tually existed. We had Dr. Bereaugh, Gosper Bereaugh from the U.N., special rapporteur who gave a very comprehensive analysis as well as many other witnesses at that hearing. It seems to me that it is not only not abated, it has actually in some cases gotten

worse.

Today, the State Department has issued its report on trafficking in persons, and again Sudan is a tier three country. In other words, it has a major problem with human trafficking. It also is doing nothing or little or nothing to stop it, and it points out in the report Sudan is a country of destination of internationally trafficked persons as well as a country with widespread internal trafficking, and it goes on to detail these facts.

Let me just ask you, you know, I noticed in your report that you pointed out that the EU and Sudan at the U.S. Convention on Human Rights negotiated a word change from "slavery" to "abduction," which is a serious word change. Definitions do matter. Words have meaning, and slavery certainly is more egregious than abduction, even though abduction is very, very bad.

With that kind of watering down of the situation, what do you think we can and should do again with regards to trafficking, this slavery problem?

Everyone was gung-ho back in 1996, and Dr. Bereaugh has been doing it since 1993. They have signed all the conventions, the slavery convention of 1926, and all the other follow-up documents, and yet there are no prosecutions. They are not acquiescing. They are part of the problem, if you will, on slavery. If you could answer those questions.

Mr. KANSTEINER. Absolutely, and I would refer to you, and we would be happy to get to you, the latest International Eminent Persons Group report. Penn Kemble chaired that. They just came back from Sudan, and it is slavery, abduction and forced servitude in Sudan that is the topic. He goes into excellent detail of not only what is happening, but what the mechanisms are that we can employ to monitor and, if you will, shine that big flashlight on this process and hence turn it off.

Interestingly enough, it was the International Eminent Persons Group, made up of Americans and a number of Europeans and Africans, and as you have mentioned the Europeans have continually referred to this problem as abduction, and would never use the "S" word. And in fact, this commission, I think for the first time, it has just returned led by Penn Kemble, in fact got the Europeans to sign on to the fact that this is slavery and this is what it should be called, and we all know it when we see it.

So I would commend that report to you. I think it is an excellent report. It is not a U.S. Government agency. I mean, we in fact commissioned it as we did in the Danforth Report, but they went out independently and came to their conclusions. We will look for mechanisms, and we will, quite frankly, come to you all for resources to implement those mechanisms, to monitor this.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that.

Very quickly, my 10 seconds, we know that the Taliban is one of those that is very active in Sudan. What about the Chinese connection? We know that they too are very active in providing support for the oil pipeline and the like in Sudan.

Mr. KANSTEINER. The Chinese oil interests are there in Sudan, and I think they have intentions to remain. I will say this, the conflict in Sudan long predated the discovery of oil. I mean, has oil contributed to and made this a perhaps more complex issue? Maybe. But this war was going on a long time before oil was discovered. I think that oil in fact is a double sword, and we should be using it effectively to bring a settlement.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Yes, let me ask Secretary Kansteiner, and welcome back by the way, Secretary. In the Danforth Report it makes the point that the U.S. needs to step up its diplomatic engagement, all right. And one issue that I wonder about in this context is the recommendation that the Egyptian/Libyan peace initiative, which we call the joint initiative, be better integrated with the Kenyan-led IGAD initiative process. That is in the report and you cite that in your testimony.

I have been watching Libya's role for some time now, and we have compared notes on this. You know, we have had Libya cropping up in Zimbabwe. We have Libya's rather unsavory connections in West Africa. It turns out that, I think, Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor actually had the opportunity to meet in a terrorist camp in Libya where presumably they learned some of the guerilla warfare techniques that they employed against their own people.

So given Libya's past involvement in these types of activities, terrorist activities, why would we look to Libya to play a constructive role in the process? That would be my first question.

I guess my second question would be more broad: Should the United States defer to the regional countries which have many political problems of their own?

In the report it includes that the United States should not develop an alternative peace plan. Yet at the same time, and this seems to me a little contradictory, it notes that all sides and interested actors are pleading for committed U.S. engagement.

So the broader question is, why should we have confidence the regional actors' approach that the Danforth Report plays out, in your opinion?

Mr. KANSTEINER. Thank you, Congressman.

I share your suspicion and skepticism of the constructive role that Libya can play, and that is not to say that the Egyptian/Libyan plan has not produced some good ideas, and there are a couple that we in fact do want to integrate and want to encourage the IGAD partners to look at and see how they can pull in.

That said, I think we also need to note that the Egyptians are a very important neighbor, and they are involved in Sudanese issues and have been for generations. So we are mindful of that as well.

U.S. engagement is imperative. I do not believe this peace process is really going to reach anything that will be fruitful and long lasting and just if we are not engaged in it.

So are we going to be working with IGAD and with the Kenyans, and the other neighbors? You bet, but we will be engaged.

Mr. ROYCE. Let me ask you about coordination with the Europeans for a minute. The report that was submitted says that we have improved coordination with the Europeans on Sudan.

How would you characterize these European countries' views on this conflict? And do you think we are on the same sheet of music with respect to the way the Europeans are looking at the conflict? Mr. KANSTEINER. We are getting there is the short answer. The Norwegian, British and U.S., and Swiss I would throw in, probably have the closest coordination and have shared the most common strategies, objectives, and tactics. I think we each have somewhat of a comparative advantage to do different things and play slightly different roles as outside friends of Sudan and outside friends of the process.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Secretary Kansteiner, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Ms. Watson. The Chair recognizes Ms. Watson from California.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was concerned about the self-determination statement that you made when it is apparent that slavery is still going on. And in the hands of the current composition of the government, would they now choose to continue to abduct, to enslave as their own self-determination? I would like to hear a comment on that.

I also was concerned about your response to a question raised earlier about using the oil trade as a means to sweeten the pot, to get them to change their ways. And you said you did not want to see politics involved with their means of trade and revenues. I do not really understand that statement at all because it goes to the heart of the political system, and I think that is probably one of the incentives that we can use.

So can you make a comment on both of those points, please?
Mr. KANSTEINER. Yes, Congresswoman, very much.

On the self-determination, it is more a catch-all phrase for the political entity that is going to be the future of Sudan. Is it a confederacy made up of southerners and northerners? Is it a state-bystate federal system with a central government? Who is going to issue the currency and who is going to run the defense forces? Those kind of questions. And I think that evolves around constitutional structures as well as actual power-sharing structures.

Obviously slavery is unacceptable, and will not be part of that process that truly involves self-determination and a power sharing for the south.

So with correct self-determination, correct political structures, if you will, slavery would cease. That would be our hope.

Ms. WATSON. Let me just query that for a minute, please.
Mr. KANSTEINER. Yes. Sure.

Ms. WATSON. Say that there is a troika that exists, and would the United States, would this Administration want to become part of that so as they frame through self-determination their governance, we can be sure it is done on the positive and not the negative?

I mean, would we want to get involved to that extent, and how is the Administration feeling about if there were a troika, say Egypt, Kenya, whoever else would be involved? Would we be part

of that to be sure as a form, as to determine what the new government will be, that it will not include these negative aspects of the past?

Mr. KANSTEINER. Yes. If I understand your question correctly, we would work with all of those outside actors, the Kenyans, the Egyptians, the Norwegians, the British, and we would work very hard to make sure that this self-determination issue is one that is equitable and lasting.

Ms. WATSON. Would we be asking for a constitution of some sort, bill of rights of some sort as well, so it will be in a form that can be referred to legally in the future? I mean, will we get involved to that extent?

Mr. KANSTEINER. Yes indeed.

Ms. WATSON. Okay.

Mr. KANSTEINER. In fact, you know, that whole-the whole notion of a lasting and just peace has to have some kind of permanent framework.

Ms. WATSON. You are right.

Mr. KANSTEINER. And in our systems we obviously look to constitutions, and we will want to be helpful as they start drafting the outline of what this country of theirs is going to look like, and how they support their ideas with constitutional articles and amendments and the like.

Ms. WATSON. Okay.

Mr. KANSTEINER. In fact, we

Ms. WATSON. So we are prepared to get involved in that way? Mr. KANSTEINER. We are. In fact, we have just-we have just seconded a constitutional lawyer to Nairobi from the State Department to help draft some of these early notions of these early frameworks.

Ms. WATSON. Because we played that role in South Africa. We played that role in Nigeria. And so I would hope that we would have a strong presence in that role.

Okay, could you comment on the other piece, as to the oil, please. Mr. KANSTEINER. Yes, especially on the oil. You know, southern Sudanese have been denied the use of the wealth of oil, and we, the international community, have to help the Sudanese figure out how you share that wealth. It is not right that only the elites in Khartoum get to have the advantage of that wealth. So part of this power-sharing negotiation has got to include how they share the

oil.

And we are going to be working very closely with the Kenyans and others on what some of the models are, and that is what I was attempting to explain to Congressman Lantos, what are some of the models out there that we can point to that oil wealth is shared and shared equitably and shared currently and shared in the future.

Ms. WATSON. We are pretty good about putting

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Congresswoman's time has expired, but please finish your sentence.

Ms. WATSON. Okay. We are pretty good about putting sanctions on other nations and their trade and so on, and I would think that we would take a very, very involved role in how they share throughout the nation. Now if they decide they are going to split

their nation into two, I think that the resources that come out of our trade with them or other countries ought to be determined up front that it will go throughout the country regardless of its parts. Okay, thank you. I am finished. And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would thank the members of the panel for being here. You all have a good background, and I appreciate that.

As some of you know, I was in Sudan and Khartoum and in southern Sudan and returned September the 3rd. And one of the issues I brought up with the government there was the problem of terrorism because I was properly briefed by all of you and other people.

First, I would say to Mr. Winter and to Mr. Skalese, who are here, you are doing-with the World Food Program, you are doing a wonderful job in the Sudan. You are saving more lives than all these politicians in this Capitol put together with what you are doing at USAID and the food program, and I commend you for it. And your people are taking great risks to deliver that food, and keep up the good work.

Mr. Assistant Secretary, three questions. Number one, can the Danforth proposal be realistically implemented?

Number two, is the Administration's Sudanese policy dictated by the needs of all the people of Sudan, or is it dictated by domestic political needs as was the case with the previous Administration, or is it dictated by new anti-terrorism cooperation by the government of Khartoum?

And as a vignette, I would tell you that according to The Washington Post the Sudanese government did try to turn bin Laden over to the Clinton Administration, and they did not know how to deal with it.

Third question, since the Administration is opposed to capital market sanctions, what does the Administration propose to use as leverage over Khartoum?

And I would add that I met with the leaders of Khartoum. They are well educated, sophisticated guys. They were educated in Africa and in Europe; lawyers, two or three of them of the top members of the government are in my profession, they are physicians. They are well educated, they are sophisticated, they are not some bozo like Charles Taylor in Liberia and his henchmen. So when they do something, and they have done some things that I do not think are good, they know what they are doing. They are doing it with stealth and cunning, and they are guilty of what they are doing. They are not bozos.

But would you answer those questions, please?
Mr. KANSTEINER. Thank you, Congressman.

The four tests that we put out to determine if these two sides are truly interested in dancing the peace dance were, as you know, the Nuba Mountains, the days of tranquility, the slavery commission and the cease-fire-I mean, the monitoring of civilian targets. We think all four have been relatively successful in large part thanks to Roger's people and others, and in the non-governmental organizations.