the administration is proposing to take to build a relationship and overtures to the Sudanese Government.
This is engagement to the extreme because President Bashir of Sudan is an indicted war criminal whose government is conducting a genocide, as declared by the Congress of the United States and the administration. For the first time in the history of America, we would be engaging an individual who is both an indicted war criminal, being pursued by the International Criminal Court, and also who has conducted a genocide in Darfur. We are talking about: OK. We need to start maybe engaging, and now there have been visas issued to top members of President Bashir's inner circle to come into the United States and discussion of a carrot-and-stick approach to Sudan, when he is running a genocide in Darfur and is an indicted war criminal. This is atrocious on its face. It is engagement to the extreme. It is wrong, and it would be harmful to long-term U.S. interests.
What happens the next time an individual is involved in genocide? Do we say: If you start behaving a little less worse on your genocide, we will start to give you some carrots to help you out. What about the next indicted war criminal, do we say: If you are a little less bad, if you only kill 500 a day instead of 1,000, we are going to start offering you carrots instead of sticks in this approach. This undermines the moral authority of the United States. It is the wrong thing to do.
I wish to give a couple historical examples.
Toward the end of World War II, Heinrich Himmler, who was No. 2 in charge--but after Hitler committed suicide was No. 1 in charge--of Nazi Germany reached out to the Allied commander, General Eisenhower, and wanted to start negotiating with him: If he could be allowed to live, they might negotiate some sort of settlement. Eisenhower completely ignored it and treated him like the war criminal he was. Can you imagine if we would have started negotiating with Himmler at that time?
Let me give some more recent examples. What about Serbian leader Karadzic, the so-called ``Butcher of Bosnia,'' accused of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people? The State Department did not say: If you are a little less bad and don't kill quite as many people, we will start negotiating with you. They didn't say that. They put a $5 million reward out to anybody who gave us information leading to his capture, and he currently resides in a prison in The Hague.
What about Charles Taylor, the ``Butcher of Liberia,'' who ran on an election slogan--listen to this: ``He killed my pa, he killed my ma, but I will vote for him.'' That was his election slogan. Taylor was directly involved in coordinating and supporting unthinkable atrocities over many years and, after ceding power, was indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Here is an indicted war criminal. Did we say to him: OK. Mr. Taylor, if you start not killing as many people, we will negotiate with you? Of course not. What the Congress did was offered and passed legislation giving a $2 million reward for Taylor's capture, and he now sits in a prison in The Hague.
It would be unthinkable for us, in those circumstances, to say: OK. We will start negotiating with these indicted war criminals, butchers of their own people, and we are going to start working with you because you are going to act a little less bad. Yet that is what we are talking about with President Bashir, an indicted war criminal, conducting a genocide in Darfur that we have declared.
We have had hundreds of thousands of people across America going to rallies to save Darfur, and now we are talking about a carrot-and-stick approach with him?
I say no. I say we cannot do this, and if we do this in this circumstance, what about future genocidal regimes? What about future indicted war criminals? Is there any standard upon which the United States can or will stand at those points in time or could we, at that point in time, if we do this in this particular case?
I am all for getting some form of movement on the north-south agreement so the south can vote next year and will probably vote to secede and form its own country in the south. I think that is prudent and wise, after many years of civil war and the negotiations that took place to get a north-south agreement. But I do not at all think you can trade that for us negotiating with this indicted war criminal.
I urge my colleagues not to support this effort on behalf of the administration to engage a genocidal regime in Khartoum.
I appreciate my colleagues' attention. I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?
____________________
