Floor Statements

The front page of the Washington Post yesterday featured a story about the Dalai Lama's visit to Washington this week--a trip which will be marked by what doesn't take place. For the first time since 1991, this spiritual leader, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, will not be afforded a meeting with the President of the United States. This is a mistake which has far-reaching consequences.

China has initiated a global effort to stop heads of state from hosting the Dalai Lama. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page pointed out yesterday, ``China routinely assails countries whose leaders meet with the Dalai Lama, targeting France and Germany in recent years by cutting off diplomatic exchanges and canceling conferences and the like.''

The Dalai Lama is set to travel to New Zealand and Australia later this year and, as the Post reported, ``he has yet to secure a commitment from their leaders to meet.'' Will these countries follow our lead?

I've been to Tibet. I've seen the Buddhist monks and nuns in Drapchi prison. I've met frightened Tibetans who quietly showed me their forbidden photo of the Dalai Lama. I wonder if their plight received even passing mention during internal White House deliberations about whether to meet with the Dalai Lama before the President's November trip to China. Or, were they simply a nuisance in the context of a larger bilateral relationship?

An unnamed administration official in the Post story justified the decision by saying ``this President is not interested in symbolism or photo ops but in deliverables.'' I, too, am interested in deliverables, as is the human rights community, but I'm interested in symbols. And the President should be, too. Symbolism is powerful. If we surrender to this Chinese government, we have surrendered something far greater than the President may realize.

The Tiananmen Square demonstrators of 20 years ago understood that symbols speak volumes. They carried papier-mache models of the Statute of Liberty. Ronald Reagan, too, understood symbols. He understood there was something symbolically stirring about him standing at the Brandenberg Gate and calling on the then-Soviet leader to tear down that wall that divided the people of East and West Berlin.

Ronald Reagan understood there was something symbolically powerful about invoking the name of Solzhenitsyn when he spoke at the Danilov Monastery in Russia--the very same dissident who more than a decade earlier, reminiscent of this week's events, was denied a visit with President Ford who was worried about upsetting the Russians prior to a summit.

This administration may not be interested in symbolism, but that will come as devastating, devastating news to millions around the world who yearn for freedom, who cry out for basic human rights, and who expect America, our country, to be their champion when their own voices have been silenced.

What about the Coptic Christians in Egypt? The Baha'is in Iran? What about the oppressed citizens of Burma and North Korea and Vietnam? They should rightly be alarmed by the treatment of the Dalai Lama, as this is just one more example of a growing pattern in this administration of sidelining human rights.

It's not too late. I call on the President to invite the Dalai Lama to the White House; to reclaim the moral high ground and not kowtow to the Chinese government that brutally oppresses its people.

I call on the President to stand side by side with his holiness--a man of peace--and align America once again with the oppressed, not with the oppressors.

I want to talk about an issue dealing with our national security. CNN reported this morning that the security situation in Yemen is rapidly deteriorating, making a dangerous new haven for al Qaeda and terrorists.

This report is just the latest in a series of warnings about the security situation in Yemen. Earlier this week, Time magazine reported that ``two-thirds of the country is out of government control,'' and that ``al Qaeda is turning the lawless mountain areas of Yemen into a new staging area.''

According to press reports today, U.S. counterterrorism officials believe that al Qaeda's ``presence in Yemen threatens to turn the country into a dangerous base for training and plotting attacks.''

In September 2008, al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen attacked the U.S. Embassy with vehicle bombs, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown

stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operations.

We have seen the consequences of these developments. Last August, a Yemeni al Qaeda loyalist detonated a suicide bomb in an attempt to kill Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He was able to gain access to the prince by pretending to be an al Qaeda defector before detonating the explosions.

Despite this deteriorating situation, it was reported--and it's hard to believe--in Reuters on Monday in an article I'm submitting for the Record that at least one detainee from Guantanamo Bay has been released to Yemen--released to Yemen, where you can't control the country--and at least 26 others have been cleared to return, according to a list at the detention facility posted in Arabic and Pashto.

What kind of policy is this that the detainees--some who have killed American citizens--at Guantanamo Bay have a list of those that are being released, but not one Member of Congress or the American people know anything about it and are kept in the dark.

Most of these detainees were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002. They have spent 8 years living among the most dangerous terrorists in the world, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and who beheaded Daniel Pearl.

In an attempt to meet this self-imposed deadline to close Guantanamo Bay next January, Eric Holder and the administration are prepared to release perhaps a third of its cleared detainees to Yemen, a dangerously unstable country that is clearly unprepared to accept and monitor and rehabilitate these detainees.

Given that more than 15 percent of released detainees have returned to terrorism, this release will have a dangerous consequence for the American people. It's not beyond the imagination that there will be an article in the paper several months from now that somebody who was at Guantanamo, from Yemen, released by Eric Holder, goes back to Yemen and kills an American citizen or is involved in an act of terrorism.

Combined with al Qaeda's growing strength and presence in Yemen, this release is concerning. As our State Department noted in its 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism, ``The security situation in Yemen deteriorated significantly over the past year as al Qaeda and Yemen increased its attacks against Western and Yemeni Government institutions.''

What is Eric Holder and the Justice Department--what are they thinking about? Surely, there must be a better solution, one that won't release detainees from Guantanamo who are involved in activities against American military, who have served time with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, to send them back to Yemen.

Earlier today, I wrote Attorney General Eric Holder to urge that no additional detainees be released to Yemen or other unstable countries. The deadline to close Guantanamo Bay is no excuse to expedite the release of Yemeni detainees, especially if the country, as it is, is unprepared to take responsibility for them. The decision to release the detainees requires due diligence. It cannot be undone.

While we may have a difference of opinion on how best to deal with the situation in Guantanamo Bay, I think, I hope, I believe that we can all agree that a rush release of terrorist detainees, people who have served with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should not be released back into Yemen when it is so destabilized.

What is this Obama administration thinking? What is Eric Holder thinking? I urge Members of Congress to have hearings and for Eric Holder to cease and desist any returnees back to Yemen.

[From Reuters, Sept. 28, 2009]

Obama Team Clears 75 at Guantanamo for Release

(By Jane Sutton)

MIAMI.--An Obama administration task force has so far

cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for

release as part of its effort to close the detention camp, a

military spokesman said on Monday.

The review team is examining each prisoner's case to decide

who will be held for trial and who can be sent home or

resettled in other nations.

President Barack Obama had set a January 22 deadline to

shut the detention camp although Defense Secretary Robert

Gates told ABC News in an interview broadcast on Sunday that

``it's going to be tough'' to meet the deadline.

As the review team makes its decisions, military officials

at Guantanamo post an updated list in the camps to let the

prisoners know how many from each nation have been judged

free to go.

It was an opportunity to just provide better

communication,'' said Navy Lieutenant Commander Brook DeWalt,

a spokesman for the Guantanamo detention operation. ``There's

a lot of information out there and you get a lot of things

from a lot of different angles. It helps put it in a more

succinct context for them.''

The prisoners are well aware of Obama's announcement that

the camp would be closed and have heard piecemeal information

from their lawyers and relatives during phone calls arranged

by the International Committee of the Red Cross, he said.

The list is posted in Arabic, Pashto and English. The

latest list of 78 prisoners includes two Uzbeks sent to

Ireland and a Yemeni returned to his homeland on Saturday, an

indication that some progress is being made in thinning the

camp population of those who are not considered a threat.

``We are not focused on whether the deadline will or won't

be met on a particular day,'' White House spokesman Robert

Gibbs said. ``We are focused on making . . . the most

progress that is possible.''

Some on the list are among the 30 ordered freed by U.S.

courts but still awaiting transfer, including 13 Chinese

Uighurs. The Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to

accept most of them.

Also on the list are 26 other captives from Yemen, nine

from Tunisia, seven from Algeria, four from Syria, three each

from Libya and Saudi Arabia, two each from Uzbekistan, Egypt,

the West Bank and Kuwait, and one each from Azerbaijan and

Tajikistan.

Most were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan after U.S.

troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to oust al Qaeda in

response to the September 11 hijacked plane attacks on the

United States.

Mr. Speaker, recent numbers from the White House Office of Management and Budget, featured in the ad behind me, predicts a Federal deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. Do we really think America is unsinkable? I urge you to visit defeatthedebt.com and learn more about exactly how serious the mounting debt and deficits are to every American. A television ad being run by the same group features an elementary school class citing the Pledge of Allegiance to America's debt and the Chinese Government that lends us money.

When will we wake up to how serious this problem is and take it seriously enough to deal with it? This Congress and this administration are failing the American people. We need to come together and sponsor the bipartisan Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission bill.

Madam Speaker, I have now written Attorney General Eric Holder on four occasions asking for an explanation of the dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. To date, the answers provided are scant and, in at least one important regard, factually inaccurate.

In 1981, I was the only member, Republican or Democrat, of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of The Richmond Times Dispatch. And when I supported the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to vote. This is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.

This New Black Panther Party case was brought in January by career attorneys in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division against the party and several of its members for deploying uniformed men to a polling station in Philadelphia on Election Day last November to harass and intimidate voters, one of whom brandished a nightstick to voters. The public, and every Member, if they care, can view the video of the incident as well as other examples of the party's intimidation in a clip from the National Geographic Channel documentary entitled ``Coming to a Polling Place Near You'' posted on the Web. And it can be seen at www.electionjournal.org. One of the witnesses of the Election Day incident, Bartle Bull, a veteran civil rights activist who served as Bobby Kennedy's New York campaign manager in 1968, has publicly called this ``the most blatant form of voter intimidation'' he has ever seen. He also reminded us that ``Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jackboots with billy clubs block the doors of polling places, and neither did Robert Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace.''

In July, The Washington Times reported that improper political influence by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli led to the dismissal of the case, a politicizing of career employees.

This inexplicable dismissal came over the objections of the career attorneys on the trial team as well as the department's own appeal office, which advised that the complaint was ``sufficient to support the injunctions'' sought by the career lawyers, and that the ``government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters.''

Despite this guidance urging that the department pursue a judgment in this case, it was dismissed in May over the career attorneys' objections. However, this unjustified dismissal has not gone unnoticed. I have worked with the Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith to demand answers from Attorney General Holder.

I am pleased that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has also taken note of this case. The Commission has an important statutory responsibility to ``investigate voting rights deprivation and make appraisals of Federal policies to enforce Federal voting rights laws.''

Congress instilled this independent oversight responsibility of the Commission in statute, and it says: ``All Federal agents shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.''

The Commission wrote to Attorney General Holder on June 16, June 22 and August 10 requesting answers on the dismissal of this case. It also voted at its September meeting to make its review of this case the primary focus of its 2009 independent report.

Earlier today, the Commission sent a fourth letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, which I submit for the Record, reiterating its request for information and asking him to respond no later than October 14 or it will proceed with an investigation using its statutory authorities.

I applaud the Commission. I call on Attorney General Holder to answer the questions posed in my letters dated June 8, July 17, July 22 and July 31, as well as comply with the Commission's request for information so it may complete its report. I also urge the Attorney General to allow Members of Congress to meet with the career attorneys in the trial team and appeal the body so that they may answer legitimate questions.

Again, if Members of Congress want to see the case that Eric Holder has dropped, just go to www.electionjournal.org. It's the National Geographic channel. And you will see Eric Holder has to start answering the letters that the Civil Rights Commission sends and Members have sent.

Finally, the trial team should be allowed to bring the case again-- per the guidance I obtained from the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division in its July 30 memo--to allow our nation's justice system to work as it was intended: impartially and without bias.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

Washington, DC, September 30, 2009.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Re: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Review and Report on the

Implications of Enforcement Actions in United States v.

New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Civ. No. 09-

0065 SD (E.D. Pa.) (NBPP case)

Dear Attorney General Holder: The Commission requests that

you instruct Department officials to fully cooperate, as 42

U.S.C. 1975b(e) requires, with our overdue information

requests in the above-referenced matter. To that end, we also

ask you to identify an individual who will exercise the

substantive authority to coordinate the Department's

responses to our current and future requests.

Pursuant to formal proceedings, the Commission initiated an

inquiry into the implications of the Department's enforcement

actions in the NBPP case as reflected in our letters to DOJ

of June 16 and 22. We received a largely non-responsive

letter from Portia Roberson in late July and none of the

documents we requested. On August 7, the Commission voted 6-

0, with two members abstaining, to expand its investigation

by sending a follow-up letter to the Department. On August

10, the Commission addressed its letter to you, explaining

our need for the information. For example, we stressed our

need for information on previous voter intimidation

investigations so that we could determine whether the

Department's action in the NBPP case constitutes a change in

policy and, if so, what the implications of that change might

be.

At our most recent meeting on September 11, 2009, the

Commission voted to make its review of the implications of

the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report.

The Commission was aware that the Department's Office of

Professional Responsibility (OPR) had initiated an inquiry

into some aspects of the NBPP case to determine whether

further review is warranted. Although a letter from Ms.

Roberson of September 9 expresses the Department's desire to

delay any response to the Commission until the OPR

investigation is complete, you

may rest assured that the Commission will be sensitive to

OPR's internal ethics review as we move forward with our own

inquiry. As the discussion at our recent meeting indicates,

the Commission will work to accommodate any legitimate

concerns the Department may have regarding specific requests

for information once the Department begins its production.

The Commission has a special statutory responsibility to

investigate voting rights deprivations and make appraisals of

federal policies to enforce federal voting rights laws. The

Commission must form an independent judgment regarding the

merits of the NBPP enforcement actions (regardless of how the

decisions were made) and the potential impact on future

voter-intimidation enforcement by the Department.

Accordingly, Congress has provided, in a provision with no

statutory exceptions, that, ``All Federal agencies shall

fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may

effectively carry out its functions and duties.'' 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 1975b(e).

It is important to note that many aspects of the

Commission's inquiry have no connection with the matters

subject to OPR's jurisdiction. As set forth in our August 10

letter, the Commission will seek to determine:

1) the facts and the Department's actions regarding prior

voting intimidation investigations;

2) the underlying conduct in Philadelphia giving rise to

the NBPP case;

3) whether the decision in the NBPP case is consistent with

departmental policy or practice in prior cases or amounts to

a change in policy or practice;

4) the extent to which current policy or practice as

reflected in the NBPP case may encourage voter intimidation;

and

5) whether that policy or practice is consistent with

proper enforcement of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.

The Commission may also seek to determine whether any

decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper

influences. Thus, there may be some areas of potential

overlap with OPR's internal review, including an examination

of the decision-making process in the case. With regard to

these questions, if there are concerns as to the timing or

content of specific discovery requests, the Commission will

work with the Department to resolve them in a prompt and

satisfactory manner. In addition to my personal availability

to speak with your representatives, the Commission has

appointed a subcommittee of commissioners to focus on any

discovery issue that might arise in our investigation.

Accordingly, please identify the individual with

substantive responsibility for the production of documents,

scheduling of interviews and any possible depositions. If you

have not done so by October 14th, however, it will be

necessary for us to propound our interrogatories and

interview requests directly on the affected Department

personnel.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and prompt reply

to these requests.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Reynolds,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, yesterday I voted for the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (H.R. 3548), legislation that will provide an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits to individuals in states with unemployment above a three-month average of 8.5 percent. Because so many Americans have lost their once steady job and are struggling to find work and make ends meet during these difficult economic times, I feel that extending unemployment benefits is a necessity.

I was disappointed, however, that this legislation only included an extension of benefits for 29 states by setting an 8.5 percent state unemployment rate as the threshold for those eligible under this bill. In Virginia, where unemployment stands at 6.5 percent for the month of August, those out of work who have exhausted their benefits will not be covered.

Families across the country are struggling to pay their mortgage, to pay for health care expenses. They have depleted their savings and

are hanging on by a thread. Those out of work in Virginia aren't struggling any less than those in Ohio, Michigan, or California, where the statewide unemployment rates are higher. I believe that this is an issue of fairness that needs to be corrected.

To reach out to those who are looking for work in Virginia's 10th Congressional District, which includes some areas that reached an unemployment rate of 8 percent this summer, I am sponsoring a job fair in Frederick County in October. I held a similar event in Loudoun County in May and more than 70 employers attended to meet with more than 3,500 jobseekers.

People across the country are hurting and Virginia is no exception. While I believe voting for the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act will help many who have felt the brunt of the recession, I remain disappointed that unemployed Virginians were left behind. This measure should be amended to help all those across the country, rather than using an arbitrary threshold to determine who is most deserving.

Madam Speaker, I again rise to express my deep disappointment with the Obama administration's sidelining of human rights in U.S. foreign policy.

I submit for the Record an op-ed from today's Washington Post aptly titled ``A Cold Shoulder to Liberty.'' Columnist Michael Gerson writes of the administration's snub of the Dalai Lama on his upcoming visit to the nation's capital.

Two years ago, the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. President Bush personally presented it to him. I was there for the occasion where this man of peace and dignity was honored for his life's work in promoting basic rights for his people.

Next month, the Dalai Lama will again visit Washington, but this time he will be denied a visit with President Obama lest it ruffle feathers in Beijing in the lead up to the President's visit there in November.

I am reminded of another administration which declined to meet with a dissident for fear of souring an upcoming meeting. It was 1975, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was set to visit Washington. Henry Kissinger led the charge in refusing him a meeting with President Ford, who was worried about upsetting Soviet leader Brezhnev prior to the upcoming summit.

Contrast this approach with President Reagan's 1988 speech in defense of religious liberty at the ancient Danilov Monastery in Russia. In his remarks he had the courage to invoke a quote by Solzhenitsyn about the faith of the people of Russia. In so doing, he respectfully made the point that religious freedom is central to who we are as Americans, and as such our leaders will not be silenced on this score for fear of offending oppressive governments.

I believe that history shows this administration could learn from that approach.

Sadly, the White House's treatment of the Dalai Lama is not an isolated incident. Gerson notes, ``. . . rebuffing the Dalai Lama is part of a pattern. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has argued that pressing China on human rights `can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis . . .'' '

But this begs the question, what of the human rights crisis in China?

Just yesterday, the Associated Press reported that ``China has closed Tibet to foreign tourists and deployed soldiers armed with machine guns in the streets of Beijing--part of a raft of stringent security measures ahead of the 60th anniversary of communist rule. Even kite- flying has been banned in the capital.''

This is the government we are trying to curry favor with? I'd prefer to find common cause and solidarity with the people of Tibet, with the persecuted house church and Catholic bishops, with the repressed Falun Gong.

The administration's approach in China has been mirrored elsewhere at the expense of oppressed people the world over.

Gerson continues, ``Overtures to repressive governments in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and Egypt have generally ignored the struggles of dissidents and prisoners in those nations. So far, the Obama era is hardly a high point of human rights solidarity.''

It seems we could also add Burma to that list. Today's Post reports that ``For the first time in nine years, the United States allowed Burma's foreign minister to come to Washington, a sign of softening U.S. policy toward the military junta that has run that Asian nation for nearly five decades.''

The Post notes, ``Under the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, the White House needs to approve a waiver to allow Burmese officials who are attending the U.N. General Assembly to travel more than 25 miles outside of New York.''

On the reported eve of the administration's much anticipated release of a Burma policy review, the waiving of this sanction for a major general in the Burmese Army, to essentially sight-see in Washington, sends the wrong message.

Earlier this week, the Post featured an article with the headline, ``U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights,'' which reported, ``as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this week, human rights activists and political analysts say the new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights issues.''

I submit for the Record the entire article, which offers a grim but accurate assessment of this failed approach.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.''

Are we not friends of the persecuted Coptic Christian in Egypt? Are we not friends of the North Koreans enslaved in the gulag? Are we not friends of the repressed Cuban or Iranian democracy activist?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes, which makes this administration's deliberate sidelining of human rights that much more devastating.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 23, 2009]

A Cold Shoulder to Liberty

(By Michael Gerson)

Two Octobers ago, the Dalai Lama received the Congressional

Gold Medal, one of America's highest civilian honors, in the

rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi talked of a

``special relationship between His Holiness the Dalai Lama

and the United States.'' Said Sen. Mitch McConnell: ``We have

reached out in solidarity to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan

people, and the Chinese government needs to know that we will

continue to do so.'' President George W. Bush urged Chinese

leaders ``to welcome the Dalai Lama to China. They will find

this good man to be a man of peace and reconciliation.''

This October, on a scheduled visit to the United States,

the Dalai Lama will not be welcomed at the White House. Obama

adviser Valerie Jarrett was recently dispatched to

Dharamsala--the Dalai Lama's place of exile in northern

India--to gently deliver the message. The Tibetans took the

news, as usual, nonviolently. ``A lot of nations are adopting

a policy of appeasement'' toward China, observed Samdhong

Rinpoche, prime minister of Tibet's government in exile. ``I

understand why Obama is not meeting with the Dalai Lama

before his Chinese trip. It is common sense. Obama should not

irritate the Chinese leadership.''

The Obama administration has its diplomatic reasons. Since

the uprisings of 2008, the Chinese government has been

particularly sensitive on the topic of Tibet. Chinese

President Hu Jintao is a guest in the United States this

week. And administration officials hint that Obama will

eventually meet with the Dalai Lama after the president's own

visit to China in November.

Yet between the gold medal and the cold shoulder, a large

diplomatic signal is being sent.

It is not that Obama is completely unwilling to anger the

Chinese. This month he imposed a 35 percent tariff on tire

imports from China, leading to talk of a trade war. The head

of the United Steelworkers said the president was willing to

``put himself in the line of fire for the jobs of U.S.

workers.'' But Obama is clearly less willing to put himself

in the diplomatic line of fire for other, less tangibly

political reasons.

In great-power politics, morality often gets its hair

mussed. Every president needs room for diplomatic

maneuvering. But rebuffing the Dalai Lama is part of a

pattern. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has argued that

pressing China on human rights ``can't interfere with the

global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and

the security crisis''--a statement that left Amnesty

International ``shocked and extremely disappointed.'' Support

for Iranian democrats has been hesitant. Overtures to

repressive governments in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela,

Syria and Egypt have generally ignored the struggles of

dissidents and prisoners in those nations. So far, the Obama

era is hardly a high point of human rights solidarity.

Those who donate to Amnesty International and put ``Free

Tibet'' stickers on their Volvos often assume these

commitments are served by supporting liberal politicians. But

it really depends. On human rights, modern liberalism is a

house divided. In a recent, brilliant essay in the New

Republic, Richard Just describes the ``contradictory impulses

of liberal foreign policy: the opposition to imperialism and

the devotion to human rights. If liberals view anti-

imperialism as their primary philosophical commitment, then

they will be reluctant to meddle in the affairs of other

countries, even when they are ruled by authoritarian

governments . . . that abuse their own people. But if

liberalism's primary commitment is to human rights, then

liberals will be willing to judge, to oppose, and even to

undermine such governments.''

During the Cold War, Just argues, these impulses were

united in opposition to pro-American despots such as Chile's

Augusto Pinochet. ``But history does not always present such

convenient circumstances; and since the end of the Cold War,

every time the United States has undertaken a humanitarian

intervention--or, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, interventions

with humanitarian implications--this fundamental split has,

in one form or another, returned to the center of the liberal

debate.''

This split is now evident within the Obama administration.

It includes some very principled, liberal defenders of human

rights such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and National

Security Council staffer Samantha Power. But it seems

dominated, for the moment, by those who consider the human

rights enterprise as morally arrogant and an obstacle to

mature diplomacy.

Which raises the question: What is left of foreign policy

liberalism when a belief in liberty is removed?

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2009]

U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights

(By Colum Lynch)

United Nations.--From the beginning, the Obama

administration has unabashedly embraced the United Nations,

pursuing a diplomatic strategy that reflects a belief that

the world's sole superpower can no longer afford to go it

alone. But, as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this

week, human rights activists and political analysts say the

new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights

issues.

Rights advocates have been frustrated by several episodes.

They say U.S. diplomats have sent mixed messages about their

intention to reward--or punish--the Sudanese government for

its alleged role in genocide in Darfur. The United States

rejected a U.N. proposal to compel Israel and Hamas to

conduct credible investigations into war crimes in the Gaza

Strip. And the administration has pursued a low-profile

approach to Sri Lanka, where a military offensive against

rebels is believed to have killed thousands of civilians.

The administration continues to assert that ``the United

States is not going to preach its values and not going to

impose its values,'' said Kenneth Roth, executive director of

Human Rights Watch. ``The problem is they are not American

values--they are international values.''

U.S. officials assert they have shown leadership on human

rights, citing the administration's decision to weigh

prosecutions of CIA interrogators. They note that the

administration joined the U.N. Human Rights Council,

reversing the Bush administration's policy of shunning the

troubled rights agency in the hopes of reforming it. A U.S.

vote on the Security Council in June was crucial in ensuring

continued U.N. scrutiny of Sudan's rights record.

Being a Team Player

But U.S. officials say that American credibility also lies

in their willingness to be team players. In the past several

months, the United States has pledged to sign U.N. arms

control and human rights treaties, and has committed to

sending U.S. officers to far-flung U.N. peacekeeping

missions. Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United

Nations, says cooperation with the global organization is

essential for coordinating international efforts to combat

terrorism, scrap nuclear weapons arsenals and fight

pandemics.

``No single country, even one as powerful as our own, can

deal with these challenges in isolation,'' Rice said. ``We

are fundamentally living in an era when our security and our

well-being are very much linked to the security and well-

being of people elsewhere. That's a simple recognition of

reality.''

John R. Bolton, one of the U.S. ambassadors to the United

Nations under President George W. Bush, said the Obama

administration's strategy at the United Nations resembles a

religious ``act of faith.'' He questioned the wisdom of

empowering the organization.

The United Nations' contribution to the ``great questions

of our time''--counterterrorism and nonproliferation--have

been only ``marginally effective,'' Bolton said.

He also has criticized U.S. support for the Human Rights

Council, a body that ``spends its time attacking Israel and

the United States.''

In April, the council, based in Geneva, called for an

investigation into alleged abuses during the war in Gaza last

winter. Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed

the probe, insisted on expanding the investigation to examine

abuses by

Hamas and other Palestinian militants. His report accused

both sides of committing war crimes and called on the

Security Council to compel Israel and Hamas to conduct

credible investigations.

Human rights advocates urged the United States to back

Goldstone, saying it would show that the United States is

willing to hold even its closest ally to account for abuses.

But Rice rejected his recommendations, saying the ``weight of

the report is something like 85 percent oriented towards very

specific and harsh condemnation and conclusions related to

Israel. . . . In that regard it remains unbalanced, although

obviously less so than it might have been.''

Troubled About Darfur

Jerry Fowler, executive director of the Save Darfur

Coalition, said the administration's approach to Darfur has

been troubling. In recent months, Obama's special envoy,

retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, has pursued a

more conciliatory approach toward Sudan, saying that genocide

was no longer taking place in Darfur and that it was time to

ease some sanctions.

``We have been pushing consistently for a balance of

incentives and pressures, and so far we haven't really seen

that balance,'' Fowler said. ``Publicly, there has been more

of an emphasis on incentives.''

Rice said Gration's ``vitally important'' efforts to pursue

a political settlement to crises in Sudan should not be

interpreted to mean ``that we are any less concerned'' about

Sudan's commission of atrocities ``or that we are prepared to

wield carrots in advance of concerted and very significant

steps on the ground. That's not the policy of the United

States.''

Silence on Sri Lanka?

The other major concern of human rights advocates

monitoring developments at the United Nations is Sri Lanka.

When the government launched its final offensive this year

against the country's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

(LTTE), it was Mexico and Austria that first raised the alarm

in the Security Council. France and Britain sent their

foreign ministers to the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, to

press the government to show restraint.

The United States supported those efforts to draw attention

to the crisis in the Security Council, which China and Russia

opposed. It backed a compromise that allowed for discussion

on the Sri Lanka conflict in the U.N. basement.

``The U.S. government remained relatively silent on the Sri

Lankan crisis, especially in the early stages of the

fighting,'' said Fabienne Hara, vice president for

multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group. Its

response to Sri Lanka ``did not seem to match the commitment

to preventing mass human rights abuses stated during the

presidential campaign,'' she said.

Rice challenged that assessment, saying ``my perception is

that we spoke out very forcefully.'' She said that the United

States had a strong ambassador on the ground in Sri Lanka,

conveying American concerns, and that the assistant secretary

of state for refugees traveled there to conduct an assessment

mission. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rice

said, had been personally focused on the issue.

``I think that is an instance where our stand was clear,

consistent and principled,'' she said.

Madam Speaker, the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, DC, recently sent the following e-mail to their distribution list:

``Egypt has the largest and oldest Christian community in the Middle East, and is home to 2,069 churches.

``The Coptic Orthodox Church was founded in Alexandria by the apostle Mark in AD 57, making it one of the oldest churches in the world.

``A law requiring Presidential approval for church construction was changed in 2005, transferring that duty instead to the country's governors who are obligated to process churches' requests within 30 days.

``In 2003, President Mubarak declared Coptic Christmas, celebrated on January 7, a national holiday.''

In spite of these overtures by the Egyptian government, the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt is far from ideal. According to the State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report, ``The approval process for church construction continued to be hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years. Although government officials maintain that President Mubarak approves all requests for permits presented to him, independent critics charge that delays by the MOI and/or local authorities cause many requests to reach the President slowly or not at all. Some churches have complained that local security officials have blocked church repairs or improvements even when a permit has been issued. Others suggest unequal enforcement of the regulations pertaining to church and mosque projects. Many churches face difficulty in obtaining permits from provincial officials.''

On September 7, The Los Angeles Times reported that Egyptian authorities arrested 155 people in Aswan for publicly eating, drinking or smoking during daylight in the month of Ramadan, including non- Muslims.

There is clearly much that needs to be done by the Egyptian government to ensure the preservation of the Coptic community in Egypt.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ambassador Richard Schifter--a friend and lifelong champion for human rights. His own harrowing experience as a Holocaust survivor has been foundational to his efforts on behalf of oppressed, persecuted people the world over.

In the coming weeks, Ambassador Schifter will be honored by Project Interchange and the American Jewish International Relations Institute for his multi-faceted and important work in this arena. I join them in marking his life-time achievements.

In his two decades of government service at the Department of State and the National Security Council, he never wavered in his support for democracy and human rights--bedrocks of the American experience which shamefully are too often relegated to the sidelines in our foreign policy establishment.

As a former U.S. representative in the United Nations Human Rights Commission and former deputy U.S. representative in the U.N. Security Council, he acquired a keen understanding of how the institution works, and some of the political and ideological forces at play including those which seek to undermine the United States and delegitimize the state of Israel. He has effectively spurred congressional action to help rally friendly nations to support the U.S. position at the U.N.

In a 2008 presentation at the University of Virginia Law School, he said, ``As an immigrant rather than a native of the United States, let me tell you that I believe in the concept of American Exceptionalism.''

I share this belief and would say that Ambassador Schifter is himself an exceptional American.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) of World War II. They were the first women to fly military aircraft for the United States and deserve to be commended for their bravery.

From 1942 to 1944, these women flew in various non-combat missions, allowing male pilots to be deployed into combat. Their success in flying fighter, bomber, transport, and training aircraft eventually led to the integration of female pilots into the United States Armed Services.

There were 1,102 female WASP trained during World War II, and 300 survive today, two of whom currently reside in Virginia's 10th Congressional District. Joan Lemley of Purcellville and Barbara Ross of Warrenton are two of these brave pilots who served their country during World War II.

On July 1, President Obama signed S. 164 into law, which awards our nation's highest honor--the Congressional Gold Medal--to each of these women pioneers of World War II. They will finally receive the recognition they deserve for their wartime military service to our country. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the House version of this measure, which was introduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen.

I ask that my colleagues join me today in commending Barbara Ross, Joan Lemley and the other women pilots for serving their country in World War II.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, gave yesterday before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the critical issue of U.S.-Sudan policy, specifically as it relates to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). During the Clinton administration John was director of African Affairs at the National Security Council and special advisor at the Department of State. I respect his views given his long-time involvement in Africa and Sudan.

Sudan U.S. Policy and Implementation of the CPA

Thank you Congressman Payne and members of this

subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on a topic that

will help determine the future of millions of people from

Sudan and the surrounding region.

At this subcommittee hearing, members will hear a very

different message than that which will be communicated at

tomorrow's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Today,

this subcommittee's members will hear a bipartisan critique

of the current direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan. Rich

Williamson, Roger Winter and I all have negotiated

extensively with the regime in Sudan, have roughly a combined

six decades in working on or in Sudan, and have a very clear

idea of what is required for lasting peace to have a chance

in that embattled country.

This hearing comes at a moment in Sudan's history fraught

with danger and potential. There is no effective peace

process for Darfur, but one could be built with U.S.

leadership. The CPA is on the brink, but could be salvaged if

U.S. engagement deepens. Next year's elections are at risk,

but could become an important opportunity to strengthen

opposition parties and democratic structures crucial for the

referendum and for Sudan's political future. The referendum

itself is doubtful, but its prospects could be enhanced with

a credible international roadmap.

The major unknown variable that will help determine whether

the dangers or the opportunities get maximized is the

unresolved internal debate over the direction of U.S. policy

towards Sudan. In the absence of any agreement on the policy,

U.S. diplomatic engagement has been energetic, for which

Special Envoy Gration should be credited. But the substance

of this robust engagement has been fraught with missteps,

lack of internal coordination, and an overall aversion to

pressuring the ruling National Congress Party (NCP).

Sustained pressure leveraged by meaningful and focused sticks

is the principal tool that has moved the NCP to change its

behavior during the 20 years of its authoritarian rule. This

substantial track record of empirical evidence of the value

of pressure makes the direction of U.S. diplomacy all the

more questionable.

There is also a broader inconsistency in U.S. foreign

policy when it comes to Sudan. The Obama administration has

resolutely worked to craft more formidable international

coalitions to isolate North Korea and Iran for important U.S.

policy objectives. However, the U.S. is not doing the same

for Sudan, despite the existence of a regime there that is

responsible directly or indirectly for the loss of two and a

half million lives in the South and Darfur.

U.S. Goals in Sudan and How to Achieve Them

In the context of its policy review, the U.S. should spell

out clear goals:

(1) U.S. leadership in constructing a more effective Darfur

peace process, using as a model the process that led to the

CPA involving a lead role for the U.S. and a multilateral

support structure that provided international leverage,

expertise, and support;

(2) U.S. leadership in supporting the implementation of the

CPA, continuing the trend of deeper engagement over the last

few months but structuring clear penalties for non-

implementation of any of the key provisions;

(3) U.S. leadership in supporting the democratic

transformation of Sudan by supporting the electoral process,

providing institutional support to opposition parties and

civil society organizations, and building the capacity of the

Government of Southern Sudan;

(4) U.S. leadership in preparations for the South's

referendum in 2011, which will be a make-or-break process for

the future of both North and South.

The essential word that repeats throughout all these goals

is ``leadership.'' U.S. leadership--multilaterally and when

necessary unilaterally--will be an enormously influential

ingredient in a successful transition to peace and democracy

in Sudan.

But success will require greater leverage than that which

presently exists. The debate internally within the U.S.

Government in part rests on the degree to which incentives or

pressures ought to be favored instruments for changing the

behavior of the Sudanese regime, the Darfur rebels, and the

GOSS. It is the view of this panel and the activist

organizations that comprise the Darfur movement that the way

forward should involve deeper diplomatic engagement that is

rooted in multilateral pressures and the credible threat of

significant consequences for policies or actions by Sudanese

parties that undermine peace efforts and lead to worsening

humanitarian conditions. In the absence of these pressures,

and if incentives are all that are put forward, then failure

is guaranteed.

Success will also require the construction of credible and

effective processes that allow for the achievement of U.S.

policy goals. First and foremost, the glaring lack of an

effective peace process for Darfur calls out for greater U.S.

leadership in constructing from the existing elements a

revitalized process that has the chance of ending Darfur's

war. Secondly, the U.S. should intensify its early efforts to

revive the CPA and back these efforts with the construction

of clear multilateral consequences for violations or non-

implementation of key elements of the deal.

U.S. policy must be shaped by the fact that these complex

conflicts have a common core: Flawed governance by a center

that exploits and marginalizes an underdeveloped periphery.

Not only does the CPA provide a roadmap for resolving the

longest and bloodiest of these conflicts, but it also offers

a framework for the kind of democratic, structural

transformation necessary to alter the root cause of Sudan's

many recurring conflicts. The successful model of the CPA

could and should be replicated in a revitalized Darfur peace

process. The U.S. cannot afford to allow the CPA to fail, nor

can it allow the continuation of an ineffective Darfur

process that obstructs any real possibility of peace.

Priorities for CPA Implementation

The troubling reality is that Sudan's North-South peace

remains precarious at best. Given the mounting tensions

between the North and South and the spate of violence in the

South in recent months, deeper international engagement is

required. Renewed Sudanese civil war could bring wholesale

violence on a terrible scale while further destabilizing the

entire region. I will focus the remainder of my testimony on

the key priorities for the U.S. Government in CPA

implementation.

I am encouraged by recent positive steps by the Obama

administration to prioritize CPA implementation and to

revitalize international efforts to urge the Sudanese parties

to work on an array of outstanding provisions in the

agreement in the remaining year and a half. These new

efforts should be followed up with an approach that

penalizes failure of one of both of the Sudanese parties

to implement key provisions of the agreement. The hard

work begins now. It is time

for the administration to pursue specific priorities in

order to meet the key benchmarks in the crucial final

stages of CPA implementation.

The U.S. must direct renewed energy and commitment toward

the following strategic priorities:

1. Protect the People: Due to a worrisome upsurge in

intercommunal violence, the death toll in the South this year

now exceeds the number of violent deaths in Darfur in the

same period, and as elections draw closer, instability may

well increase. Tribal clashes are occurring among a heavily

armed civilian population that the poorly disciplined

southern army has proved incapable of securing. Some of the

latest clashes highlight the flaws and dangers of the so-

called the Joint Integrated Units, or JIUs, whose presence

has often led greater violence, instability, and civilian

casualties. The U.S. should take two specific measures to

help improve security and decrease the risk of further

violence in communities throughout the South:

Work with the U.N. Security Council to ensure that the

United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) has the necessary

capacity to fulfill its mandate and protect civilians. The

United States should lead efforts within the U.N. Security

Council to strengthen UNMIS' ability to support the CPA, but

this support must be matched with clearer strategic vision by

UNMIS on how it can best allocate its resources to

operationalize its mandate amidst ongoing security threats

throughout the South. Other guarantors of the CPA can support

UNMIS' efforts by contributing to coordinated programs such

as security sector reform within the SPLA.

Encourage the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) to take

leadership in promoting local peace-building initiatives to

defuse tensions between communities that have taken up arms

against each other.

2. Build the ``peace dividend'': Since the signing of the

CPA, progress has been slow in providing basic infrastructure

and services to the peripheral areas of Sudan. Insecurity and

underdevelopment remain a fact of life for most Sudanese. As

long as that is the case, the southern government will have

difficulty consolidating the peace and holding together an

ethnically divided South with competing political visions.

The GoSS has also been hit hard by the financial crisis, and

is in need of significant economic support, but this support

should be aimed specifically at capacity building efforts

that can strengthen the fledgling government. Additional

investments in agriculture and microcredit would make a

difference on the ground for the people of southern Sudan,

more than two million of whom have returned home to very

little after decades of war.

3. Defuse North-South tensions: A number of contentious

issues between the North and South must be resolved in next

year and a half, all of which necessitate robust support from

the international community in order to keep the negotiations

and processes on track. The U.S. should direct renewed energy

and commitment toward the following strategic priorities:

Urge meaningful reforms from the Sudanese parties before

the 2010 elections. The United States and other key actors,

operating on a tight timeline, need to lower their

expectations for the election and develop a multilateral

strategy to press the Government of National Unity--the

ruling National Congress Party in particular--to enact

meaningful reforms regardless of who wins in 2010, revitalize

CPA implementation, and establish a framework for talks in

Darfur that are consistent with the power-sharing provisions

of the CPA. There also has to be a clear and unified

international posture with regard to addressing the issue of

Darfur, given the near-impossibility of holding a free and

fair ballot there.

Keep the parties on track in the dual processes of

implementing the legal ruling on the boundaries of the Abyei

region and demarcating the North-South border. Two crucial

issues regarding contested borders between Sudan's North and

South need sustained attention from the international

community. The failure to establish clear international

penalties for a failure to implement these key CPA provisions

such as the demarcation of the disputed North-South border

has been a clear drag on the CPA. However, last week's legal

decision on the boundaries of Abyei--an oil-rich, contested

region along the disputed North-South border within Sudan--is

a crucial litmus test of the parties' will to implement the

CPA moving forward. Now that the ruling on Abyei has been

accepted by both parties, the U.S., the U.N., and the rest of

international community must follow through on its

commitments to help implement the ruling and monitor the

status of the demarcation of the Abyei boundaries.

Encourage negotiations between the NCP and SPLM on long-

term wealth-sharing arrangements before the 2011 referendum.

Track-two diplomatic efforts can get both parties to consider

various scenarios for wealth sharing after the referendum and

mitigate the likelihood that these discussions will short

circuit into a zero-sum game leading directly to conflict

after the referendum. Discussions of access to land for

populations with diverse needs and livelihoods and planning

for mutually beneficial development of oilfields in the

contested border region could ease current tensions over

border demarcation and generate momentum for further

cooperation.

Urge passage of the referendum law before the elections.

Applying pressure on Sudan's Government of National Unity to

urge the National Assembly to review and pass the law on the

southern referendum before the elections could reduce

tensions between the parties after the elections and enable

preparations for the referendum to begin now. Once the law is

passed and the Referendum Commission is created, potential

disputes, such as questions over whether or not certain

populations--such as southerners in Khartoum--are eligible to

vote, can be addressed before tensions escalate in the

immediate run-up to the referendum.

4. Prevent a return to war: The likelihood of a return to

war between the North and South, or of conflict breaking out

within the South, is real. An arms race between the Northern

and Southern government is just one warning sign of a tenuous

situation that could explode into outright conflict. Several

preventive measures can mitigate the risks of violence in the

run-up to the 2010 general elections and the 2011 referendum:

Enhance efforts to professionalize and modernize the SPLA.

The SPLA has struggled to transition from a guerilla movement

to a formal army, a process complicated by attempts to

integrate southern militias that opposed the SPLA during the

war. To ensure that the south is stabile and the GoSS can

deliver a peace dividend, the SPLA must continue to modernize

through a well-supported process of security sector

transformation that improves discipline, command and control,

capacity, and competency. Toward this end, the Obama

administration should explore the sale of an air defense

system to the GoSS. Although introducing new weapons systems

into a volatile military environment could be interpreted as

contrary to donors' responsibility to make unity attractive,

it is in the interests of lasting stability that the GoSS

spend money on defense wisely. Unlike the aforementioned

refurbished tanks, an air defense is non-offensive and helps

level the playing field by neutralizing the north's major

tactical advantage in the event of renewed hostilities.

Comprehensive Peace: the Only Option in Sudan

Ending genocide in Darfur and fulfilling the promise of the

Comprehensive Peace Agreement requires a comprehensive

approach to Sudan rather than reactive crisis management. The

U.S. must lead the international community in working now to

ensure that the CPA does not collapse and spark a devastating

new round of conflict in Sudan. With a significant diplomatic

reinvestment in the CPA that prioritizes protecting

civilians, building peace in the South, and defusing tensions

between the North and South, the U.S. can help prevent the

catastrophic consequences of a potential collapse of the CPA.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, head of the Government of Southern Sudan Mission to the United States, gave yesterday before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding the importance of full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) in Sudan.

His perspective is invaluable as a diplomat and Southern Sudanese leader who experienced firsthand the horrors of the twenty-plus year civil war between the North and the South which left more than 2 million dead in Southern Sudan.

Testimony of Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth Head of the Government of Southern Sudan Mission to the United States Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights

Commission (TLHRC)

Honorable Co-Chairman Frank R. Wolf, Honorable Co-Chairman

James P. McGovern, and Members of Tom Lantos Human Rights

Commission, thank you for organizing this Hearing at this

important juncture in Sudan's history and in the quest for

peace and

stability through the full implementation of the

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and thank you for

inviting my testimony.

Since its inception in 1983, the SPLM Vision was and

continues to be that of a new Sudan built on a new basis. A

Sudan unlike the old Sudan, that is based on equal

citizenship regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or

gender, where all citizens share rights to equitable

political, social, economic and cultural development. A Sudan

built on the historical diversity of its peoples and

experiences, and one that accords its citizens the right to

self-determination.

This vision was and is still a vision of transformation,

for after 42 years of war in a span of 54 years, the fact

remains that the only way for Sudan to be at peace with

itself, the region and the world, is by the democratic

transformation of its systems of governance, and the steering

of its political and cultural dispensation towards acceptance

of its realities and the diversity of its people.

This vision of transformation is in large part embodied in

the 2005 accord, the CPA. The gap that exists between what

was envisaged by the SPLM and what was ultimately agreed upon

is mainly because of concessions made in the spirit of

compromise that governs mediated negotiations of peace

settlements. However, the main drive towards the democratic

transformation of Sudan remains intact. Its elements are

enshrined in the conditions of the implementation of the CPA

and consequently in the Interim National Constitution of the

Sudan and the provisions of the CPA implemented thus far.

The National Congress Party/National Islamic Front (NCP/

NIF) by signing the CPA, had committed itself to: the

principle of peace through the democratic transformation of

the Sudanese Government and State apparatus at all levels,

even through a general elections; the right of self-

determination for the people of Southern Sudan and Abyei; and

the right to popular consultation for the people of Nuba

Mountains and Blue Nile.

However, four years into the interim period, the deliberate

non-compliant and obstructionist posture of the NCP with

regards to some of the CPA's most transformative and

significant provisions represent a great obstacle to the

achievement of peace, and is a dangerous abandonment of the

partnership with the SPLM that requires a shared commitment

to the spirit and letter of the CPA. This is a perilous trend

that makes the threat of war--an all encompassing war is

likely to ignite throughout the marginalized areas of Sudan,

a much more realistic possibility than that of the promise of

peace through transformation.

I will not attempt to list out all the unimplemented

provisions of the CPA, but rather refer you to the Mid-Term

Evaluation Report of the Assessment and Evaluation

Commission (AEC) which chronicles about 35 recommendations

for the parties (the NCP and the SPLM) to be in compliance

with the CPA. It is worthy to mention here, however, the

AEC highlighted the following as ``critical for the

sustainability of the CPA and unity arrangements''--the

resolution of Abyei; the North-South Border demarcation;

preparations for the 2010 elections and democratic

transition; preparation for the 2011 Referendum, and Post

Referendum; and Security Sector Reform, mainly Joint

Integrated Units (JIUs) and Disarmament, Demobilization

and Reintegration (DDR).

Human rights abuses during the Sudanese Civil war are

documented and can be summed up in mentioning the 2.5 million

dead and 5 million displaced through direct bombardment and

military action, and mainly through the proxy militias used

by the government to kill, rape and displace civilians, and

who also employed tactics such as the deliberate poisoning of

water sources and burning of crops. In addition to that,

there were the countless inhumane methods used by the State

and its proxies to discriminate against and exploit those who

are forced into displacement residing in other parts of the

country, and strip them from the citizenship rights, basic

human rights and dignity.

It was the belief of the SPLM that human rights abuses

would subside after the signing of the CPA, because of the

countless measures it provides for the safeguarding of the

rights of all the citizens of Sudan. However, because of the

control the NCP continues to refuse to relinquish over the

state apparatus, especially the national security organs, and

its refusal to allow the liberalization of the National

Security Act and the removal of Media Censorship, many

citizens have been subjected to unlawful harassment, arrest,

and/or detention for long periods of time without due process

and for reasons of political suppression and disregard to

freedoms of speech and assembly. Moreover, the rights of Non-

Muslims in the capital city, especially Non-Muslim women who

don't comply with the Muslim dress code, is continuously

curtailed and abused with impunity.

In Southern Sudan, there have been three incidents (of many

others) I will mention here, that were in stark violation of

the CPA that led to massive loss of life and countless human

rights abuses; these are mainly the Malakal Incidents of 2007

and 2009 and the Abyei Incident of May 2008. Firstly, these

were a result of the failure of the DDR, although completed

in the South, to hold, mainly because of the continuous

rearming of civilians and proxy militias by the NCP, to be

deployed within the borders of Southern Sudan to create

instability and conflict. Secondly, it is a result of the

lack of the integration and joint training of the JIU

components of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the

(Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), to become the

nucleus of the future Army of a united Sudan, as envisaged by

the CPA.

The JIUs were to be funded by the Government of National

Unity (GONU), but to date, no funding has been disbursed for

that purpose. Furthermore, the SAF component of the JIUs is

problematic because it is mainly made up of militias used by

the NCP during the civil war, now usurped into SAF.

In keeping with the dangerous trend of the destabilization

of the South, and in an attempt to rally support against the

conduct of the referendum, the NCP has intensified its arming

of civilians and groups hostile to the Government of Southern

Sudan, and especially those hostile to the SPLM to instigate

conflict and create instability. There have been prevalent

incidents in Southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile,

and surprisingly in even in Southern Kordofan, leading to

confrontation with local law and order agencies, and/or armed

civilians, and that leads to loss of life.

In regards to Darfur, it is essential that we acknowledge

the fact that since peace is indivisible, the conflict in

Darfur is in contradiction to the principles of the CPA which

is embedded in the Interim National Constitution of Sudan.

There have been considerable human rights abuses, human

loss and displacement since the recent Darfur conflict begun

in 2003. The people of the United States have to be commended

for raising their voices in solidarity with the people of

Sudan in Darfur. However, there is a need for all to realize

that the conflict in Darfur is a political problem that could

only be solved with a political resolution, and the CPA

provides the model that would address the root causes of the

conflict in Darfur. Additionally, the CPA also provides the

instruments of democratic transformation that if there is a

cessation of hostilities in Darfur could begin to address the

base of the problems of marginalization, i.e., the upcoming

elections of 2010.

There is an important link between the CPA and Darfur, the

developments in and around the issues of Darfur have

political implications for the CPA and the obstruction of the

implementation of the CPA leaves no hope for a peaceful

resolution to Darfur.

The SPLM and the people of Southern Sudan are in solidarity

with the cause and suffering of the Darfuri people. That is

why the SPLM is committed to playing the role afforded to it

by history and experience to unite the movements of Darfur to

a small number that would have a consolidated position for

peace in Darfur. We have made considerable progress in this

endeavor and are seeking the support of the international

community members who are committed to peace in Darfur.

The United States of America, the Trokia (United States,

United Kingdom and Norway), the Inter-governmental Agency for

Development (IGAD) and other Countries witnessed, engaged in

the process of negotiations of, and signed as guarantors, the

CPA. The United States played a pivotal role especially in

the deadlocked issue of Abyei, making it possible for the CPA

to be signed. It is important that the international

community and the US especially understand that peace in

Sudan is of strategic interest to them, because of its

regional, continental, and global importance, and because of

the implications that resumed conflict would bring to the

fore. Peace is indivisible, and war knows no boundaries, and

so, the only way for peace to be achieved in Sudan is through

the democratic transformation of the country's system of

governance, which is possible only through the full

implementation of the CPA.

There is a need for the recommitment of the parties to the

spirit and letter of the CPA, first by restoring some

confidence and trust between themselves as partners by taking

good faith measures to address some issue of great concern to

the other party; and second by working towards fulfilling the

'making unity attractive' objective of the CPA through

fostering North-South links and projects of development along

the North-South Border. As it stands today, unity has not

been made `attractive' for the people of Southern Sudan, and

the people of Abyei. According to the National Democratic

Institute's (NDI) reports on its focus group research in

Southern Sudan and the three areas, it is forecasted that

90% of Southern Sudan would opt for secession, and the

people of Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile in overwhelming

numbers confuse the right to popular consultation with the

right to self-determination.

The upcoming 2010 elections will be a major indicator of

the future of Sudan. It is also an opportunity for `making

unity attractive. Therefore, it is crucial that the two

parties commit themselves to the conduct of a free and fair

general election on the dates set by the National Elections

Commission; and for the National Elections commission and all

of its instruments to be supported and funded to conduct all

necessary preparations on a timely fashion, the GONU should

fulfill its Elections financial responsibilities per the CPA,

and the international community should avail the resources it

had pledged for elections support. The resolution of the

census dispute is of paramount importance to the conduct of

elections, for which the parties with the help of the

international community must work earnestly and expeditiously

to reach.

In conclusion, the malady of Sudan since independence is

not only that it is a nation state because of a border

imposed on its peoples and nations, but also because of an

installed government that doesn't reflect its peoples'

diversity, represent their aspirations, or serve their

interests, nor did it ever attempt to do so. Alternatively,

the state discriminated against its newly found citizens in

policy and action and chose to suppress their valid claims to

equity of political and cultural representation, and socio-

economic development, by extreme force and genocidal tactics

and wars. Therefore, the process of `making unity attractive'

is important to the spirit of the right to Self-determination

reflected in the CPA, because only then will the people of

Southern Sudan have two viable choices one of a united Sudan

under new basis, and the other of a separate nation-state. It

is imperative that the unity that has not been made

attractive in the last 4 years of the interim period of the

CPA, be made attractive, otherwise, the people of Southern

Sudan will have only one option, to opt for secession,

choosing to build a new state that would fulfill their quest

for a transformed governance system; equity of citizenship,

political representation, and socio-economic development; and

respect for their basic human rights.

It is imperative that while a serious attempt to `make

unity attractive' is undertaken, the parties to the CPA and

the international community led by the United States, IGAD

and the Trokia commit themselves the timely conduct of the

referendum and to respecting its outcome, whatever it is. It

is also important that the parties and the international

community envisage the post-referendum challenges and

opportunities--especially across the oil and security

sectors; political issues like border access right for nomads

and seasonal migrants; economic issues like national assets

and debts; and international issues like treaties around the

Nile water--and begin to set plans to address them.

Sudan is at cross-roads; one road would lead to either a

united New Sudan on a new basis, or two democratic nation-

states, and another would lead to war and devastation with

major regional and international implications. It is up to

the two parties and the Sudanese people to decide what is to

become of Sudan and the help and engagement of the

international community is crucial during the next few months

to come.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, which I submit for the Record, imploring him to refile the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that was inexplicably dismissed in May.

This case was brought in January by career attorneys in the department's Civil Rights Division against the party and several of its members for deploying uniformed men to a polling station in Philadelphia on election day last November to harass and intimidate voters--one of whom brandished a nightstick to the voters.

The public can view video of the incident as well as other examples of their intimidation in a January 2009 National Geographic Channel documentary that is posted on the Web at www.electionjournal.org.

One of the witnesses of the election day incident, Bartle Bull--a veteran civil rights activist who served as Bobby Kennedy's New York campaign manager in 1968--has publicly called this ``the most blatant form of voter intimidation'' he has ever seen. He also reminded us that Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jackboots with billy clubs block doors of polling places. Neither did Robert Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace.

In 1981, I was the only member of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act, and I was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch. When I supported the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned.

Given my consistent support for voting rights, I was deeply troubled by a report in yesterday's Washington Times, which I also submit for the Record, indicating that improper political influence by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli led to the dismissal of this case-- over the objections of justice career attorneys on the trial team.

I am troubled, but unfortunately not surprised, to learn of the existence of this guidance from the chief of the department's Appellate Division, which recommended that the department proceed with the case and obtain default judgment. Despite a congressionally directed request, the guidance was not previously shared with Members of Congress.

According to a summary of the Appellate Division guidance reported in The Washington Times, ``Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.''

She goes on to say many other things, which I'll submit for the Record, but she ends by saying that the complaint appeared to be sufficient to support the injunctions sought by the career employee, stating, ``The government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters.''

Just last week, Eric Holder declared that the department's Civil Rights Division is ``back and open for business.'' I question Eric Holder's commitment to voting rights, and I question Eric Holder's judgment. Yet where are the other Members of this Congress--Republican or Democrat--who want to even look at this issue?

Given that both the department's trial team and the Appellate Division argued strongly in favor of proceeding with the case, I can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli or other administration officials was politically motivated.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2009.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Holder: In light of the troubling

reports of political influence in the enclosed article from

yesterday's Washington Times, as well as the many unanswered

questions to members of Congress, I implore you to re-file

the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther

Party and other defendants so that impartial judges--not

political benefactors--may rule on the merits of this case.

Given your declaration on July 22 that the department's Civil

Rights Division is ``back and open for business,'' I would

urge you to demonstrate your commitment to enforcing the law

above political interests by re-filing.

My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I

was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia

delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and

was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond

Times Dispatch, and when I supported the act's

reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial

pages.

Given my consistent support for voting rights throughout my

public service, I hope you can understand why I am

particularly troubled by the dismissal of this case. The

video evidence of the defendants' behavior on Election Day,

as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary,

``Inside: The New Black Panther Party,'' should leave no

question of the defendants' desire to intimidate or incite

violence.

The ramifications of the dismissal of this case were

serious and immediate. Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new

poll watcher certificate, a copy of which I have enclosed, on

May 19, 2009, immediately after the case was dismissed. Mr.

Jackson faced no consequences for his blatant intimidation

and promptly involved himself in the next election. Is that

justice served?

As you will read in the enclosed memorandum of opinion from

the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division,

there is no legal impediment that would prevent you from re-

filing this case. Unlike a criminal case, a civil case

seeking an injunction against the other defendants could be

brought again at any time. According to the memo provided to

me, ``It appears likely that the Double Jeopardy Clause would

not bar a subsequent civil action against the [New Black

Panther] Party or most of its members,'' and ``second,

because the United States voluntarily dismissed its suit

against the Party and two of the three individual members

before those defendents had filed an answer or motion to

dismiss the suit, the previous action had not moved

sufficiently beyond preliminary steps so as to implicate the

Double Jeopardy Clause.''

I was surprised to learn from The Washington Times report

of the existence of the enclosed correspondence from the

chief of the department's Appellate Division recommending

that the department proceed with the case and the default

judgment. These opinions were never disclosed to me or other

members of Congress by the department in its previous

responses to questions regarding the dismissal of the case.

According to the report:

``Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo

obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to

pursue the default judgment unless the department had

evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by

the government.

``She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the

`paramilitary style intimidation of voters at polling places

elsewhere' and Justice could make a `reasonable argument in

favor of default relief against all defendants and probably

should.' She noted that the complaint's purpose was to

`prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters while

leaving open `ample opportunity for political expression.'

``An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K.

McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the

weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating

atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the

threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to

be `sufficient to support the injunctions' sought by the

career lawyers.

``The government's predominant interest is preventing

intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons

urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote, she

said.''

Given that both the department's trial team and the

Appellate Division argued strongly in favor of proceeding

with the case, I can only conclude that the decision to

overrule the career attorneys Associate Attorney General

Thomas Perrelli, or other administration officials, was

politically motivated. This report further confirms my

suspicions that the Department of Justice under your watch is

becoming increasingly political.

It is imperative that we protect all Americans right to

vote. This is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any

democracy. The career attorneys and Appellate Division within

the department sought to demonstrate the federal government's

commitment to protecting this right by vigorously prosecuting

any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right.

The only legitimate course of action is to allow the trial

team to bring the case again and allow the our nation's

justice system to work as it was intended--impartially and

without bias.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

As a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I've been deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable dismissal of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, where I grew up, and my dad was a policeman. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981 I was the only member, Republican or Democrat, of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act, and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch.

And when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. I have grave concerns about the Department's dismissal of this case. Congress must use its oversight to maintain the integrity of the voting system. Oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosure today in the Washington Times that the Department's case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team as well as the chief of the Department's Appellate Division.

The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against career employees is absolutely wrong, and the Congress ought to get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I have been deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable dismissal of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia-- where I grew up and my father was a policeman.

My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, and when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was criticized again by editorial pages.

I have grave concerns about the department's dismissal of this serious case. Above all, Congress must use its oversight to maintain the integrity of our voting system.

All the documents surrounding this case need to be made public and all the questions asked in my July 22 letter to Attorney General Holder should be answered. The American people deserve nothing less than full transparency.

Oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosures in today's Washington Times that the department's voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team--as well as the chief of the department's Appellate Division.

The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against career employees is absolutely wrong and the Congress ought to get to the bottom of this.

Sources within the department stated that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, a political appointee, overruled career attorneys in dismissing the case.

According to the Appellate Division memos first disclosed in the Times article, Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said that ``the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment'' and that Justice had made a ``reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants.''

Flynn's opinion was shared by a second Appellate Division official, Marie K. McElderry, who stated, ``The government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote.''

Given these troubling disclosures, I call on the attorney general to re-file this civil suit and allow a ruling from the judge based on the merits of the case--not political expediency.

It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to vote, which I consider a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the federal government's commitment to protecting this right by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right. I hope that the political leadership will follow their example and allow this case to go forward again.

[From the Richmond Times Dispatch--Editorial, October 15, 1981]

A More Offensive Law

A recent news story from Washington reported that Tenth

District Republican Rep. Frank Wolf ``didn't want to talk

about'' his vote in favor of extending the odious federal

Voting Rights Act. No wonder. There is absolutely no way that

he can justify his endorsement of a measure that officially

brands Virginia a second-class state and denies Virginians

some of their most precious political rights. Mr. Wolf was

the only Virginia congressman to support the bill when it

moved through the House of Representatives last week.

Grossly unfair in its present form, the Voting Rights Act

would be made even more offensive by changes the House

approved. The despicable pre-clearance provision, which now

is subject to periodic reconsideration, would become a

permanent feature of the law. Under this provision, covered

states and localities must obtain federal approval of any

law, action or decision that might affect the voting rights

or strength of minorities, especially blacks. The House's new

version outlines a procedure by which a state might,

theoretically, purify itself and gain exemption from the act,

but the process is so cumbersome and vague that it is likely

to prove to be worthless. One important aspect of the act

that would remain unchanged in the House version is its

inequitable selectivity. The law's harsh impact would

continue to fall mainly on the South. Efforts to persuade the

House to apply the act uniformly throughout the nation were

unsuccessful.

Indeed, the House was unwilling to make even the slightest

gesture toward fairness. As the bill had emerged from the

House Judiciary Committee, it provided that any state or

locality seeking to obtain exemption from its coverage would

have to get the approval of the United States District Court

in Washington. Sixth District Republican Rep. M. Caldwell

Butler, one of the principal leaders of the valiant but vain

fight against the act offered an eminently sensible amendment

that would have permitted states and localities to sue for

relief in a local federal district court. The necessity to go

to Washington, he argued, would be so costly and cumbersome

that many communities would be discouraged from even

attempting to qualify for exemption. But the House, unmoved,

rejected his proposal.

Not in many years has Virginia followed the kinds of

restrictive voting practices that originally inspired the

Voting Rights Act. Not in many years has Virginia attempted

to abridge the right of its black citizens to vote. Yet if

the House bill prevails Virginia, and most of the South, will

continue to be treated as wards of the federal government and

denied political rights that the rest of the nation freely

exercises, and Mr. Wolf will be partly to blame. Fortunately,

the House bill faces considerable opposition in the Senate.

And Virginia's two representatives in that body--Senators

Harry F. Byrd Jr. and John Warner--can be counted on to

support, enthusiastically and aggressively, efforts to

transform the Voting Rights Act from a selectively punitive

measure into a fair and reasonable law.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that Roger Winter, former U.S. State Department special representative on Sudan, gave today before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the critical issue of U.S. Sudan policy, specifically as it relates to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).

I deeply respect Roger's viewpoint as a consummate Sudan expert and plan to submit the testimony of the other highly qualified witnesses from today's hearing, in the days ahead.

Chairman Payne, Ranking member Smith and Members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be here with you

today. And to you, Mr. Payne, your consistent and persistent

leadership on Sudan has honestly made you one of my heroes. I

mean that sincerely.

To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, I often wonder

with awe at the willingness of good people, especially

Americans, to suspend all their protective instincts and to

accept some of the worst killers in the human race into their

midst. I remembered that thought when seeing photos of the

Khartoum delegation that arrived recently to discuss Sudan's

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Perhaps I have seen too

much in the Sudan over these last 28 years and have become

jaundiced. Still, a necrology of three million dead civilians

in Sudan, targeted victims of the policies and actions of the

National Congress Party (or National Islamic Front) since its

coup in 1989, has got to be noteworthy, especially as the

leadership of the NCP have as yet never been held accountable

for their crimes. Surely three million is unambiguously a

Holocaustic number. The gentleman who headed the NCP

delegation to Washington recently and received substantial

public exposure (e.g. in the Washington Times) has one of the

worst track records of all. Surely three million deaths is

unambiguously a Holocaustic number, a reality for which he

makes no apology whatsoever.

Not only has the NCP not paid a price for that body count,

its leadership now controls much of Sudan's economy; its

indicted President is politically protected by the morally-

challenged leadership of the African Union and the Arab

League; and it continues to undermine both the CPA itself and

also the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement, its ``Partner''

in the National Unity government established by the CPA. The

NCP has a 100% perfect record. It NEVER ever keeps the

agreements it signs with its opponents. The pattern is clear.

Take, for example, the issue of the volatile town of Abyei.

President Bashir's three-year-long refusal to implement the

Abyei Protocol of the CPA after signing it on multiple

occasions was followed by his Sudan Armed Forces 31st

Brigade's destruction of Abyei town in May of last year.

Again, he and his Party have paid no price. In fact, he's

essentially been rewarded and now is now threatening to

undermine the CPA's promised Referendum on Abyei's future.

Just one month ago, President Bashir celebrated his

twentieth anniversary as President. He came to power by coup

and, ever since, he and his Party have been at war with the

Sudanese people, North, South, East and West. The National

Islamic Front/NCP leadership team has been the same since it

took power. Since then that able and well-experienced team

has confronted a revolving door of U.S. diplomats and

``special envoys'' who do their best to end Khartoum's

destructive behavior. Often they think that Khartoum can be

successfully appealed to ``to do the right thing'' on behalf

of the marginalized people of Sudan. It's just not so.

Khartoum reads us very well.

Personally, I have changed my perspective on Sudan. As

someone who worked for our Government on the CPA, I believed

in the vision of ``New Sudan''. I believed the ``democratic

transformation'' of Sudan had a chance to succeed. I believed

that ``maybe'' there was a faint chance the NCP ``might be''

willing to ``make unity attractive'' and so sustain a unified

state of Sudan. But Khartoum has killed all that. Those goals

are not in any way achievable any longer. In my view there

are only two general directions that are supportable by

the people of South Sudan at this point: (1) The South

will vote overwhelmingly for separation in the Referendum

provided for by the CPA or (2) The South will be forced

into unilaterally declaring its independence because its

CPA-mandated Referendum is frustrated by Khartoum's

actions and/or the hollow commitments of the International

Community. The International Community's wishy-washy

approach to the CPA has helped assure that either option

will be messy. However, delay or abandonment of the

Referendum would be the worst-possible outcome. I believe,

in such a case, return to war would be essentially

guaranteed.

Because I believe the Referendum must happen timely and in

at least reasonably good form in order for there to be any

viable chance for peace and development in the region, I

believe it is mandatory that the U.S. fully embrace the

people of the South and Abyei, and that we escalate our

efforts to achieve a soft-landing as the result of a

successfully-held Referendum. The U.S. must be clear and

upfront that we will support and protect the outcome of that

Referendum; many people died to achieve that right.

It is no secret that South Sudan and Abyei are plagued with

serious problems but, under the circumstances, they have come

a long way against incredible odds.

For twenty years I was the CEO of a non-profit which was

then was called the U.S. Committee for Refugees. In that role

I was personally exposed to virtually every human rights and

humanitarian disaster in the world. I can assert with great

confidence my view that, before the CPA, South Sudan and

Abyei were the most destroyed places in the entire world. For

more than 80% of the time Sudan has been an independent state

Khartoum has fostered war in South Sudan and Abyei. Khartoum

has not been a genuine government but has generally

functioned partisanly on behalf of a narrow range of Arab

interests. As a clear result, calling the South

``marginalized'' became an understatement. It is amazing what

forty-seven years of war can do to people. I would visit

Abyei which was essentially denuded of its population and

overgrown by bush. I would travel during the war throughout

the South seeing the unspeakable conditions, but survivors

had to live in it. I'll not focus on it except to say it

wasn't only infrastructure that was destroyed, it was much of

humanity and human society.

At the time the CPA was signed, there was great optimism

about the future. The international community made many

promises. Khartoum was playing charades and winning. The SPLM

and the newly created Government of Southern Sudan were

hopeful. The problems they faced were overwhelming and mostly

man-made. Because the South had become quiet and Darfuris

were being exterminated in growing numbers by Khartoum

forces, attention shifted away from the implementation of the

CPA and the delivery of an adequate peace dividend for the

South's war-affected civilians. Khartoum, despite signing the

CPA, has consistently undermined it. Supporting violence in

the South, destroying Abyei in May 2008, regularly

withholding funds due the South and Abyei to cripple the

functioning of governance, and activating its friends and

`fellow travelers' in the South to foster civil unrest have

all been part of Khartoum's pattern of behavior.

Despite Khartoum, the South has come a very long way and

has received substantial international assistance, including

major support from the U.S. The South has a functional

government, substantial growth in education, health services,

roads, and other critical services, all in fifty-five months

since the CPA was signed. Candidly, however, the South's

progress is also being undermined by internal forces,

especially in terms of some civil violence, some official

corruption, and some serious weaknesses in governance. My use

of the word `some' here, is to be fair. These problems are

serious, especially as they erode popular confidence, but

they do not eclipse the progress that has been made, given

where they started from and the constant undermining by

Khartoum. Let me mention one example of how Khartoum

routinely works: Abyei.

Khartoum signed the CPA, including the Abyei Protocol, on

January 9, 2005. Khartoum never implemented the Protocol.

That meant there was NO government in Abyei and no government

services for three years. In May 2008, Khartoum forces

completely burned to the ground the market place and all

residential areas. One hundred percent of the population, who

were all returned displaced people, were again displaced.

Subsequently Khartoum forces blew up the SPLM facilities in

Abyei. Forced by international neglect of these developments

in Abyei, the SPLM agreed to international arbitration by the

Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague. While the

PCA was moving forward, an Abyei administration was finally

created. That administration was intended to provide services

to the population funded by a percentage of oil revenues as

specified in the CPA. The Abyei administration's budget was

to begin October 1, 2008; it never happened. After much

pressure, the Abyei administration got only a small

``advance'' in February 2009 and another in April.

Effectively Abyei administration personnel have not been paid

since last January; there is little money for services; the

hospital is basically empty. There is still no approved

budget for Abyei for the fiscal year now almost over. This is

how Khartoum implements the CPA in the single most volatile

location in Sudan, with clear intention to undermine

stability. This is also typical of how Khartoum has dealt

with every important issue in the CPA. To top it off, many of

the officers of the 31st Brigade (now renamed) and related

militias that destroyed Abyei in May 2008 were promoted, and

today hundreds of those men, commanded by thugs like Lt. Col.

Thomas Thiel Malual Awak, Major Moyak Mobil Ajak and Captain

Joseph Garang Nyoul, among others, are just a short distance

north of Abyei town waiting for the next instruction from

President Bashir to do their evil deeds. And, in my view, he

is preparing to do just that. He has already announced in a

very threatening way how he will try to torpedo the Abyei

Referendum in 2011.

This is how Khartoum behaves across the board on every

important issue. This is the Government our Administration is

seeking to ``make nice'' with. Comparing the problems of the

GOSS with those of Khartoum, which really is the failed

state? Is it Khartoum, the one rolling in cash, thoroughly

corrupt, a killer regime whom WE have accused rightly of

genocide, the `government' that undermines all the

marginalized populations in Sudan and never keeps its

agreements? Or is it the four-and-a-half year old GOSS,

struggling to reconstruct a war-devastated South with an

almost 100% war-traumatized population of survivors minus

several million that didn't survive? Morally, by any

assessment, the South wins hands down. And morally, that's

where America's heart should be.

Why? I believe that with all their shortcomings, the SPLM

and the GOSS politically are fundamentally democrats and

genuinely want to provide development for all the populations

for which they have governing responsibility. In my view it

is in advancing precisely those commitments that U.S.

national interests are ultimately located.

To me that requires a U.S. surge in coming along side in a

full-blown partnership with the struggling GOSS to improve

its performance in terms of governance quality so it can

deliver services to and inspire the hopes of the people of

South Sudan and Abyei. While I cannot be comprehensively

prescriptive on specific programmatic solutions, there are

some that are obvious: improved financial management,

establishment of corruption detection and prosecution

mechanisms, preparation for managing the South's petroleum

sector, enhancing their public information capacity so the

public is well-informed, increased training of police, and

capacity-building in reducing inter-community violence. For

the remaining timeline of the CPA and for sometime

thereafter, the U.S. should stimulate capacity transfer by an

infusion of capable American, Indian and other nationality

expertise to work along side their Sudanese counterparts. It

also means Washington confronting Khartoum when in big or

little ways they obstruct CPA requirements and undermine GOSS

capacity.

To me this is an approach of which the American people

ultimately will be proud. It will free the people of Abyei

and the South and will also best secure our own fundamental

interests.

Mr. Speaker, in Monday's Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner co- authored an opinion piece outlining the issues to be discussed in the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. No mention of human rights. No mention of the Chinese Government's suppression of journalists. No mention of the dozens of human rights lawyers across China who have been stripped of their licenses, no mention of the 35 Catholic bishops that languish in Chinese prisons and slave labor camps, no mention of the Chinese Government's crackdown on the ethnic Uyghurs, no mention of how China continues to repatriate North Korean refugees, no mention of human rights.

Human rights simply cannot be separated from economic policy. The Obama administration has missed yet another opportunity to make human rights a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy.