I strongly oppose this ill-conceived, counterproductive
legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism
the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to
believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars
that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences
that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan
may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding
without our involvement. Just today [Nov. 19], in talks with the UN, the two
sides pledged to end the fighting.
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil
war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country's 48 years of existence.
Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case
of Sudan's Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority
in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA's
World Factbook states that Sudan's Christians, who make up 5 percent of
the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region
in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization
of the conflict.
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without
much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see
this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that
Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear
urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable
commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention
is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll
from its civil war is estimated to be 2 to 3 million – several times the estimated
toll in Sudan.
At a time when we have just raised
the debt ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation
will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer
dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the U.S. assets of certain Sudanese until
the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the U.S.
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the
crisis. In fact, the promise of U.S. support for one side in the struggle may
discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there
to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the U.S. government promises
massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our
current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up
hurting most those we are intending to help.