I doubt that Sudan's leaders lost much sleep after their meeting with the Chinese President. Perhaps that night they dreamed of building the new railway line straight to Darfur to hasten the genocide.

There is a better way. President Bush must call a summit of the world's civilized nations with a simple goal: Strong multilateral sanctions on Sudan, investment bans, prohibition on travel for Sudan's top leaders and, most importantly, shutting down Sudan's ability to sell oil and gas on the international marketplace.

I welcome the administration's announcement today of a Plan B approach to block United States commercial bank transactions with the Government of Sudan. This step, if fully implemented, will have a major impact on Sudan's ability to sell petroleum overseas. I hope that tough sanctions on Khartoum will force the regime to allow an international civilian protection force to enter Darfur, but we can't count on it. The United States must therefore work with the United Nations, the African Union and our allies to prepare a contingency plan for the entry of a protection force into Darfur without the Sudanese Government's permission. If we wait much longer, there may be nobody left to protect in Darfur.

On a growing number of front yards across this Nation, we see lawn signs with a simple message, "Not on our watch." These signs express the hope that in the words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the world's indispensable nation will actually succeed in ending the genocide in Darfur.

The task in the months ahead is to turn this grassroots sentiment and concerted pressure from this Congress into concrete action by the administration and the international community.

Our patience has been totally exhausted. The innocent civilians of Darfur are crying out for our help. We must not continue to fail them.

I now turn to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of our committee, to make whatever opening remarks she chooses. Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and for sharing your eloquent statement with us.

No one can question that the genocide in Darfur is a human rights and a 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 United States 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 United States peacekeeping mission deployed in Darfur. Without question, the United States has demonstrated a resolute commitment to confronting the genocide in Darfur. But it is not enough, and the killing continues.

Despite our successes, the reality is that we cannot solve this problem in Sudan by ourselves. We need the assistance of other countries. However, from the beginning of this crisis, the United

States has had to drag other nations, at a 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 U.S. Commission of 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.

And as we commemorate the grim anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, this 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.S. Security Council where the United States has 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 our efforts in the United States to bring pressure on the regime to end its practice of genocide.

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 editorial that given the continued intransigence by the Sudanese regime, the solution lies in unilateral intervention by United States forces. She says the United States should press for U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: Accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within 1 week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states collectively or individually. She continues: The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets and blockade Port Sudan. And concludes if the U.S. fails to gain U.N. 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 this terrible problem in Darfur, all options must be on the table. I would suggest that such an action would be one of the last resorts. 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 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, has that been successful? What can be done to ensure that the African Union facilitates the rapid transition of its contingent in Sudan into a larger peacekeeping mission?

And, 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. Ambassador, I hope that you will provide the committee with as much candor as you can. I know that we have already had a classified briefing before this with further details on this and other components of Plan B.

Let me conclude by saying that the situation we face in Sudan is a difficult one and deciding the most effective policy will take a toll on all involved. But one thing is certain, the barbaric slaughter of innocent civilians in Darfur will continue until someone steps in to stop it.

And Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent that a statement by Stephen Morrison and Bates Gill of the Center for Strategic and International Studies be included in the record, and I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PAYNE [presiding]. Without objection.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

February 7, 2007

TO:

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Ranking Minority, House Foreign Affairs Committee

CC: Joan Condon, Staff member, HFAC

FROM: J. Stephen Morrison and Bates Gill, CSIS

SUBJECT: China and Sudan

Thank you very much for your consideration of this short memo in association with the important HFAC hearing you are convening on February 8 on "The Escalating Crisis in Darfur: Are There Any Prospects for Peace?' I hope our comments are helpful.

In this memo, we set forth a few brief thoughts on the China factor in the resolution of the ongoing crisis in Darfur. Since 2002, we have been actively examining China's approach to Africa, including the Darfur question, and recently completed a week-long visit to Beijing and Shanghai in late November and early December 2006. The same day as your hearing, we are issuing a major report entitled, China's Expansive Role in Africa: Implications for the United States which can be accessed at www.csis.org. We will also arrange to provide you with hard copies.

United States-China relations and the Darfur question

Washington and Beijing have been actively engaged on the Darfur question since mid-2004 when the UN Security Council began taking up the crisis on a rolling, monthly basis. In that period, China along with Russia were rightfully cast as obstructionists who routinely opposed UN sanctions on the Sudanese government for its egregious actions against civilians in Darfur. China's position did differ significantly from Washington: Beijing consistently emphasized that Darfur poses a humanitarian crisis, versus a genocide, that it does not threaten vital security interests (as opposed to North Korea or Iran, where US-Chinese dialogue is intense), and that the crisis will only be resolved over several years, versus in a six or twelve month time frame.

A U.S.-China subdialogue on Africa was formally launched in early 2006, led on the U.S. side by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, under the auspices of the_U.S.-China Senior Dialogue process initiated by former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick. The first meeting on Africa reportedly did not take up the issue of Darfur.

In 2006, bilateral discussions did begin to advance slowly on how to coordinate actions on Sudan. Once appointed as the U.S. President's Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios stepped up U.S. engagement with China in the latter part of 2006,

culminating most recently in his trip to China January 8-12, 2007, where he met with foreign policy leaders State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan and Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi.

Partly as a result of the intensifying US-China dialogue, a shift in China's position took place in late 2006, when the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations Wang Guangya was widely credited in gaining Sudanese acceptance for the November 16, 2006 Addis Agreement (the Annan plan') committing Khartoum to a ceasefire and three step expansion of a hybrid UN/AU force in Darfur. In this same period, senior Chinese officials publicly acknowledged the need for a negotiated political settlement in Darfur and an expanded international peace operation.

Despite this shift, Washington and much of the international community have been disappointed that Chinese president's visit late last week with President Bashir in Khartoum did not result in any significant breakthroughs. There were hopes, perhaps unrealistically high, that President Hu might forcefully press forand win new overt commitments to-renewed efforts to achieve a negotiated political settlement in Darfur and accelerated deployment of the AU/UN force. In private, the Chinese reaffirmed its support of the Annan Plan and reportedly pressed Bashir to stick to its commitments, including maintain a cease-fire, step up internal negotiations and expand humanitarian operations. On the latter, China committed 40 million RMB of aid.

Today, U.S.-China collaboration on Darfur remains critical to fulfillment of the Annan plan, however incremental and slow. The challenge is to define how Washington is to best sustain its dialogue with Beijing, including pressures, in ways which enlarge Chinese commitments.

Collaboration could become more difficult. This week, Washington is reportedly poised to unveil its long awaited 'Plan B' package of coercive measures that includes blocks on commercial bank transactions, that it is hoped, would change the behavior of other countries and companies doing business with Sudan. China can be expected to object vehemently to the threat of these sanctions and to see them as a direct affront.

Factors shaping Chinese behavior?

To gain greater commitments and cooperation, the United States will need to better grasp the motivations shaping Chinese policies in Sudan and in Africa more broadly.

It is common to attribute Beijing's actions in Sudan to China's need for oil and to claim that economic self-interests trumps all other Chinese interests. This view, in our opinion. is overstated, lacks precision about Chinese motivations, and fails to explain why there was a shift in late 2006 to positions more closely aligned with the United States and other concerned Western powers. Sudan's contributions to China's total energy needs are very small: Sudan accounts for only 5 percent of China's total oil imports, and less than 1 percent of China's total energy consumption. While the relationship with Sudan is important on a microeconomic level to some of China's oil firms, it does not represent a critical strategic relationship on a macroeconomic scale. Sudan's energy is important to China and its future, but China's motivations for its policies in Sudan also have their roots elsewhere.

An important, but often overlooked motivation is Beijing's concern with protecting the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference. These have been cast as bedrock to China's strategy for becoming a global power backed by robust alliances. But even on this issue, Beijing's interests in Sudan are pulled in other directions: from within China itself, from Beijing's interest in enhancing its standing in the UN, and in its interest in sustaining bilateral relations with Washington, European states, and African powers. These are the major potential leverage points on Beijing. A complex debate is emerging within Beijing policy circles about the best approach to Sudan and Darfur in particular. Think tanks, academics, global business enterprises are conscious that China's uncritical embrace of Khartoum has damaged its standing in much of the world., Within the Foreign Ministry, under the leadership of Minister Li Zhaoxing (former Ambassador to Washington), there has been an effort to hear these views from critical Chinese opinion leaders. There is also an acute recognition that pressures on China could escalate in North America and Europe. In the United States especially, the non-governmental advocacy movement embodied by the Save Darfur Campaign has gained voice and momentum, has strong allies in Congress, and could if it chose target the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

No less important, Chinese views on Darfur are shaped by discussions with African states. A majority of sub-Saharan African states are deeply offended by Khartoum on human rights, religious, and racial grounds. Khartoum's continued obstruction of an AU/UN force, and the inability of the international community to bring greater stability to Sudan, mean that African Union forces, contributed largely by

South Africa, Rwanda, and Nigeria, are increasingly under relentless strain, and unsustainable, a problem Chinese policies toward Sudan must account for. Interesting in this regard, South African President Mbeki delivered a stern warning to China in a January speech, describing its approach to Africa as the threat of a new colonialism that will lock African in underdevelopment. That did not go unnoticed in Beijing, and indeed, in President Hu's speech today in Pretoria, he went out of his way to assure his audience that China would create new balances in trade relations as one demonstration of its sensitivity to African interests and opinion.

In short, Beijing is prepared to be more flexible regarding "non-interference" when its interests are at stake in Africa, in Europe and the United States, and in the UN Security Council. China will not do what needs to be done in Sudan solely because it wishes to please the international community. It will not overtly undermine its policy of non-interference and respect for sovereignty, even with Sudan. But it will begin to amend its approaches as it recognizes a building interest to do so.

In that light, it is worth noting the "four principles" put forward by Hu Jintao during his visit last week to Sudan as the basis for the international approach to Darfur. The first principle, not unexpectedly, sets out the principle of non-interference. But the fourth principle seems to contradict the first, saying: “it is imperative to improve the situation in Darfur and living conditions of local people." That is about as close as a Chinese leader has come publicly to supporting the emerging notion in the United Nations and the broader international community that governments have a "responsibility to protect" their citizens from harm as best as possible. Beijing is beginning to think about whether some “interference” might be in its interest. The task for Washington is to continue urging Beijing in this direction.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much to Ranking Member RosLehtinen for your comprehensive statement.

Let me thank Chairman Lantos for calling this very important and critical and timely hearing on the ongoing crisis in Darfur. I welcome the President's Special Envoy Andrew Natsios back to the committee and on a personal note would like to express my condolences for your recent loss.

As you say in your remarks, Mr. Natsios, the Darfur genocide did not begin overnight. It was borne out of a history of tradition of brutality, in which the former National Islamic Front regime, now the National Congress Party (NCP) of the Government of Sudan, based in Khartoum, has systematically destroyed different populations. During the war it raged against the people against the south for 21 years, and the NIF Government under President alBashir armed the militia to destabilize southerners and carried out bombardment of force and displaced people from the oil-producing areas of the south.

The people of Ababia, Southern Blue Nile, Nuba, and countless other areas of southern Sudan endured this campaign of terror. Four million were displaced, 2 million were killed. Millions were affected by the conflict. The so-called Government of Sudan under alBashir, which came to power by military coup and gave safe haven to our arch enemy Osama bin Laden for 5 years between 1991 and 1996, is anything but democratic. Yet our Government sees fit to engage this regime as if they had credibility. This continues to confuse and confound me.

Just as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended the war against the people of the south on January 9, 2005, was being prepared to be signed, the regime in Khartoum launched its new front in the war on the people of Sudan and the western region of Darfur. Under the NIF, NCP's latest campaign of terror, the people of Darfur have suffered tremendously. The old familiar tactics of aerial bombardments, the use of helicopter gunships, the Janjaweed, the hiring of militia, has been used again and again