U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–763 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–46

GENOCIDE AND THE RULE OF LAW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 5, 2007

Serial No. J–110–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Chief Counsel 

MARY HARNED, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Cardin, Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 70

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ............................. 4

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 82

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 104

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 103

WITNESSES 

Cheadle, Don, Actor and Activist, Los Angeles, California .................................. 11

Dallaire, Lieutenant-General, Romeo A., Senator, Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario ........................................................................................................ 8

Mandelker, Sigal P., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. .......................................................... 5

Orentlicher, Diane F., Professor of International Law, American University, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 16

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Don Cheadle to questions submitted by Senator Coburn .............. 36

Responses of Romeo A. Dallaire to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Cornyn ........................................................................................................... 38

Responses of Sigal P. Mandelker to questions submitted by Senator Durbin .... 43

Responses of Diane F. Orentlicher to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Cornyn ........................................................................................................... 50

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, President, Washington, D.C., letter .................. 55

American Progress Action Fund, John D. Podesta, President and CEO, Mark 

D. Agrast, Senior Fellow, Washington, D.C., letter .......................................... 57

Amnesty International, New York, New York, statement ................................... 58

Armenian Assembly of America, Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., statement ........................................................................................ 59

Armenian National Committee of America, Aram Hamparian, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter and statement ................................................. 65

Cheadle, Don, Actor and Activist, Los Angeles, California, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 73

Dallaire, Lieutenant-General, Romeo A., Senator, Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, prepared statement .................................................................... 84

Freedom House, Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter .......................................................................................................................... 91

Genocide Intervention Network, Mark Hanis, Executive Director, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 92

Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, Washington Director, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 94

Page

IV

Human Rights Watch, Jennifer Daskal, Advocacy Director, US Program, and 

Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, Washington, D.C., letter .. 96

Hutson, John D., RADM JAGC USN (retired), Dean, Franklin Pierce Law 

Center, Concord, New Hampshire, letter ........................................................... 97

Jewish Community Relations Council, Alan Solow, Chair, and Jay Tcath, 

Director, Chicago, Illinois, letter ......................................................................... 98

Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Steve Gutow, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 101

Mandelker, Sigal P., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................... 106

Open Society Institute, Aryeh Neier, President, New York, New York, letter .. 114

Orentlicher, Diane F., Professor of Law, American University, Washington, 

D.C., prepared statement .................................................................................... 115

Save Darfur Coalition, David C. Rubenstein, Executive Director, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 126

(1)

GENOCIDE AND THE RULE OF LAW 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Cardin, Whitehouse, Cornyn, and 

Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and the 

Law will come to order. Welcome to our Subcommittee’s first meeting. The topic today is genocide and the rule of law. This is the inaugural hearing of this newly created Subcommittee. We are honored to have a distinguished panel of witnesses for our first hearing. After a few remarks, I would like to recognize my Ranking 

Member, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, for an opening statement. 

Then we will turn to the witnesses. 

A word about the new Subcommittee. First, my thanks to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 

for establishing this Subcommittee and allowing me to serve as 

Chairman. Senator Leahy has a long record of championing human 

rights for many years, and this Subcommittee is further indication 

of his commitment. 

Without objection, I would like to enter into the record at this 

point a statement by Senator Leahy. Without objection, so ordered. 

This is the first time in the history of the Senate that there has 

been a Subcommittee focused on human rights. The timing is right. 

At this moment in history, it is vitally important to our national 

interest to promote greater respect for human rights around the 

world. 

When our leaders speak of our inherent desire for freedom and 

our communal need for democracy, they are acknowledging the fundamentals of human rights, and those who ignore and violate these 

fundamentals do more than challenge some idealistic goal. Repressive regimes that violate human rights create fertile breeding 

grounds for suffering, terrorism, war, and instability. In our time, 

the world is a much smaller place, and the social ills caused by 

human rights abuses know no borders. We will never be truly secure as long as fundamental human rights are not respected. 

2

Our own Declaration of Independence says, and I quote, ‘‘We 

hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, 

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 

rights...’’ Too many times in our history we have fallen short of this 

ideal, but this commitment to human rights was and is the promise 

of America. 

I hope this Subcommittee will give the Senate an opportunity to 

work together to maintain America’s leadership in protecting and 

promoting fundamental human rights. 

America also stands for another revolutionary idea: the rule of 

law. As John Adams said, ‘‘We are a government of laws, not of 

men.’’ We should keep in mind that human rights are little more 

than empty promises if they are not enforceable in law. That is 

why this is the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee and that 

is why we are part of the Judiciary Committee. 

When Chairman Leahy asked me to chair this Subcommittee, I 

knew that our first hearing had to be on the subject of genocide 

and the rule of law. Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor and the 

architect of the Genocide Convention, placed his faith in the ability 

of the law to prevent genocide. He implored the international community to adopt laws against genocide, saying, ‘‘Only man has 

law...You must build the law.’’ 

To focus our discussion, I would like to ask those in the audience 

and my fellow members of the Subcommittee to allow a brief video 

on genocide that we created for this hearing. I will tell those in the 

audience in advance that there are some graphic scenes, but this 

is a graphic topic. 

[Videotape played:] 

[Senator Proxmire speaking: ‘‘The supreme value that I’m sure 

Members of Congress and almost all Americans recognize is human 

life. Is there any greater crime than destroying a human life? 

There is. There’s a more monstrous crime: the planned, premeditated destruction of millions who have done nothing wrong but belong to a particular religion or an ethnic group or a racial group. 

‘‘What am I talking about? I’m talking about genocide. I’m talking about the most monstrous crime in the history of humankind, 

when Hitler and the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews, destroyed 

European Jewry. 

‘‘This is our treaty. This country drafted the treaty. President 

Truman signed the treaty in 1948. Think of that—40 years ago. 

Every major country in the world has ratified it and drafted the 

necessary implementing legislation to make it national law, except 

the United States of America. President Kennedy asked for it. 

President Johnson asked for it. President Nixon asked for it, President Carter, President Ford. And, of course, President Reagan 

called on the Senate to act, and President Reagan, to his credit, 

succeeded in persuading the Congress to ratify the treaty.’’] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

The legal prohibition against genocide is obviously an unfulfilled 

promise. We see this most clearly today in Darfur in western 

Sudan. In this region of 6 million people, hundreds of thousands 

have been killed, and over 2 million have been driven from their 

homes. For them, the commitment of ‘‘Never again’’ rings hollow. 

3

We must ask ourselves why. Is this a failure of law or of will, 

or both? What are the legal obligations of states to prevent genocide before it has begun? Do debates about the legal definition of 

genocide serve as an excuse for governments not to act? What is 

our responsibility to protect victims of atrocities that do not meet 

the legal definition of genocide? And we must explore the legal options for preventing genocide and, in the worst-case scenario, stopping genocides like the one in Darfur. 

During today’s hearing, we will explore using the law to impose 

criminal and civil sanctions on individuals who are guilty of genocide. We will discuss the status of the International Criminal 

Court’s Darfur investigation and whether the Federal Government 

is doing everything it can to facilitate that investigation. We will 

also examine the possibility of civil and criminal liability under 

U.S. law for people who commit genocide anywhere in the world. 

Divestment is another legal tool that has been put to work. We 

used it effectively, I believe, in South Africa to help end apartheid. 

And today I would like to announce that I plan to introduce legislation to authorize State and local governments to divest from 

Sudan. 

Senator Brownback, my colleague on this Committee, as well as 

Senator Obama, my colleague in Illinois, and many members have 

played leading roles in this divestment movement, including Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison. I look forward to working with 

them. 

I just want to close by saying that a little over a year ago, Senator Sam Brownback and I visited Kigali in Rwanda. We stayed in 

the Hotel Mille Collines, better known by Americans as ‘‘Hotel 

Rwanda.’’ As I walked down the corridor to my room, I could not 

help but think of that movie, which Don Cheadle starred in, and 

the hundreds of frightened Rwandans who had huddled there during the genocide, fearing the worst. 

Early one morning, I walked down the hill to a Catholic Church, 

Saint Famille. I was jogging, so I was not really in the right clothing to go into a church. But I stuck my head in the door of this 

red brick church and looked, and it was very plain. And people had 

started gathering at about 6 o’clock. 

I went back up to the hotel and mentioned to one of the people 

at the Embassy that I had stopped at this church, Saint Famille. 

He said, ‘‘Do you know the story of that church? ’’ And I said, ‘‘No, 

I don’t.’’ He said, ‘‘We believe 1,000 people were massacred in that 

church. They came there seeking sanctuary. They were betrayed 

and they were killed on the floor of that church.’’ 

It really brought home very quickly that what we saw in ‘‘Hotel 

Rwanda’’ was not some abstract theory. It was the reality of genocide. 

The last word I want to say is about my predecessor in the Senate, who was quoted very briefly in the video presentation. Senator 

Paul Simon, along with Senator Jim Jeffords, in a bipartisan effort 

pleaded with the Clinton administration to do more about the genocide in Rwanda. President Clinton, as we saw, later said that his 

inaction was the worst foreign policy mistake of his 8 years. 

I salute the Bush administration for calling the situation in 

Darfur the genocide that it is. But now that we have acknowledged 

4

for more than 4 years that this horror is happening on our watch, 

we must summon the courage to act to stop this terrible genocide. 

Senator Coburn? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, for having this hearing. I am struck at what we face, and I recall being 

at the University of Oklahoma a little less than a year ago and college students asking, ‘‘Why? Why? Why does it continue? ’’ and the 

very helpless feeling that we have and that it continues today. In 

spite of the fact that we desire it not to, in spite of the fact we work 

through the United Nations, in spite of the fact that the Government of Sudan rejects what we do through the United Nations, it 

continues today. 

I want to read a poem that is very well known to many who are 

associated with this movement, but I think it is an important part 

of the record because it displays with telling accuracy what genocide is all about. 

‘‘They fell that year/They vanished from the earth/Never knowing 

the cause/Or what laws they’d offended/The women fell as well/And 

the babies they tended/Left to die, left to cry/All condemned by 

their birth./They fell like rain/Across the thirsty land/In their 

hearts they were slain/In their God still believing/All their pity and 

pain/In that season of grieving/All in vain, all in vain/Just for one 

helping hand./For no one heard their prayer/In a world bent on 

pleasure/From other people’s cares/They simply closed their eyes/

They craved a lot of sound/And jazz and ragtime measure/The 

trumpet screamed ’til dawn/To drown the children’s cries/They fell 

like leaves/Its people, in its prime/Simple man, kindly man/And not 

one knew his crime/They became in an hour/Like a small desert 

flower/Soon covered by the silent wind and sands of time./They fell 

that year before a cruel foe/They had little to give but their lives 

and their passion/And their longing to live in their way, in their 

fashion/So their harvest could thrive and their children could 

grow./They fell like flies/Their eyes still full of sun/Like a dove in 

its flight/In the path of a rifle/That falls down where it might/As 

if death were a trifle/And to bring to an end/A life barely begun./

And I am of that race/Who died in unknown places/Who perished 

in their pride/Whose blood rivers ran/In agony and flight/With 

courage on their faces/They fell into the night/That waits for every 

man./They fell like tears/And never knew what for/In that summer 

of strife/Of massacre and war/Their only crime was life/Their only 

guilt was being/The children of Armenia/Nothing less, nothing 

more.’’ 

That applies to every situation that we face, and I am one of the 

harsh critics of the United Nations in this Senate because of the 

tremendous amount of money that is wasted, the inactions that are 

not taken—the absence of action that is taken, and the thought 

that we as a Nation give $5.7 billion a year to the United Nations 

and $1 billion of it is wasted a year just in our peacekeeping, sometimes for rape, sometimes for other things. 

5

It is shame on us, the U.S. Congress, for not holding the United 

Nations accountable, for not moving the action with a force. We 

know what is going on. It is left to us to do something about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Coburn. 

We are going to turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Normally, we limit opening statements to 5 minutes, but 

today is a special case, and we have limited the number of witnesses accordingly. This is an issue of great importance, and two 

of our witnesses have made great personal sacrifices to be here 

with us. So we are going to give each witness 10 minutes for their 

oral testimony. Their complete written statements will be made 

part of the record. 

I would like to ask the witnesses to please stand and raise your 

right hands to be sworn. Do you swear that the testimony you are 

about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Ms. MANDELKER. I do. 

Mr. DALLAIRE. I do. 

Mr. CHEADLE. I do. 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses have responded in the affirmative. 

Our first witness, Sigal Mandelker, is here to represent the Justice Department. Thank you. I know this was short notice, and we 

appreciate very much that you came here today. 

Since July 2006, she has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in the Criminal Division. She oversees the Office of Special 

Investigations and the Domestic Security Section, the two Justice 

Department offices with primary responsibility for prosecuting 

human rights violators. 

Since 2002, Ms. Mandelker has held a number of senior positions 

in the administration, including counselor to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, and Special Assistant to then Assistant Attorney 

General of the Criminal Division Michael Chertoff. She clerked for 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Edith Jones. 

She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan 

and her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. 

I also want to recognize that she has a very deep, personal connection to the subject of today’s hearing because both of her parents were Holocaust survivors. 

Thank you so much for being here today, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF SIGAL P. MANDELKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Coburn, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing today, and I am honored to appear before you on your inaugural hearing. As the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department who oversees the Office of Special Investigations 

and the Domestic Security Section, I am pleased to discuss the DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
6

partment of Justice’s ongoing efforts against the perpetrators of 

genocide and other human rights violators. 

Bringing these perpetrators to justice is a mission of the very 

highest importance. As Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, the Acting 

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said just 11 

days ago when introducing a landmark U.S.-drafted General Assembly resolution to condemn Holocaust denial, ‘‘all people and all 

states have a vital stake in a world free of genocide.’’ 

On a personal note, I am the granddaughter of three grandparents who did not survive Hitler’s horrific genocide of 6 million 

Jews. My parents’ earliest memories in reality were living in ghettos, hiding underground in the forest, hiding in haystacks, and 

being hidden by individuals who risked their own lives in order to 

save the lives of my parents. My mother was orphaned by the Holocaust, and my father lost his mother at the age of 5. This is an 

issue about which I feel deeply, both personally and professionally. 

The Department of Justice continues to utilize all tools available 

against these human rights violators, including prosecution, extradition and removal, and by providing assistance to countries and 

tribunals who prosecute these horrific crimes. 

First, the Department of Justice makes use of criminal and civil 

charges to ensure that the perpetrators of genocide or other egregious human rights violators do not find a safe haven in the United 

States. Indeed, for the past 27 years, the Office of Special Investigations has identified, investigated, and brought civil 

denaturalization and removal actions against World War II Nazi 

perpetrators. OSI has successfully pursued over 100 of these cases. 

In fact, just this last month, a U.S. immigration judge ordered the 

removal of Josias Kumpf, of Racine, Wisconsin, who, by his own admission, during a mass killing operation in occupied Poland in 1943 

stood guard at a pit containing dead Jewish civilians and others he 

described as ‘‘halfway alive’’ and ‘‘still convuls[ing],’’ with orders to 

shoot to kill anyone who attempted to escape. OSI also continues 

to work with prosecutors overseas to facilitate the criminal prosecution of Nazi criminals. 

In addition, U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country, OSI, and 

the Domestic Security Section criminally prosecute individuals who 

allegedly participated in human rights violations, including genocide, for offenses such as visa fraud, unlawful procurement of naturalization, and false statements. 

For example, a number of Bosnian Serbs, including individuals 

who served in units implicated in the Srebrenica massacres, have 

been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 

charged with immigration-related crime for concealing their prior 

service in the Bosnian Serb military. Two of those who have since 

been removed by ICE to Bosnia were indicted this past December 

by Bosnian authorities on charges of murder and other serious offenses. 

Third, we extradite individuals wanted for human rights violations. For example, in March of 2000, following the conclusion of 

hard-fought extradition litigation, the United States turned over 

Elizaphan Ntakirutimana to the International Criminal Tribunal 

for Rwanda. This individual, a pastor at the time of the Rwandan 

genocide, was accused of devising and executing a lethal scheme in 

7

which Tutsi civilians were encouraged to seek refuge in a local religious complex, much like the complex that you mentioned, to which 

he then directed a mob of armed attackers. With his participation, 

the attackers thereupon slaughtered and injured those inside. In 

2003, Ntakirutimana, a one-time Texas resident, was convicted by 

the Tribunal of aiding and abetting genocide, and he was sentenced 

to 10 years’ imprisonment. Indeed, a Department of Justice prosecutor also played a crucial role in bringing those charges. 

Finally, the United States continues to provide substantial assistance to foreign governments and to various international tribunals that are investigating and prosecuting human rights cases 

abroad, including the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

and the Former Yugoslavia. Indeed, the United States has been the 

largest contributor to both of these tribunals. 

For example, the Department has loaned a number of experiences law enforcement professionals to the ICTY, including the current head of the Domestic Security Section. We have also operated 

training programs and provided capacity-building assistance in the 

investigation and prosecution of war crimes, including to the various countries and jurisdictions of the former Yugoslavia. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this important hearing today. We are very grateful for the tools that Congress has provided in these enormously important cases, and I welcome any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mandelker appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you so much for being with us. 

Our next witness is a hero. Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire 

tried to stop a genocide in Rwanda, and he saved countless lives. 

That he did not succeed further in this effort was not his fault. It 

was ours. 

In 1994, 5 weeks after the killings began in Rwanda, our colleagues Paul Simon and Jim Jeffords called General Dallaire, head 

of the UN Peacekeeping Force in the Rwandan capital of Kigali, 

and asked what he needed. A desperate Dallaire told them that if 

he had 5,000 soldiers, he could end the massacre. The Senators 

hand-delivered a note to the White House requesting that the 

United States approach the Security Council to authorize deployment of the troops. The Senators received no reply. The killings 

continued. 

If more people had listened to General Dallaire, maybe things 

could have ended differently in Rwanda. I hope and pray that more 

will listen to him now—now that another genocide is underway. 

Senator Dallaire had a distinguished career in the Canadian 

military. I asked him earlier whether I should call him ‘‘General’’ 

or ‘‘Senator,’’ and we decided ‘‘Senator’’ would be appropriate in 

this setting. He achieved the rank of Lieutenant-General and the 

post of Assistant Deputy Minister of National Defense. He has published a book about his Rwandan experience, ‘‘Shake Hands with 

the Devil’’, which has received numerous awards. Among many positions, he is Special Advisor on War-Affected Children to the Canadian International Development Agency, and a member of the 

UN Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention. He has received 

8

honorary doctorates from numerous Canadian and American universities. 

It is this Subcommittee’s distinct honor to have you here today, 

Senator Dallaire. Please proceed with your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT-GENERAL ROMEO A. DALLAIRE, 

SENATOR, PARLIAMENT OF CANADA, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 

Senator DALLAIRE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Senators. First, a word, if I may, of congratulations on this marvelous initiative and congratulations from the Canadian Senate 

Committee on Human Rights. We applaud your work and we wish 

you well in your future deliberations, particularly in starting with 

the subject of genocide. 

I only have a short period of time, and so I am going to do what 

my Marine Corps friends taught me in Quantico, just south of here: 

I am going to power talk my way through this and hopefully get 

enough information across. And to do so, I would like to start with 

bit of history—a bit farther back than CNN history, which sometimes is, one wonders, last week—but back to 1994 and bring us 

into today, into Darfur and into the future. 

I rapidly wish to indicate that in 1994, at one particular time, 

a small group of Rwandan extremists—and extremism is the instrument of this era—people who do not play by any of the rules—

sat around a table and tried to figure out how they would maintain 

power. How they would maintain power. And the solution they 

came up with was we will simply exterminate 1,200,000 people of 

the other ethnicity—Tutsis. And even though we warned and attempted to get the international community involved, and even 

mandates changed, ultimately they succeeded in killing in 100 days 

700,000 of that 1.2 million, plus about 100,000 moderate Hutus. 

When they did that, we watched. Now, one readily would come 

to the conclusion that the international community either did not 

want to see or did not have the instruments to solve this. And it 

is interesting that since then we have rapidly turned towards the 

UN being present there, and being present because the international community wanted it there through the Security Council, 

that they not having taken action and me in the field not having 

taken action, that we are held responsible for that genocide. And 

I do not negate that my mission failed and that we did not help 

the Rwandans achieve peace and, on the contrary, ended up in a 

civil war and genocide. 

However, I do not believe that the UN was the ultimate culprit 

or instrument by which we did not prevent it. I believe it is the 

sovereign states that make up the UN that prevented the UN from 

doing it because they simply did not give it the tools, did not give 

it the political will, and ultimately did not give it the resources, be 

it military or otherwise—to prevent it, let alone stop it. 

And so this brings us to genocide, and genocide seems to have 

over the years turned into a very judicial sort of instrument, a sort 

of after-the-fact tool, and not necessarily an instrument of anticipation nor of proactiveness to prevent genocide. And when we see the 

work of the International Criminal Court and the Tribunals, at 

which I have been a witness three times, and we see them trying 

to attrit impunity around the world, one wonders how many TribuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9

nals or how many genocides we will need to achieve that aim of 

eliminating impunity. Because if we count on the term ‘‘genocide’’ 

to be the clarion call for us to act, let alone prevent but certainly 

to stop the crisis, we have been woefully ineffective. And, in fact, 

we have avoided the clarion call by trying to debate it, discuss it, 

and use all kinds of instruments, including sovereignty, as an excuse for not intervening when it was blatantly obvious that we had, 

in fact, a genocide—blatantly against the ultimate call for action. 

Now, President Bush in calling the Darfur operation and situation a genocide, that was an enormous initiative. And, in fact, one 

can see him avoiding the very difficult situation that President 

Clinton found himself in, in 1994. However, after calling it a genocide, what has happened? What has this great power done, in fact, 

in stopping it, let alone trying to prevent its escalation? How many 

other countries has it been able to bring online to, in fact, stop this 

genocide? And how is it possible that, in fact, now we have a government in Sudan that, having refused to allow the UN to go in, 

having refused even the reinforcement of the African Union, that 

it is permitted to continue to function and to conduct its business 

internationally, economically, and so on? When it is now fully recognized by these actions as a genocidal government, refusing to 

allow the UN to conduct operations to protect massive numbers of 

its population against human rights abuses, or even soliciting aid 

or assistance from the UN to assist it in stopping the massive 

abuse of human rights of its own people? Not permitting that to 

happen has blatantly established the government of Sudan as a 

government that has set itself against attempts to stop abuse of 

human rights of its people and, as such, on balance has met all the 

criteria of genocidal government. 

So what is this massive abuse of human rights and the stopping 

thereof? In September of 2005, the General Assembly agreed to one 

of the few reforms that Kofi Annan was able to bring in at that 

time, one called ‘‘Responsibility to Protect’’—exactly what we have 

just described. Responsibility to Protect is an instrument by which 

sovereignty is no more an absolute, by which, when there is massive abuse of human rights in a country or when a government is 

not able to stop it, we have not the right, but we the international 

community have, the responsibility to go in and protect those people. 

And so what teeth does this new doctrine have in the UN? What 

teeth does it have in the international community to stop a genocide? Economic? Military? Legal? Yes, they are all available for us 

to entertain. And what about preventing it? What sort of proactive 

instruments can we see that we could use, the international community through the UN, or even separately from that, to actually 

stop genocide? 

The mere fact that human beings can sit around a table and conceive an idea of eliminating, eradicating, destroying millions of people to achieve their aim...How is it possible that that can still be 

a functioning sort of concept and that we let it happen—and, in 

fact, watch it happen on the various media and watch it happen 

not over a day or two, but over weeks and months? 

On the 17th of May 1994, the Security Council said that what 

was going on in Rwanda was a genocide, and by then nearly 

10

300,000 had been slaughtered and over a million internally displaced and refugeed. At that point my plan called for the deployment of about 5,000 troops. I had just finished commanding a brigade group of 5,200 troops. I knew exactly what they could do and 

what we had to achieve in stopping the slaughter—not stopping the 

war, but stopping the slaughter behind the lines. And that would 

be the reason to stop the war. 

I called for the deployment of those 5,000 troops within about 10 

days in order to stop the expansion of that throughout the rest of 

the country. Only leading powers and middle powers, like Canada, 

like Germany, like Japan, big powers like the United States and 

France and the U.K. and Russia and China, have the capability to 

deploy those qualified troops in the time frame necessary to 

achieve that aim. Two months later, the first troops arrived, and 

they were from Ethiopia, and they had no capabilities whatsoever 

in stopping it. And by then the genocide was over, and another 

500,000 had been slaughtered and 3 million internally displaced. 

We saw it. We called it that. We watched it. And we did nothing. 

We watched O.J. Simpson’s bloody glove and Tonya Harding kneecapping, but we did not want to act on the genocide that was in 

front of us. 

And so, ladies and gentlemen, what of the future? There are untapped sources of preventing and stopping genocide. I believe we 

can use not only Chapter VII of the UN in which we would deploy 

with overwhelming force to prevent or stop genocide and its perpetrators but we could also demonstrate our resolve by mere planning. In the case of Darfur, contingency planning for going in could, 

in fact, influence the situation. We could go in with Chapter VIII, 

which means we reinforce a regional power, like the African Union, 

and its attempts to stop the atrocities. We could even go back to 

the General Assembly with ‘‘Uniting for Peace,’’ an instrument that 

has been used in the past, where we go right back to every individual country and say, ‘‘You have a role in the decision to stop 

these operations.’’ 

We can, in fact, move in and start using other players who have 

not come to the fore with the strength they have to help the big 

powers in preventing, let alone stopping, these catastrophes, middle powers like Germany and Japan, Italy, Canada, regional middle 

powers that can and have resources that have not been called upon 

enough to support the UN and the international community. 

I think, ladies and gentlemen, that we also have economic instruments, like, divestment. It is inconceivable, as an example, that we 

will intervene militarily, possibly to save human lives, if we can 

apply R2P, but we will not intervene in the economic matters of a 

country. How is it possible that Sudan still invest massive amounts 

of money in its military and next to nothing in its economic and 

social structures, which is the source of this genocide, and that we 

let it happen? We have not stopped their bank accounts. We might 

send in troops, but we will not stop their bank accounts. There is 

no logic in that. Cash seems to be more powerful than might and 

human beings. 

Ultimately, ladies and gentlemen, we are now faced with a genocide. We are in the middle of it. It needs either massive deployments of troops, or it needs an international diplomatic effort led 

11

by powerful nations and middle powers to stop it. And it is high 

time that we call a spade and a spade. And China and Russia cannot play on both sides of the game of human rights. They are turning into, certainly, in my opinion, scavengers of Africa as they attempt to maneuver their resource base at the expense of human 

rights and massive abuses of human rights on that continent. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dallaire appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Dallaire. 

Our next witness is more than a critically acclaimed film, television, and stage star. Don Cheadle has starred in many movies 

including‘‘Crash,’’ ‘‘Traffic,’’ ‘‘Ocean’s Eleven.’’ He has received 

many awards, was nominated for an Academy Award as Best Actor 

for his performance in ‘‘Hotel Rwanda,’’ and earned Golden Globe, 

Critics’ Choice, NAACP Image, and Screen Actors Guild Award 

nominations for that same role. Many Americans first learned 

about the genocide in Rwanda from ‘‘Hotel Rwanda,’’ in which Mr. 

Cheadle portrayed real-life Rwandan hero Paul Rusesabagina. 

Mr. Cheadle has been more than just a competent and skillful 

actor in bringing that role to the attention of people around the 

world. He has been a leader in the fight against genocide in 

Darfur, giving speeches, writing articles, traveling to refugee 

camps in Sudan and Chad to raise awareness. He has been active 

in the campaign that resulted in California passing a divestment 

law. With human rights activist John Prendergast, Mr. Cheadle is 

co-author of a new book, ‘‘Not on Our Watch,’’ which is due out 

later this year, a citizen’s guide for responding to the genocide in 

Darfur. He is also producing a documentary about the Sudan. A 

native of Kansas City, he received his bachelor’s degree in Fine 

Arts from Cal Arts in Valencia, California. 

Mr. Cheadle, thanks for being with us today. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DON CHEADLE, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST,

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CHEADLE. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me here today. Allow me to begin by saying that I am not 

only honored but somewhat awestruck to be appearing before you 

today to testify about the ongoing crisis in Darfur. I was invited 

here this afternoon by Senator Durbin to recount for you my personal experiences in Sudan and Chad so as to put a ‘‘human face’’ 

on what has been transpiring in that region for the past 3 to 4 

years. There is more I could say in the way of a preamble, giving 

you my background and how I came to be involved with Darfur; 

but as time where this matter is concerned is rapidly running out 

for most and has already expired for far too many, I will get right 

to it. 

After accepting this invitation, looking at the task before me, I 

started scrolling through my mental Rolodex to recall stories of 

Darfur, finding each one more tragic and gruesome than the last, 

yet trying to select the one that was the most shocking, the saddest, rife with the kind of terrifying imagery that would galvanize 

the room, causing everyone here to knit their brows and wring 

12

their hands and shake their heads. But then two things occurred 

to me: one, all of the stories fit that description; and, two, all of 

us already know this. 

Even if your knowledge of the situation in Darfur is only anecdotal, given your familiarity with similar tragedies which have unfolded in Armenia, Cambodia, Kosovo, Rwanda, you know the stories all have an eerily familiar ring. Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, singled out for their ethnicity or their religious 

or political affiliations, are systematically targeted for extermination. 

Instead of the Interahamwe in Rwanda, it is the marauding 

Janjaweed in Darfur who prey on unarmed civilians. The government in this case uses Antonov bombers for the first wave of attacks, followed by foot soldiers sweeping through for the second 

wave, then finally the marauders ride in on camelback and horseback to loot, burn, and mop up the stragglers. Invariably, there are 

numerous accounts of unspeakable brutality to the victims prior to 

their deaths, with the survivors more often than not being made 

to witness these acts, as well as, if they are female, being gang 

raped, another common tactic of the perpetrators—leaving the victims terrified, demoralized, and ashamed. And where Darfur is concerned, if you are a woman living in the camps, you have the added 

horror of potentially being raped again when you leave the compound seeking much needed firewood for cooking to sustain your 

family’s meager existence, or when the camps are raided, as is happening more often now. 

The sickness and depression in the camps is palpable, as more 

refugees roll in daily, bringing with them what little they can 

carry, what family managed to survive, and a spirit bruised, battered, and broken. Now, I could plug in the names Fatima or Hawa 

or Adom to personalize these events, but every story told to me in 

the camps followed along similar lines, the only difference being 

the individual recounting it at the time. And every day since, up 

to and including this one, these stories continue to churn out of 

Darfur’s human grinder at a rapid pace, with no end in sight. 

And there you have it: a ‘‘human face,’’ an accounting. And what 

of it? 

In the 100 days of Rwanda’s ethnic cleansing, with nearly 1 million souls brutally murdered, the most efficient extermination to 

date, most claimed to have known nothing about it, even years 

after its occurrence—a claim easy to believe given the dearth of 

news coverage those tragic events received. The news coming out 

of Africa in 1994 seemed to be all about Nelson Mandela’s leadership and the end of apartheid. In fact, many of the South African 

actors I worked with during the filming of ‘‘Hotel Rwanda’’ admitted that they had no idea genocide was taking place, figuratively 

just ‘‘up the road.’’ And surely it was not until the film’s release 

that most people in this country had even heard of the place. Unless you were going on vacation to see the mountain gorillas, 

Rwanda was not exactly considered the greatest of getaways, no 

public opinion intended. But Rwanda differs greatly from Darfur in 

many ways. Perhaps the one most worth noting for our purposes 

is that this conflict in western Sudan has far exceeded 100 days in 

length. Darfur has been on a slow boil for 4 years now. Four years. 

13

And over those 4 years, network news has reported about the crisis, articles have been written, rallies protests, and marches organized, concerts dedicated, benefits held, divestment bills signed, 

lectures made. Our President has labeled the crisis a ‘‘genocide.’’ 

Yet here we are, 4 years in and counting. The question is: What 

will be done about it? 

Now, to be clear, I ask what will be done—not what can be done, 

for that question has been asked ad nauseam and contains within 

it connotations of powerlessness and surrender. What will be done 

is a very different question. Rather than succumbing to the monster of despair, ‘‘What will be done? ’’ presupposes that there are indeed answers, solutions, actions to be taken that yet remain dormant. This is the appropriate question for Darfur and for the Committee members convened here today. 

Over the last year, I have heard a great many answers to these 

questions offered and have been privileged to participate in several 

efforts toward gaining peace in Darfur. I traveled to the region 

with a congressional delegation followed by ‘‘Nightline’s’’ cameras 

to chronicle the journey and broadcast the stories to a wide audience, in an effort to raise awareness about the plight of the 

Darfurians. I was enlisted in the ranks of UCLA students to push 

their college and the entire UC Regents to divest their portfolios’ 

funds from businesses working in the Sudan, a policy that was 

later adopted by the entire State of California and signed into law 

by Governor Schwarzenegger last year. Similar legislation is now 

pending in many States across the U.S., and in a personal gesture 

of solidarity, Chairman Durbin and Senator Brownback have likewise divested their family holdings from companies profiting in 

Darfur—a very important action that I hope everyone will follow. 

In December, I was fortunate enough to travel with a small delegation to China and Egypt—both very important countries to 

Sudan—in an attempt to persuade their leaders to exert their considerable influence in the region, publicly condemning the continuing bloodshed while strengthening their back-door diplomacy. 

In May, there will be a book on the stands I co- authored with 

the International Crisis Group’s John Prendergast in an attempt to 

demystify the conflict and give insight into not only our activist 

roots and personal journeys, but also hopefully to provide a sort of 

primer for those who wish to become more actively involved in 

seeking solutions to this. 

Valiant efforts? Perhaps. Effective? The jury is still out. Enough? 

Not even close. Three to five hundred thousand dead and dying, 

plus 2.5 million displaced souls equals a massive humanitarian crisis deserving of massive humanitarian attention. There is a small 

army of activists collecting, armed with unbridled enthusiasm and 

prepared to throw themselves headlong into the fight. But our wellintentioned efforts will wither on the vine if we are not guided and 

supported by the likes of you potential architects of change, bringing all of your collective pressures to bear on the powers that be. 

There are many actionable tactics that remain untried in this current iteration of violence that have been proven to be highly effective in the past, and we need to implement them now. 

We need multiple players engaged in consistent and continual 

negotiations with the leaders in Khartoum as well as the rebel facVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14

tions to get them back to the table to broker an agreement that is 

durable. Only with a committed team of diplomats working tirelessly to understand each party’s demands will we be able to see 

a shift toward a solution. And to that end, the President’s Special 

Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, along with Salim Ahmed Salim 

of the AU and the UN’s Jan Eliasson must be fully supported in 

their work, financially as well, and we should take the lead on 

that. 

We need high-ranking members in this administration to weigh 

in heavily in this process so as to be taken seriously by the GOS 

to achieve a favorable outcome. 

We need to support the ICC in their efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity by sharing information 

and declassified intelligence vital to their investigations so that 

when these charges are made, they stick. In the 4 years that this 

conflict has been raging out of control, not a single member of the 

Khartoum government has been punished. The UN Security Council, the EU, and the current administration have threatened to 

punish those who commit these atrocities, but have as yet to follow 

through on these threats. 

The latest incident was the U.S. threat to move to an unspecified 

‘‘Plan B’’ if the Khartoum regime would not accept an internationally agreed upon UN role in the peacekeeping force. However, 

President Bashir and some of the most influential members of his 

regime have reiterated in no uncertain terms that UN troops are 

not welcome in Darfur. And what has happened as a result? Nothing. There was no visible reaction from Washington as the January 

deadline came and went. 

This only emboldens Khartoum to push forward with its military 

objectives. We, of course, should be wary of moving troops, however 

hybrid, into a sovereign nation without their consent, but when 

does a so-called sovereign nation forfeit its sovereignty? Does killing your own citizenry en masse vitiate that position of sovereignty, or is there something even more egregious required? And 

what could that be? Do the small tributaries of information trickled 

to us by the GOS about terrorists trump the taking of innocent 

men, women, and children’s lives? Should these morsels give a nation the right to engage in inhumanity? 

If not, we need to outline specific punitive measures—travel 

bans, asset freezes, indictments—punishments that can be negotiated down or even taken off the table entirely if the killing ends. 

But unless the Khartoum regime believes there are real consequences to these actions, the status quo will be maintained and 

countless more will suffer and die. 

In the 1990’s, Sudan expelled Osama bin Laden from the country 

and dismantled his training camps after considerable pressure 

from the West, most significantly from the U.S. Similar pressure 

could again be exerted to bring an end to this current crisis. 

We need to support the current efforts by China to keep the pressure on Sudan, as clearly they are a major player there. China’s 

hosting of the Olympic Games in 2008 will cast them in a very 

bright light indeed. We need to capitalize on this opportunity to leverage China’s desire to be recognized as having changed their 

questionable ways with regards to human rights issues and their 

15

wish to be deserving of the slogan of unity they are promoting for 

the Games of ‘‘One world, one dream.’’ As long as they are in essence underwriting the genocide by providing the GOS with the 

very arms they are turning against their own citizens, China’s 

leadership may be more deserving of the slogan ‘‘One, world, one 

nightmare’’—an association they should most certainly wish to 

avoid. We should reach for purchase there. I hope that Mr. Natsios’ 

recent visit to Beijing, followed by President Hu’s to the Sudan, 

may bear fruit but these should by no means be the only attempts. 

I am aware that there are important leaders in our country and 

others who have been involved in tricky diplomacy as well, albeit 

in a quiet way. Maybe it is time for these men and women to come 

to the fore and take advantage of the support of many ordinary 

citizens around the globe who wish to see these horrors in Darfur 

come to an end. 

Any of these tactics should be deployed immediately if we are to 

see real change in Darfur. 

We need to provide vital equipment and training necessary for 

the peacekeeping force in Darfur, not least of which should be to 

bolster communications capabilities for the AU. Push the UN to 

adopt a more forceful mandate and rules of engagement so that the 

peacekeeping force has the authority to do more than simply report 

on the atrocities they are witnessing, and they can provide real 

protection. 

We can fund troops and humanitarian workers from other willing 

Muslim countries. South Africa, the Middle East, South Asia can 

all play significant roles here. Egypt, similarly, has expressed a desire to be a part of this, and we should capitalize on that. 

But if, after all of these things, after all the committee meetings 

and the brainstorming sessions and the discussions and plans 

about how and when to act, we still find ourselves unwilling to embark on these solutions, then we must cease and desist with all the 

tough talk. Please, no more mention of no-fly zones and possible 

NATO intervention forces. Let’s refrain from using the word ‘‘genocide’’ that demands our Government to respond as put forth by the 

United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of 

the Crime of Genocide, an agreement of which we are a signatory. 

Please let’s forego the lamenting of the lost souls in this latest conflict and just write them off. Let’s by all means please banish forever from our lexicon the phrase ‘‘Never again.’’ This empty rhetoric is an insult to those in jeopardy, and it puts the world on notice that where mass atrocities are concerned, we are all bark and 

no bite. 

But perhaps we should look at this a different way. Maybe what 

is required for our more strenuous involvement is for the folks in 

Darfur, in the Sudan, to step it up. Maybe 500,000 dead is simply 

not enough to warrant action. Maybe a million is more like the target number. I am serious about this. That word does feature very 

significantly in our collective consciousness. Perhaps when we say 

‘‘one million Darfurians dead’’ an alarm will go off and the public 

outcry will be so deafening that we will be forced to take action. 

At the rate things are moving, it will only take 4 more years to 

reach this threshold—2 years into the term of our next President. 

And will this crisis be but one of many items on his or her ‘‘to do’’ 

16

list? Or will there have been significant action such as to have 

made this issue one of careful maintenance rather than abject consternation? We obviously do not have the answer to that, but in 

this Committee’s inaugural year, I can think of no better issue to 

wrestle with as concerned citizens everywhere stand by to see who 

will get the ten count—us or genocide. 

So I ask again: What will we do? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cheadle appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Cheadle. 

Our final witness today is Diane Orentlicher, Professor of law at 

Washington College of Law, American University. She is co-director 

of the law school’s Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian 

Law, and the founding director of its War Crimes Research Office, 

which she directed from 1995 to 2004. She was described by the 

Washington Diplomat as ‘‘one of the world’s leading authorities 

on...war crimes tribunals.’’ Professor Orentlicher has published and 

lectured extensively on legal issues relating to genocide, crimes 

against humanity, war crimes, and international criminal tribunals. She received her B.A. from Yale, and her J.D. from Columbia 

Law School, where she was an editor of the Columbia Law Review. 

Professor Orentlicher, thank you for joining us today, and please 

proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE F. ORENTLICHER, PROFESSOR OF 

INTERNATIONAL LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, and 

distinguished members of this Subcommittee, with other witnesses 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear at this historic 

session, the first hearing of a Senate body established to consider 

how our law can best advance the deepest interests of humanity. 

With its special focus on genocide and the rule of law, this hearing 

could not be more timely, coming at a time when our legal duty to 

stop atrocious crimes is urgently relevant in Darfur. 

I am fortunate to have as a foundation for my own remarks the 

eloquent and powerful testimony of the two witnesses immediately 

preceding me. By focusing on effective strategies for ending atrocious crimes still underway in Darfur, they have evoked the central 

point of the 1948 Genocide Convention: When states confront the 

threat or reality of genocide, they must mobilize to prevent it or to 

halt its deadly march. 

My own remarks will place these witnesses’ recommendations in 

a broader legal setting. After briefly recalling the core obligations 

that our country assumed when it became a party to the Genocide 

Convention, I will address the question of how well U.S. law fulfills 

our legal commitments under that treaty. 

First, let me say that I cannot help thinking that Raphael 

Lemkin, the Polish scholar who campaigned relentlessly for a treaty on genocide, would have been deeply gratified by your decision 

to devote this Subcommittee’s first hearing to genocide and the rule 

of law. As Senator Durbin recalled in his opening remarks, Lemkin 

believed it was essential to confront genocide through law—not just 

a moral code of conscience, although Lemkin was a man of surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17

passing conscience, but through an enforceable law of humanity. 

No matter how many times history gave Lemkin reasons to lose 

faith in humanity, he passionately believed in the power of law to 

compel us to do better the next time we learned that the very survival of a human group was in grave peril. 

In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the treaty for which 

Lemkin had campaigned so tirelessly, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Its core duties 

are twofold: The parties ‘‘confirm that genocide is a crime under 

international law’’ which they undertake both to prevent and to 

punish. The two duties are, of course, related. By ensuring that 

those who breach the basic code of humanity are brought to justice, 

the treaty’s drafters sought to alter the depraved calculus of ethnic 

annihilation. For those who commit genocide count on our acquiescence, committing their crimes beyond any thought of shame or account. 

In my remarks this afternoon, I will speak very briefly of the 

duty to prevent genocide, which has already been the focus, quite 

rightly, of other witnesses’ testimony, and I will say a bit more 

about the duty to punish genocide. 

First of all, the duty to prevent genocide begins at home but 

transcends national borders. That is, the framework of the Genocide Convention is that it counts on states to take the necessary 

steps to prevent genocide in their own society, but it also recognizes that the risk of genocide anywhere engages the responsibilities of states everywhere. Simply put, the Genocide Convention 

charges states to take whatever action is needed to prevent genocide or to bring its murderous violence to a swift and certain end. 

Mindful of this responsibility, government officials have at times, 

as others have mentioned, hesitated to respond to urgent cries for 

protection on the asserted ground that it was not clear whether the 

situation at hand constituted genocide. And so I want to emphasize 

a point that should speak for itself: If governments wait until it is 

legally clear that genocide has occurred, they have waited too long 

to prevent it. Besides, any situation that seriously raises the specter of genocide is undoubtedly one that requires urgent attention 

and effective action under a body of law that is not the subject of 

this hearing. 

As other witnesses have mentioned, a number of States and local 

governments in this country have not hesitated to act in response 

to atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan. By enacting divestment 

laws targeting Sudan, they are doing their part to mount meaningful pressure on the Sudanese Government to bring the suffering in 

Darfur to an end. 

In your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned your 

plan to introduce legislation in support of these efforts. That type 

of legislation would be precisely the kind of legal action to end 

genocide that Raphael Lemkin hoped states would take when confronted with the specter of genocide in their time. And that type 

of congressional legislation may be necessary to ensure the survival 

of state divestment laws against legal challenge. 

When the Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts divestment law targeting Burma in a 2000 decision, it did so on the 

grounds that, when Congress enacted Federal sanctions targeting 

18

Burma, it ‘‘manifestly intended to limit economic pressure against 

the Burmese Government to a specific range,’’ which the Massachusetts law exceeded. 

U.S. courts could conceivably attribute a similar intention to 

Congress in relation to sanctions that it has imposed against 

Sudan unless Congress makes clear that it welcomes State and 

local divestment initiatives. 

Turning from prevention to punishment, the question that I 

would like to take up in my remaining time is whether U.S. law 

adequately fulfills our obligations of punishment under the Genocide Convention. I will suggest four ways in which this Subcommittee could consider strengthening the legal foundation for 

our national commitment to ensure that those responsible for 

crimes of ethnic annihilation are brought to justice. 

In my written testimony, I describe how the principal law implementing the Genocide Convention, the Proxmire Act, largely fulfills 

the letter of our treaty obligation to ensure that persons who commit crimes of genocide in U.S. territory can be punished here. The 

Proxmire Act also enables U.S. courts to prosecute U.S. nationals 

who participate in genocide abroad. That approach is not explicitly 

required by the Genocide Convention but advances its overarching 

aim of ensuring that genocide is punished. 

Looking beyond our own courts, the U.S. Government has played 

a leading role, as Ms. Mandelker indicated, in supporting various 

international courts that have jurisdiction over genocide as well as 

other serious crimes. It has also provided very impressive support 

to national courts to strengthen their capacity to bring to justice 

those who committed atrocious crimes in their own territory. 

Finally, recent legislation, which was also referred to in Ms. 

Mandelker’s testimony, directs the Attorney General, when deciding on legal action against aliens who are excludable based on their 

suspected participation in genocide, to consider options for prosecution. 

But broader trends in international law and practice have in 

some ways outstripped the comparatively modest approach embodied in current U.S. law and reflected in the text of the Genocide 

Convention. Most important, if that treaty were enacted today, it 

would surely include a provision directing States to assert jurisdiction not only when genocide is committed in their own territory, 

but also when a suspected perpetrator is present in their territory 

unless they extradite or transfer the perpetrator for prosecution 

elsewhere. International treaties on torture and enforced disappearance—these are treaties of more recent vintage than the 

Genocide Convention—include provisions along the lines I have 

just mentioned. And as a party to the Torture Convention, the 

United States has enacted legislation that enables U.S. courts to 

prosecute persons who have committed torture abroad when they 

are present in our territory unless they are prosecuted elsewhere. 

The United States recently acted in December to arrest someone 

under this legislation. 

Many other countries, including our leading allies, have laws 

that enable them to do the same thing for the crime of genocide, 

and they have enforced those laws in recent years to provide some 

measure of justice for victims of genocide in Rwanda and the BalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19

kans who were unable to obtain justice at home or before an international court. 

But the United States is unable to provide a similar backstop 

against impunity for genocide. Thus when U.S. authorities discovered that a prominent suspect in the 1994 genocide, Enos Kagaba, 

was in Minnesota, they undertook assertive action to ensure that 

he would face justice for his crimes, but they could not prosecute 

Kagaba for genocide here. And so in April 2005, Kagaba was deported to Rwanda, whose government announced it would prosecute Kagaba on genocide charges. But while the Rwandan Government has, indeed, been committed to prosecutions arising out of the 

1994 genocide, its court system has been understandably overwhelmed by staggering numbers of cases. Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has so far been unwilling 

to transfer any of its cases to Rwanda, determining that its legal 

system does not yet satisfy international standards of fair process. 

Although U.S. action against Kagaba demonstrated our national 

commitment to deny sanctuary to perpetrators of genocide, the case 

also highlights gaps in our legal framework that limit our ability 

to ensure that those who commit genocide face justice, fairly administered. And so in closing, I would like to suggest for your consideration three types of legislative action that would close this 

gap. 

First, I urge the Subcommittee to consider amending the Proxmire Act to enable the United States to prosecute crimes of genocide not only when committed in the United States or by a U.S. national, but also when the victim is a U.S. national and, wherever 

the crime occurs, if the perpetrator is present in the United States, 

subject to the important caveat that the person will not be prosecuted fairly and vigorously before another court. That is an important caveat because, of course, the United States should not provide a forum of first recourse for genocide committed abroad. It 

should, however, do its part to close the impunity gap. 

Second, and as an important companion to my first suggestion, 

I hope this Subcommittee will consider further strengthening an 

important congressional directive to the U.S. Attorney General set 

forth in our Immigration and Naturalization Act pursuant to legislation passed a few years ago. This legislation directs the Attorney 

General, when determining the appropriate legal action to take 

against a genocide suspect who is deportable on that ground, to 

consider ‘‘the availability of criminal prosecution’’ under U.S. law 

or the ‘‘availability of extradition’’ to a foreign jurisdiction that is 

prepared to prosecute the suspect. While this language evokes our 

national commitment to secure justice in the aftermath of genocide, 

it does not explicitly convey a preference for justice over deportation. I hope this Subcommittee will consider amending this law to 

convey that type of preference. 

Third, I hope this Subcommittee will consider amending the 

Proxmire Act to make it clear that U.S. courts can prosecute individuals who bear criminal responsibility for genocide under the 

well-established doctrine of superior responsibility. 

Finally, I urge this Subcommittee to consider amending the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, or TVPA, to enable plaintiffs to 

bring civil actions against persons, including, where appropriate, 

20

legal persons, who are responsible for genocide. As now drafted, the 

TVPA establishes a cause of action against persons who subject 

others to torture or extra-judicial executions, but not against defendants suspected of genocide. I believe the reason for this is that 

at the time the law was enacted in 1991, its proponents could not 

easily imagine that in the final decade of the 20th century, survivors of genocide would have fresh cause to seek legal redress. 

Now we know better, and I urge this Subcommittee to consider legislation that would remove this anomaly in our law. 

These actions, I believe, would help redeem one promise of the 

Genocide Convention: to ensure justice for those who survived unspeakable crimes and to honor the suffering of those who did not. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Orentlicher appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

We are going to enter into the record statements from 14 different organizations. In the interest of time, I will make them part 

of the record. We will not read them at this moment, but they represent, I think, some of the most widely respected human rights organizations in our country. Without objection, they will be entered 

into the record. 

I am going to allow 7 minutes in the first round of questions 

from each member here. I am going to try in my 7 minutes to ask 

about two different issues or raise two different issues. 

Ms. Mandelker, let’s start with the point made by Professor 

Orentlicher. Now, as I understand it, there is a difference in terms 

of the authority of the United States to bring prosecutions under 

the Genocide Convention and under the Torture Convention. And 

that is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that Chucky Taylor, who 

was a leader in Liberia and was living in the United States, is 

being prosecuted by the United States for engaging in torture, even 

though the acts that he was involved in did not occur in the United 

States or, to my knowledge, involve U.S. citizens 

On the other side, when it comes to the issue of genocide, it appears there is a much different standard of authority. As an example, a man by the name of Salah Abdallah Gosh, head of the security of the Sudanese Government, who has reportedly played a key 

role in their genocidal campaign, came to Washington 2 years ago 

to meet with senior administration officials. It appears to me that 

we did not have the authority, even if we had concluded that he 

had been complicit in genocide in Darfur, to arrest and try him 

under the Genocide Convention. Is that distinction the same as you 

understand it? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Yes, Senator. 

Chairman DURBIN. Make sure you turn your microphone on, 

please. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The jurisdictional bases 

under which we can prosecute genocide as opposed to torture are 

different. Under the genocide statute, we can only prosecute U.S. 

nationals, or if the genocide, in fact, occurs in the United States. 

The torture statute is a little different. It includes U.S. nationals 

and those found in the United States. So that is correct. 

21

Chairman DURBIN. And that is a point made by Professor 

Orentlicher, that if given that additional authority, it would be a 

disincentive, would it not, for those engaged in this kind of conduct, 

knowing that the United States could, in fact, arrest and prosecute 

them for actions not involving U.S. citizens but actions that are 

considered crimes of genocide? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Certainly, Senator, I cannot comment on such 

a proposal. The administration does not have a formal position on 

this issue. But we would be prepared to review any such legislation 

that you might propose. 

I would note, however, that expanding the law to establish jurisdiction for genocide in all cases occurring anywhere in the world 

would raise other serious legal and policy concerns. 

Chairman DURBIN. How does that differ from torture? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, Senator, the genocide statute—and, 

again, I am not commenting on any particular proposal, but the 

genocide statute was enacted after the ratification of the convention, which was different from the Convention on Torture, and the 

torture statute, of course, was enacted after the ratification of that 

convention. 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Orentlicher, would you like to comment on that distinction? 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. Thank you. Well, I think it is important to 

recognize that the Genocide Convention was adopted very early in 

the history of the United Nations. It was the first human rights 

treaty adopted, and it was a huge leap for the UN to pass an international criminal treaty of any kind. And so its approach was radical at the time, but now seems quite modest compared to more recent trends in international law. It has been common in recent 

treaties dealing with human rights violations that amount to 

crimes to establish a framework for universal jurisdiction. 

I want to emphasize that universal jurisdiction is always a last 

recourse. I think one of the most important things the U.S. Government is doing right now is providing support to local countries that 

are recovering from epic violence to strengthen their own legal capacity. 

I have just returned from a trip to Serbia and Bosnia, where U.S. 

efforts to support local courts in those two countries are really 

quite impressive. So universal jurisdiction is always a jurisdiction 

of final recourse. 

And the last thing I would like to say, if I may, is that experience 

in recent years has shown that the power of one national court to 

exercise universal jurisdiction has often provided a very healthy 

catalyst to countries where the crimes occurred to exercise jurisdiction themselves. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to ask a question of both Senator 

Dallaire and Mr. Cheadle, and then I will give you the time between you, a minute perhaps apiece, to answer. I am sorry it is not 

longer. 

Senator Dallaire, we spoke earlier today about the type of force 

that might be sent into Darfur. Your experience in Rwanda I think 

gives you special expertise in this area. There are some who say, 

‘‘Oh, the United States, we cannot be sending troops all around the 

world.’’ And others says, ‘‘You are exactly right, and you should not 

22

be sending troops on the ground into Darfur.’’ And I would like 

your comments on that particular issue. 

Mr. Cheadle, you have been involved in this divestment movement, and as I said, I am going to introduce a bill to allow State 

and local governments to engage in divestment policies. And I 

would like for you to tell me what your experience has been in the 

State of California after Senator Dallaire. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Two years ago, in Boston, I presented a concept of operations where, to go into Darfur, we would need about 

44,000 troops to do the job. I mean, the place is as big as France. 

We would need about three divisions worth, plus some in Chad because of the refugee camps that are situated there and, of course, 

the problems on the border. 

The technology required to be able to cover that ground with so 

many troops can only come from those countries that possess the 

necessary technology, that is, the developed countries—not only the 

big powers but the middle powers. They could provide that in night 

vision systems and so on. But one of the big deficiencies of any of 

the forces going into the region is, of course, strategic lift and strategic sustainability of forces, which the developed countries can certainly provide. 

But if we are talking about purely troops on the ground, no, we 

do not need U.S. troops. In fact, it would not be a smart move to, 

in fact, use U.S. troops in a situation where the religious dimension 

reflects a potential friction that could come out of a force going 

there. 

The African Union’s African standby force—which is a five-brigade capability—is still at least 5, maybe 10 years away from being 

able to respond internally—it can be reinforced, however, with 

other African forces and forces from other regions of the world 

without necessarily coming to the Christian developed countries 

and certainly not to the major powers. Middle powers can provide 

capabilities—advisory and technology—while other countries could 

provide the troops if the political will were there for those troops 

to go in. This would either be as a force of protection to help reestablish those people, those 2.5 million, in other places or ultimately a force of intervention against the Sudanese Government 

under Responsibility to Protect. 

In that scenario, 44,000 might not meet the requirement, but 

then, again, do we have the force structures in the world to do it? 

And I believe yes, without coming to the developed world. It is a 

matter of simply needing the political will to encourage others to 

want to provide them. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Cheadle, on divestment? 

Mr. CHEADLE. Well, in this and in many issues related to this, 

I have sort of been enlisted since my appearance in the film ‘‘Hotel 

Rwanda.’’ And in this particular issue, Adam Sterling, who was 

working with the Darfur Action Committee out of Los Angeles and 

STAND, Students Taking Action Now for Darfur, at UCLA, had 

been lobbying for his school, UCLA, but also the entire UC Regents 

to consider divesting their funds from portfolios that were benefiting from doing business in Darfur. And we had a rally at the 

school, and we were able to see that happen. 

23

Closely on the heels of that, legislation was drafted. Adam was 

one of the people who drafted it as well. There is another committee member out there whose name I am forgetting—Paul Horowitz, excuse me—Paul Koretz, rather. Paul Koretz. And they drafted legislation that Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law last 

year which divested—which Calpers and calstrs, two of the major 

pension funds in California, divested their funds from businesses 

operating in the Sudan. 

Since then, there has been a lot of legislation around the country 

and many bills in a lot of different States to try and achieve this 

same end. And in the California bill, I know that there had been 

some resistance to it, obviously fiduciary responsibilities that they 

felt were not being met by these divestment bills. And I believe 

there is a provision in the bill that allows a certain amount of 

time—I do not know if it is 6 months to a year—for companies to 

find other means, other companies to invest their funds in. And it 

has been shown that many of these funds, the profit that they are 

making is very nominal, and they are able pretty easily to find 

other places to invest their money, that it does not really take a 

big hit to these funds. 

So this is what we are trying to encourage other States to look 

at, and I just would like to offer my support to what you are proposing to do in any way that I can. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, and I am going to recognize my 

colleagues and give them a little leeway here because I went beyond the 7 minutes. 

Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator, and I thank each of you 

for your testimony. 

You know, I kind of want to get something going between Senator Dallaire and Don Cheadle here for a minute. Your question is: 

What will we do? And we just heard Senator Dallaire say what is 

needed. 

Now, somewhere between what your questions ask and what you 

are saying, there is an answer. Except where is it? That is the 

question. It is the inaction, the absolute inaction of the United Nations. It is feckless when it comes to this response at the present 

time. 

So the question I have is: What do we do? You know, what is the 

answer to work through the bureaucracy? What is the answer to 

play off the different international powers—Russia and China—in 

terms of how they do not want to see something coming even 

though they do not want to claim it? Or we have a United Nations 

Human Rights committee that has a majority of the members of 

that are not stellar players when it comes to human rights. 

What is the answer? Is the answer outside of the United Nations? Is it a coalition of the willing? What is the answer? Let’s answer Mr. Cheadle’s question. What will we do? It is not what can 

we do. What will we do? You know what to do, correct? 

Senator DALLAIRE. Just give me the troops. 

Senator COBURN. All right. So how do we get the troops? 

Senator DALLAIRE. Well, in fact, Senator, it is rather interesting 

that the United Nations has all the planning done for the current 

phases of operations in order to reinforce the African Union, but 

24

the only thing that is missing is the political will of the sovereign 

states that make it up to want to put the troops there. And they 

do not want to put the troops there, to be very blunt, as the question is put forward, because there is no self-interest in there. 

I mean, who cares about Darfurians? They are sub-Saharas black 

Africans. They are the lowest priority of humanity. They are no different than the Rwandans. They are not worth the investment. We 

put 67,000 troops in Yugoslavia, and I could not get keep 450 in 

Rwanda. We are putting them all over the place, including Afghanistan, and we do not put them there. 

I think that the essence of it is: Do we believe that those humans 

count? And are the politicians of the sovereign states willing to create a coalition of the willing outside of the UN or, in fact, give the 

Security Council the mandate that it should be articulating to, in 

fact, deploy those forces, because you can find them. 

Senator COBURN. I will ask you this question, and then I will ask 

Mr. Cheadle to respond as well. Is there any doubt in your mind 

that this country is willing to support that effort? 

Senator DALLAIRE. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. There is doubt in your mind that we are—

Senator DALLAIRE. Yes. Your President how long ago has said 

that it is a genocide, and what have we seen since? We have seen 

a lot of cash going—

Senator COBURN. No, no. I am talking about the specifics of approving that plan at the United Nations. 

Senator DALLAIRE. No one. This country does not even want to 

do the contingency planning. The big powers, the Brits, the 

French—the Russians and Chinese are not even on the same wavelength of wanting to do any possible intervention, let alone the political negotiations that we think they should be doing to move the 

Sudanese Government. 

Senator COBURN. So it is your testimony that you think that we 

are part of the obstructing force at the UN for this to go forward. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Any nation that has a capability of committing itself to protecting under the Responsibility to Protect has 

demonstrated an unwillingness to go ahead. 

Senator COBURN. Big difference. I asked you a very specific question. We are part of that contingent of communities that is obstructing the ability for this to move forward. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Yes, and so—

Senator COBURN. In spite of what we have done at the UN Security Council. 

Senator DALLAIRE. And so is my country as a leading middle 

power. 

Senator COBURN. Okay. And so what will we do about that? 

Senator DALLAIRE. That remains—your political decision of committing the resources, either the political resources, the economic 

resources, whatever means, divestment and so on, and the military 

resources—

Senator COBURN. But divestment is not going to change anything 

except for the next 2 or 3 years. I am talking about something in 

the next 2 or 3 months. Divestment is great, but that is a longterm strategy. I am talking about the short-term strategy. What do 

we do? How do we develop the coalition of the willing? 

25

Mr. CHEADLE. Well, Rwanda, it is ironic that the Rwandis are 

standing by with two to three battalions of soldiers waiting to go 

in. They need, obviously, the command and control to come through 

the UN. They need the support, they need the capabilities to get 

there. They cannot get there. 

But all of these things need to be shorn up. All of these gaps 

need to be shorn up. And it has to come through, if not the President, the Secretary. It has to come from a high enough position 

that it has power, that it has teeth, and that it has strength. So 

far it is—this is a very well meaning Committee and we are here 

trying to do our best, and I have been trying to do my best as an 

individual, as is Romeo Dallaire. But we need the powers that are 

in control to put their pressure to these other governments that are 

the partners in this, to put this through, or nothing will happen. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Senator, may I reinforce that point by the following: that the countries—

Senator COBURN. Let me make an exception here for a minute. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Sorry. 

Senator COBURN. I want permission to request the State Department to answer this question for our Committee as well—in other 

words, their position on this, because we have heard one side of it. 

And it is a little bit different than what I have heard, I will tell 

you quite frankly. You are looking at it from the inside, which is 

a greater perspective than I have, Senator, and I will grant you 

that. But I think for the record, to be fair, we ought to have that 

because that will help us have some action. 

Go ahead, Senator Dallaire. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Only to reinforce my point on the political decisions. Another obstacle to, in fact, using force under Responsibility to Protect—after having exhausted all the other means, including really giving the Sudanese Government a run for its 

money, which has not really happened so far—is the fear of casualties. The fear of casualties in a country that does not count, in an 

area that does not count. Sovereign states are having a terrible 

time since, in fact, Mogadishu to survive any such operations when, 

one, there is no self-interest and, second, it is a place where it has 

no impact really on your security. Do we want to take casualties? 

And most of the developed countries have refused that. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, because they may be next. That is why. 

Yes, because they may be next. 

A question: If you had three or four countries, a coalition of the 

willing, and went before the UN and they said no, in your mind 

is it still correct for them to go if they can accomplish the task? 

I am talking about the very clear moral issue of stopping genocide, 

regardless of what a UN body may say? 

Senator DALLAIRE. I am not one to go outside of the UN with single-nation-led coalitions because in my estimation it means that 

the international community does not want to have the solution. 

However, I am certainly for a coalition of the willing to create a 

capability, both political and military, to introduce the possibility 

of conducting interventions there. 

Senator COBURN. I think you answered the question by the description of the UN. The UN does not want to address this issue. 

Senator DALLAIRE. But, sir, the UN is us. 

26

Senator COBURN. That is right. That is right. And the UN has 

waste and has corruption to the tune of about 25 percent of its 

budget every year. It absolutely is non- transparent in what it 

gives to the world, how it spends its money, where it does in terms 

of the connection. It is abysmal in terms of us knowing what it is 

doing. It is not us because we do not get to see what ‘‘us’’ is doing. 

The UN has to change and it has to become transparent so we can 

see how it is spending its money and what it is doing with that 

money in terms of its peacekeeping operations. And 25 percent, one 

out of every $4, that is spent on peacekeeping is defrauded—is defrauded. That money, that $1 billion, could be solving the problems 

in Darfur today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank all of our witnesses today. This has been certainly an important hearing and a 

story that needs to be told. 

We have an immediate problem in Darfur to bring an end to the 

genocide. That is the immediate problem that we need to deal with. 

And we have a game plan, and that game plan is the introduction 

of additional troops, and we have to get that done. It requires the 

leadership of the United States. It requires us working with every 

available means, including the United Nations. And I think we 

need to be prepared to use economic sanctions, particularly oil revenue sanctions, to make sure that, in fact, is carried out. I am not 

sure whether we are committed to that type of hard plan to end 

the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. 

But I think the broader question is—I mean, the immediate issue 

is to stop the killings, stop the genocide. The broader issue is to 

take off the table ethnic cleansing as a means of accomplishing political ends. That has happened too many times during my lifetime, 

and it looks like there is no end in sight to other countries using 

similar tactics, that ethnic cleansing is permitted. 

And I think it is somewhat the failure of leadership. I remember 

when I was in the State legislature—we were talking over lunch—

we talked about bringing an end to the apartheid government of 

South Africa and we were suggesting economic sanctions, so many 

people said, ‘‘Oh, don’t do that. You are only going to hurt the 

South Africans by doing that.’’ So everybody seems to want to take 

their particular tool of the table. 

I guess my question to you is that if you had to pick one tool—

we have talked about military intervention in regards to Darfur. 

We have talked about economic sanctions, and the Chairman’s bill 

is one that I support to bring about more effective economic sanctions against countries that are involved in ethnic cleansing. We 

talked about the war—we have not talked as much about the war 

crimes tribunals, but we always thought that bringing international justice, crimes against humanity, using international tribunals would make it clear that you cannot get away with genocide, that it does involve the international community, it is not a 

matter of your government sovereignty, that this is an issue on 

which every civilized country has a means of intervention. So we 

could expand the use of special tribunals to try to hold countries 

accountable. 

27

We have international organizations, the United Nations. I know 

Senator Coburn does not exactly have confidence. I think that the 

United Nations represents all of us, and it is a tool that needs to 

be used. I have been working with the OSCE, which is 56 countries 

in Europe, Central Asia, and North America. I think that has been 

effective in putting a spotlight on human rights generally, because 

when you start seeing a lack of commitment to human rights, it is 

a slope that leads ultimately in some cases to genocide. And you 

need to have a stronger international presence to say these are important issues, ones that we care about. We do care about people’s 

rights to live in their country and to have their rights respected. 

So it is frustrating to all of us because we have been through this 

too many times. But what tools are the most effective? Should we 

put our attentions to the war crimes tribunals? Should we put our 

attentions to the international organizations, to strengthen the 

international organizations? Would it be easier to use military 

intervention in countries, letting them know that it is not their sovereignty, that we are all involved in it? 

I know it is easy to say all of the above, but if you had to pick 

one that would be the most important for us to strengthen, which 

one would you pick? 

Mr. CHEADLE. Well, I spoke—before I came here, I met with 

Condoleezza Rice, and we were speaking about this very thing. And 

she said that we ought to take their ‘‘yes’’ as the ‘‘yes.’’ Bashir has 

said that he will accept a hybrid force. There are certain caveats 

that he had. But we should take the ‘‘yes’’ as a ‘‘yes,’’ prepare the 

troops, get the control and command in place, get the communications in place, get everything set up so then we can say we have 

it now and now we can go. 

And then if he still says no, then we have a real obstruction, as 

opposed to what we have now, which is a bunch of negotiations 

around small points. We have to say we are ready to go, this is set 

up. And then if he is not obstructionist, then there is—then the 

question of sovereignty does come onto the table. Then we are asking: Are you still allowed to say no when the world is saying yes? 

And I think that is what she believes is the most important thing, 

and I think it is not a bad idea. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator? 

Senator DALLAIRE. We are like a wet noodle in this exercise because we have got no teeth or we do not want to show any teeth. 

We have got all kinds of initiatives and debates and discussions on 

the political front. We have got all the data we need to prove that 

it is a genocide and it is a genocidal government. We have got all 

the NGO community saying that they cannot even help the people 

that are there right now and that it is slowly continuing, the genocide that started a few years ago. And the question is: With all that 

data there, why is it still possible that we are talking as if we are 

talking to an equal when we talk to the Sudanese Government? 

How is it conceivable that a government that has so blatantly gone 

against fundamental human rights, massive abuses thereof, that 

we still treat them as an equal sovereign state with all its capabilities in decisionmaking? 

We endorsed the Responsibility to Protect doctrine within the 

UN—one of the reforms that Senator Coburn is certainly calling 

28

for—but it is only one of the 101 that Kofi Annan tried to introduce, Well, which State stopped most of them? This one. Only three 

made it through. And many of those reforms would bring a lot of 

changes and maybe achieve what you are trying to achieve, what 

I hope to achieve: a more effective UN. But ultimately, someone 

has to say, ‘‘We are going to prepare contingency plans for the possible deployment of forces that would intervene in Sudan. If you do 

not accept the UN-proposed mandate and deployment capabilities 

to reinforcing the African Union, then we will take action.’’ But not 

one country has offered even to start planning on a contingency 

basis. Not one. The UN does not have that capability. You need the 

big powers. You need the French, who could do it, you know, with 

others supporting them. Middle powers could join in and create a 

coalition to build that contingency plan. Not one even wants to 

start the contingency planning, and so there is no stick. 

Senator CARDIN. It is a matter of political will because, as I think 

we have all said, the sovereignty issue really does not play here. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Well, that, is exactly the problem Responsibility to Protect, came out of the Rwandan genocide, during which 

we blatantly said that we should go in but did not want to. We just 

do not want to follow up on a concept that we all agreed to implement if necessary. It is happening, and we are backing out. And 

it is not because the soldiers are not there. Hey, we have got millions of soldiers. It is not because they are committed else where 

that they are not available. It is because the political will is not 

there to make them available. 

Senator CARDIN. All right. I respect Senator Coburn’s points, and 

I know we share a lot of frustration about reform at the United Nations, and I agree with that. But I think when you are talking 

about the introduction of troops, it is going to be the major powers 

that are going to be making those judgments, more so than delegating it to the United Nations. They reflect basically what the 

major powers are committed to doing, and we do not have that support at this point, according to what you are saying. 

Senator DALLAIRE. But the major powers are the Permanent 

Five. There is a gang out there that is really not pulling its weight, 

and those are the middle powers. Why aren’t we influencing the 

Germans to get in there, rather than just throwing cash at it? Why 

aren’t we trying to influence the Japanese to change their Constitution to allow that to bring capabilities rather than just cash to address the problem and so on? Why aren’t the Canadians being 

pushed far more strongly to commit themselves to human rights 

and responsibilities? We spearheaded R2P in 2001, and a situation 

that fits its criteria now exists, and yet we are still not putting the 

assets there. 

I do not think the big powers should keep stumbling over each 

other to try to meet all these requirements. I think there are a lot 

of other nations who are sitting on the fence that the big powers 

should be pushing to get involved. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I agree, but I do not think the major powers are committed yet to doing this; therefore, they are not trying 

to convince the other powers—

Senator DALLAIRE. You are absolutely right. 

Senator CARDIN.—because they are not there yet. 

29

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. I appreciate it very 

much. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start 

by telling you how pleased I am that you have called this Committee into being and have focused its first efforts on the genocidal 

bloodletting in Darfur. It is a great accomplishment, and I am 

proud to be here with you. And to the witnesses, thank you so 

much for your help and your testimony. 

It strikes me that genocide is a pattern through human history—

just in this century, the genocide of the Armenians, the Holocaust, 

the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Rwanda, now 

Darfur—and we have never really as a world community developed 

the capability for addressing it. And it seems that we may now 

have the wherewithal to do that, the opportunity to do that, the 

human desire to do that. This may be one of those moments whose 

time has come. 

And in that context, let me ask you this—and forgive me, because the question begins rhetorically, but what nation more than 

any other has the resources to provide military power, medical aid, 

emergency relief, and logistical support? What nation more than 

any other has the technological capability to go around the world 

and quickly build communications, a command and control system? 

What nation more than any other has the capability to deploy such 

assets worldwide, rapidly, and in quantity? And what nation more 

than any other has the authority to drive and organize international cooperation? And if that nation found the energy and the 

will to match those capabilities so that it had an institutional capability with itself and worldwide to respond to tragedies of this nature—not only genocidal but caused by natural disaster as well—

what do you believe the effect would be on the good will, on the 

moral authority, and on the international standing of that nation? 

General? 

Senator DALLAIRE. My response, sir, is the following: Why do you 

always want to set yourselves up? Why the leading world power 

that has all those capabilities, why in seeking solutions should you 

necessarily have to commit, yourselves, all those capabilities when, 

although diffused, they exist in the rest of the international community? 

Let me throw a real weird one at you. Why can’t the Chinese 

provide all that? They have got it. It may not be as modern, but 

they have got it. And they are in there, and they are keen on that 

oil. And they know what our problems are in the context of human 

rights, with what is going on in Darfur. Why don’t they go in? Why 

don’t we support them in going in there to provid that capability 

if they are so chummy with the Sudanese? 

What is fundamental is that the Darfurians, 2.5 million people, 

are dying out there with absolutely nothing, and we are all sort of 

working through a number of permutations without really wanting 

to hit somebody between the eyeballs and saying, ‘‘Listen, you go 

in and do it because you are the one who is stopping us from actually trying to help this situation.’’ 

And so your question leads us, of course—a leading question, I 

suppose—to the United States. But why do you want to do that 

30

when there are so many others that also believe in human rights, 

have capabilities, but are sitting there waiting for you to set yourself up again? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because it looks like somebody has to 

break the logjam here. 

Senator DALLAIRE. Then create the initiative to bring all those 

other beavers together and get them to do it with your moral support and political will behind it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is part of the capability that I mentioned—the capability and the authority to drive and organize 

international cooperation. 

Mr. Cheadle? 

Mr. CHEADLE. I absolutely agree. I do not think that necessarily 

the United States should be the face of the force that goes in. I do 

not believe that we have to commit troops on the ground. I believe 

there are so many steps that can be taken prior to that eventuality, 

if that even is something that occurs. As General Dallaire said, I 

think we can play a role as leaders and as support of other countries who have very great interest in that region—China being one 

of them. When we went to Egypt, they spoke of they do not want 

a disaster on their border. As that region becomes more and more 

unstable, that is the last thing they want is another unstable country on their border. 

But I think we need consistent and continual commitment to a 

process. This is not going to be one gesture that is going to solve 

this. We have to apply diplomacy that takes continual attention, 

and that can come from many different ways. But the leaders have 

to want that, and the leaders of not just this Nation but the other 

nations, as General Dallaire has said, have to see this as an important issue. Basically, they have to believe that it is important to 

save human beings’ lives who have no—who give them no political 

cachet. And at this point, we have not seen that shift. 

Senator DALLAIRE. There is about to be a meeting of the G–8, 

and there is the G–20. They are sending representatives to that 

table. Why not squeeze them? And some of them have capabilities 

that have not been committed to this that should be called to task. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think we agree. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that the statement by 

Senator Cornyn, who unfortunately had to leave, be made a part 

of the record. Without objection, it will be. 

We will have a second round, and let’s do 3 minutes so we each 

have a brief question to ask. 

The one thing that I find interesting—there are lots of things interesting, obviously, but the one thing that is curious and interesting as you watch foreign policy and developments in the world 

is how often it comes down to oil. Oil. It turns out that oil brings 

in 85 percent of Sudan’s foreign revenue, $7.6 billion a year. It 

turns out there are three major oil companies in Sudan. They are 

owned by China, India, and Malaysia. 

The question I would like to ask—and maybe Ms. Mandelker or 

Professor Orentlicher, someone else if they would like to join in—

is: What are the legal means that we can use to put pressure on 

31

the Sudanese when it comes to their oil revenues? It strikes me 

that if we find a way to touch those revenues, we are going to get 

the attention of the Sudanese very quickly. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Senator, of course, I am from the Criminal Division at the Department, so I am not prepared to comment on 

your question. But it is clearly an important one and one that we 

will carefully consider. 

Chairman DURBIN. Dr. Orentlicher, do you have any thoughts on 

that? 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. Well, legally, of course, it is possible to devise 

sanctions aimed at an oil embargo, and that would certainly carry 

a lot of punch. But, you know, the question whether it is politically 

feasible is one that is more in your province than mine. 

May I comment on one other issues that was alluded to earlier? 

Chairman DURBIN. Of course. 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. In terms of the panoply of levers that are 

available, you know, to say the obvious, we need to not pick just 

one, and it is clear from our experience in other areas like Bosnia 

that it took a concerted range of actions to bring an end to the violence that lasted 3–1/2 years there. 

One tool, and the one that I have been most involved in, involved 

international criminal sanctions. I mention this because that is 

likely to come onto the radar with respect to Darfur soon in a way 

that it is not now the case. The prosecutor of the International 

Criminal Court has indicated that he is likely to come down with 

indictments relating to Darfur later this month. At some point 

there may be a dilemma presented to policymakers about whether 

the indictments in some way impede a peace process or not. 

And so I would like to put that issue in a broader context. When 

there is genuinely reason to believe that outstanding investigations 

impede international security, there is a mechanism for the Security Council to suspend that process. But I want to sound a cautionary note. When faced with challenges of the magnitude of those 

we face in Darfur, it has proved in other situations tempting to 

surrender a process of justice in the often delusional hope that it 

will bring an end to the carnage. We—

Chairman DURBIN. So to be specific, if you think the International Criminal Court is going to come down in February with 

some indictments or prosecutions against some of the leaders in 

Sudan, do you think the UN might consider bargaining away those 

actions? 

Ms. ORENTLICHER. The issue may arise at some point. It arose 

when Slobodan Milosevic was indicted by the Yugoslavia War 

Crimes Tribunal, and it has been discussed in the context of investigations in Uganda by the International Criminal Court when 

peace negotiations were underway. 

So the big picture I want to emphasize is that our experience in 

the past with this issue has been that it is tempting to say at that 

moment where the dilemma presents itself, this is a thorn in the 

side of peace negotiators, we have to get rid of it. 

And I want to say nobody I know who is involved in justice for 

genocide would want to stand in the way of action that would actually bring the carnage to a halt, but experience has shown that 

when diplomats raise this concern and argue for amnesty, it is 

32

often an alibi for not taking more assertive action to bring carnage 

to a halt. And it has proven possible so far to have peace with justice. In fact, it has often been the case that indictments have facilitated an end to a conflict rather than provide an impediment to 

peace. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

The last point I would like to make on the oil issue is I am not 

going to stop with this inquiry. I want to find out what tools we 

have available by way of sanctions, by way of actions involving Sudanese oil. 

General Dallaire? 

Senator DALLAIRE. The statistics you quoted with respect to the 

funds coming available to the Sudanese Government through the 

oil, 70 percent of that is going to into military hardware. So the 

first question I would ask is: When you look at the security of that 

country, why are we not putting something like an arms embargo 

on Sudan? If they are pouring all that money into weapons that are 

being used to actually perpetrate and continue this massive human 

rights abuse, why aren’t we doing something about that? 

Chairman DURBIN. I would not be surprised, General, to find 

that some of the countries with the oil interests in Sudan are also 

supplying the arms. 

Senator DALLAIRE. There we go. So who is running the show? 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Senator, it is a pleasure to have you here, one. No. 2, I am going 

to read back to you a little bit of what is in your book because I 

think we agree about the UN. You are much less frustrated with 

it than I am, or you are in much better control of your emotions 

over your frustration. I do not know which it is. 

‘‘Though I, too, can criticized the effectiveness of the UN, the 

only solution to unacceptable apathy and selective inattention is a 

revitalized and reformed international institution charged with 

maintaining the world’s peace and security, supported by the international community and guided by the founding principle of its 

charter and universal doctrines on human rights. The UN must undergo a renaissance if it is to be involved in conflict resolution. This 

is not limited to the Secretariat, its administration bureaucrats, 

but must encompass the member nations who need to rethink their 

roles and recommit to a renewal of purpose. Otherwise, the hope 

that we will ever truly enter an age of humanity will die as the 

UN continues to decline into irrelevance.’’ 

I believe it is climbing into irrelevance constantly right now, and 

I agree with your words. I would add one thing to it. They need 

to be transparent about what they do so that the world outside of 

the governments can judge what they are doing. 

I want to go back just one moment and try to—because I think 

the problem is the UN. And the UN is the member states, I will 

grant you that. I believe we need an international body, and I believe we need to have leadership in that international body. But we 

cannot sit here and ask Mr. Cheadle’s question, ‘‘What will we do?,’’ 

and the answer between that we will not play in the UN. I mean, 

that is basically what we are saying. 

33

And so why won’t we play in the UN? Because the UN is no 

longer an effective voice to prevent something like this because everybody is gaming the UN. And if you look at the 77 countries that 

are consuming the dollars or playing the games with positions and 

inside ballpark in New York City, you will recognize that nothing 

positive is going to come out until that whole system is changed 

and revitalized and comes into the sunshine of public opinion so we 

can see what is going on. 

So I comment, and only on your writings, because I actually 

agree with them, and there is tremendous wisdom. Darfur is happening today because the UN is feckless, because it is not the 

world body it claims to be, because it is not acting in the way it 

should be acting. And that truly is a reflection of the member 

states. But how did it get that way? 

Senator DALLAIRE. How it got that way? You have just given me 

the great opening. How it got that way is that sovereign states let 

it move down that road. 

Senator COBURN. That is right. 

Senator DALLAIRE. And it is interesting that the 101 reforms that 

Kofi Annan tried to bring through would have gone a long way toward greater transparency and impartiality, also, which is absolutely crucial in this exercise. We stopped that, but hopefully we 

will, and this country will, take a lead in trying to round those 

things up and bring them back in. 

However, we are in a new era, and I wrote that with the backdrop of the research I am doing on conflict resolution. We entered 

a whole new era at the end of the Cold War. This is no longer the 

same situation. The rules have changed. In a sense, the threat 

plays with no rules at all. It is extremism, and it will kill its own 

to achieve its aims. 

But in the same light, we are using old tools. We are using old 

diplomatic tools, old military tools, old economic, humanitarian 

tools of the Cold War era, and we are trying to adapt them to fit 

this era. And what we are discovering is they do not work. We are 

crisis managing, we are on-job training, we are doing lessons 

learned. 

Let me give you a very short example. I spent 35 years in NATO, 

and we had a lexicon. In the military, we use action verbs, right? 

Attack, defend, withdraw, bypass, and so on. Everybody knew what 

they meant. The Russians knew what they meant. All of a sudden 

we enter this era, and my mandate is ‘‘to establish an atmosphere 

of security.’’ What does ‘‘establish’’ mean? I mean, I did not invent 

it. It came from the political, diplomatic side. Establish? Does it 

mean I defend the country against a third party when I am demobilizing both armies? Does it mean I watch it? And what is an 

atmosphere of security? A police state? A sort of no-weapons area? 

And so we are using terminologies, we are using tools that are 

outmoded, and what we need is a whole new conceptual base to 

conflict resolution. We need new ideas, new concepts to solve these 

problems. And what we are seeing throughout the structures is 

people adapting old stuff and finding it does not work. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Whitehouse, do you have any questions? 

34

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me come at my question another way. You posited a very 

cold-eyed calculation by the world: that the Darfurians have no political value to anyone, that they have no economic value to anyone, 

that they are expendable and, hence, there is no effort. 

Even from a hard, cold-eyed calculation, is there not a calculation 

to be made that a country that can show leadership regularly in 

responding to these kinds of tragedies can gain from that an element of international standing, an element of international good 

will, an element of international moral authority that may not have 

immediate value in that particular area but, nevertheless, is an 

asset of the countries to deploy in all of its different foreign, military, and other international engagements? 

Senator DALLAIRE. Sir, that is like apple pie. Of course it would. 

I think, however, the deficiency in that is that that same country 

should be demonstrating innovative approaches in how to do that 

and not use some of the old semi-imperial, dominant types of methodologies that were used in the past that simply will not meet the 

very complex, ambiguous scenarios in which we find ourselves 

today—in which, not to minimize it, religion is a major player. 

And so we are into a whole different set of circumstances that 

need that same moral authority and demonstration of will, but that 

also needs a whole new set of tools to do it right. We cannot simply 

try to adapt the old methods of the past. You know, a new mantra. 

And so as I indicated, the UN—you do not need another UN. You 

need a renaissance in the UN. And I think the major players have 

got to initiate that from within also. 

Mr. CHEADLE. And I believe, if I can piggyback on that, on the 

question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Please. 

Mr. CHEADLE. I believe sometimes in a way that role of leadership can be supportive, and that may be a place where we can play 

a real part in this, is that we support other players who have interests in that area. This is Muslim- against-Muslim violence that is 

happening in this country, and we should work with those who are 

moderate and those who wish to see that violence end in their own 

self-interest and be a supportive player in that way, not necessarily 

try to stand out in a leadership role as the great United States fixing your problem, but tell us where we can apply our help, where 

we can apply our technology, where we can apply our assets, where 

we can help with control and command and support it from that 

position. 

And I do absolutely agree with you that it would go a long way 

in sort of resurrecting what we hope to be as a nation, a leader of 

morals and an example of that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know 

that the Marshall Plan, for instance, did not put a lot of troops on 

the ground in Europe in order to accomplish its goals, but it certainly was a high point in American leadership. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator. 

I want to thank the following individuals and organizations who 

did submit statements for the record, and I want to read this list 

because it is a very impressive list: Save Darfur Coalition, GenoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Jun 08, 2007 Jkt 035763 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35763.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
35

cide Intervention Network, Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of America, the Jewish Council for Public 

Affairs, Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights 

Watch, Human Rights First, Admiral John Hutson, the Jewish 

Community Relations Council of Chicago, the Alliance for Justice, 

Open Society Institute, and the Center for American Progress. 

The hearing record will be open for a week for anyone who wishes to submit additional materials. Written questions for the witnesses must also be submitted by the close of business 1 week from 

today if there are follow-up questions. And we will ask the witnesses to respond in a prompt way. 

I thank everyone for the sacrifice you made to be here today for 

this inaugural hearing, and I will leave here remembering many 

things, but I will certainly remember the admonition and challenge 

of Mr. Cheadle: What will we do? 

Thank you all very much. This Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

36


35763.001
37


35763.002
38


35763.003
39


35763.004
40


35763.005
41


35763.006
42


35763.007
43


35763.008
44


35763.009
45


35763.010
46


35763.011
47


35763.012
48


35763.013
49


35763.014
50


35763.015
51


35763.016
52


35763.017
53


35763.018
54


35763.019
55


35763.020
56


35763.021
57


35763.022
58


35763.023
59


35763.024
60


35763.025
61


35763.026
62


35763.027
63


35763.028
64


35763.029
65


35763.030
66


35763.031
67


35763.032
68


35763.033
69


35763.034
70


35763.035
71


35763.036
72


35763.037
73


35763.038
74


35763.039
75


35763.040
76


35763.041
77


35763.042
78


35763.043
79


35763.044
80


35763.045
81


35763.046
82


35763.047
83


35763.048
84


35763.049
85


35763.050
86


35763.051
87


35763.052
88


35763.053
89


35763.054
90


35763.055
91


35763.056
92


35763.057
93


35763.058
94


35763.059
95


35763.060
96


35763.061
97


35763.062
98


35763.063
99


35763.064
100


35763.065
101


35763.066
102


35763.067
103


35763.068
104


35763.069
105


35763.070
106


35763.071
107


35763.072
108


35763.073
109


35763.074
110


35763.075
111


35763.076
112


35763.077
113


35763.078
114


35763.079
115


35763.080
116


35763.081
117


35763.082
118


35763.083
119


35763.084
120


35763.085
121


35763.086
122


35763.087
123


35763.088
124


35763.089
125


35763.090
126


35763.091
127


35763.092
128

Æ


35763.093