No one can question that the genocide in Darfur is a human rights and humanitarian catastrophe of the first order.  The challenge we and the world face is what to do about it. 

The Bush Administration and Members of Congress have devoted a great deal of time and attention to this problem, and much has been accomplished. 

A Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan has been appointed to coordinate U.S. policy in this effort.

Since 2004, the United States has provided over $2 billion in assistance to help meet humanitarian needs in Darfur and in eastern Chad.

We have facilitated the deployment of African Union forces. 

And we have led efforts at the United Nations, often in the face of vigorous opposition by China and others, to get a larger, more robust UN peacekeeping mission deployed in Darfur. 

Without question, the U.S. has demonstrated a resolute commitment to confronting genocide in Darfur.

But it is not enough, and the killing continues.   

Despite all of our successes, the reality is that we cannot solve the problem in Sudan by ourselves. 

We need the assistance of other countries. 

However, from the beginning of the crisis, the United States has had to drag other nations into, at minimum, condemning the mass murder in Darfur and holding the perpetrators accountable for these deplorable crimes.

I recall being in Geneva for a meeting of the former UN Commission on Human Rights, and witnessing how members of the African Group of nations, were aligning themselves with the Organization of Islamic Countries, to protect the Sudanese regime from criticism, while scores of innocent human beings continued to be slaughtered.

As we commemorated the grim anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, this UN human rights body failed to take a firm, unequivocal stance to fully address the situation in Darfur.

This pattern of inaction continued at the U.N. Security Council where the U.S. had to pressure members of the Security Council, including those of the Arab League of which Sudan is a member, into taking action regarding Darfur. 

Far from contributing to resolving this humanitarian crisis, countries such as China are actively courting the Sudanese regime in their pursuit of oil and influence, thereby undercutting U.S. efforts to bring pressure on the regime to end its genocidal policies.

And despite their loud verbal support, the European states have been reluctant to take substantive action and have all but ruled out a direct intervention, despite their undoubted capacity to do so.  

The question thus becomes:  What can the United States reasonably accomplish on its own?

The former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under the Clinton Administration, Susan Rice, recently wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that, given the continued intransigence by the Sudanese regime, the solution lies in unilateral intervention by U.S. forces:

“The United States should press for a UN resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the UN force within one week or face military consequences. 

“The resolution would authorize enforcement by UN Member states, collectively or individually. 

“The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets … [and] blockade Port Sudan. 

“If the US fails to gain UN support, we should act without it.”

In another opinion piece, former Assistant Secretary Rice wrote that “the United States should begin urgent military planning and preparation for the contingency that no other country will act to stop the dying in Darfur.”

While I agree that, in the face of genocide, all options must be on the table, I would suggest that such an action must be one of last resort.

We must carefully consider whether launching an armed intervention in Sudan at this time will actually bring peace to Darfur, or if it will only further imperil the civilian population. 

To this end, I am eager to discuss options in confronting the genocide in Darfur and related issues.

For example:

Have recent efforts by Governor Bill Richardson to negotiate directly with the Sudanese government regarding the deployment of peacekeepers been helpful?

What can be done to ensure that the African Union facilitates the rapid transition of its contingent in Sudan into a larger UN peacekeeping mission?

Finally, let me note that I support the President’s initiative known as “Plan B”, especially the Administration’s decision as reported in the press to have the Treasury Department block commercial bank transactions benefiting the Sudanese regime, including those regarding its oil revenues, if the regime does not cooperate in ending the slaughter in Darfur.

Mr. Natsios, I hope you will provide the Committee today with further details on these and other components of “Plan B.”

Let me conclude by saying that the situation we face in Sudan is a difficult one, and deciding on the most effective policy will take a toll on all involved. 

But one thing is certain:  the barbarous slaughter of innocent civilians in Darfur will continue until someone steps in to stop it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.