The United States Outer Executive Departments and Independent Establishments & Government Corporations

The United States Outer Executive Departments And Independent Establishments & Government Corporations

Jock Pan

Copyright © 2010 by Jock Pan.

Library of Congress Control Number:      2010906134

ISBN:                          Hardcover                  978-1-4500-8674-5

                                    Softcover                   978-1-4500-8673-8

                                    Ebook                        978-1-4500-8675-2

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

Orders@Xlibris.com

80028

Contents

Part One: Outer Executive Branches

CHAPTER ONE: United States Department of the Interior

CHAPTER TWO: United States Department of Agriculture

CHAPTER THREE: United States Department of Commerce

CHAPTER FOUR: United States Department of Labor

CHAPTER FIVE: United States Department of Health and Human Services

CHAPTER SIX: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

CHAPTER SEVEN: United States Department of Transportation

CHAPTER EIGHT: United States Department of Energy

CHAPTER NINE: United States Department of Education

CHAPTER TEN: United States Department of Veterans Affairs

PART TWO:

Independent Establishments

and Government Corporations

CHAPTER ELEVEN: UNITED STATES FEDERAL COMMISSION:

CHAPTER TWELVE: UNITED STATES FEDERAL CORPORATIONS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: United States Federal Foundation, Board, Administrative Services And Regulatory Agencies

Pan, Jock Lul

Jock Pan, was Born in Kuopuot (Jioke), Ulang County,in Upper Nile State, South Sudan, May 1970, but INS Official put it in 01/01/1971-as he thought appropriate, now around age 40th in the year 2010, migrated from Sudan to United States, July 14, 1999, and became United States Citizen and still Sudan Citizen as well. Married Nyakuoth Juach and have 6 kids, 5 girls and one boy.

Pan, Jock, Graduated for Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Sociology at Bellevue University, Bellevue, Nebraska; Licensed for Life and Health Insurances (equivalent to some special Masters Degrees), and will become an Author of Three Books: (1) Federal Government of the United States, (2) Untied States Government’s Outer Executive Departments and Independent Establishment Government Corporations, and (3) Municipalities, Counties, Cities and State Governments. Moreover, Pan is taking some Public Administration (Law in Action) courses toward Graduate level at University of Nebraska at Omaha, and would like to serve as Consultant.

Geo Constituency (Payuer/Jock Lul Pan Chuol)

This Book is dedicated to the land of America, its Government, People, and its Laws including—116 STAT.1504: Public Law 107-245-OCT-21, 2002, which is Sudan Peace Act.

The Sudan Peace Act (Pub. L. 107-245) is a United States federal law Purposed by Jock Pan and sponsored by Thomas Tancredo condemning Sudan for genocide. President George W. Bush signed the Act into law on October 21, 2002. The Act was passed to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the Second Sudanese Civil War, and condemns violations of human rights on all sides of the conflict; the government’s human rights record; the slave trade; government use of militia and other forces to support slaving, including enslavement and slave trading; and aerial bombardment of civilian targets. It authorized the U.S. Government to spend $100 million in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to assist the population in areas of Sudan outside Sudanese government control.

The U.S. President certified within 6 months of enactment, and each 6 months thereafter, that the Sudan Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement are negotiating in good faith and that negotiations should continue, as illustrated, according to Act. If the Sudanese government did not do so or if it interfered with humanitarian efforts, the Act authorized the President of the U.S. to seek a UN Security Council resolution for an arms embargo and to actively seek other financial and diplomatic methods to influence the conduct of the Sudanese Government, as it must be. Various members of the U.S. Cabinet must report on a regular basis about any measures that U.S. federal departments take to make the Sudanese Government comply with the measures in the Act.

The Act stated that the U.S. President should seek to end Sudanese veto power over and manipulation of United Nations humanitarian relief efforts carried out through Operation Lifeline Sudan, and that the U.S. administration should make contingency plans for relief through other channels, and Implementation of the peace.

The Act requires that the president should collect information about incidents which may constitute crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and other violations of international humanitarians’ law by all parties to the conflict. The Secretary of State must report every six months on the steps taken to collect information and on the information collected including any findings or determinations made by the State Department (Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC October 21, 2002).

Sudan Peace Act is approved in October 21, 2002, by a vote of 359 members of congress who voted for its approval, and 8 among 367 voted for its disapproval. That mean, 98% voted for its approval, and was signed at the same day it is approved. This Sudan Peace Act ended or will end 50 years of war formally started from August 28, 1955 and officially will be ending on April 11, 2011, According to Jock Pan. That war was not a war of 17 years of the First Movement (ANYANYA 1); 11 years of Second Movement (ANYANYA 2); 21 years of continuation of Second Movement (SPLA/SPLM); it includes this 6 years of peace time as part of hostility since the peace process still on table; above all, it is a war of 56 years (August 28, 1955-Aprill 11, 2011).

I, Mr. Jock Pan, had wrote (April 10, 2002) upon a request of the assignment that teacher gave us to comment on whether we supported the launching of war to Iraq or not, before the declaration of Desert Storm (Iraq war) May, 2002. I had partially opposed the launching of a war to Iraq, and in another hand, had requested the United States George W. Bush for signing of Peace in Sudan to eradicate an endured fatality; the United States President George W. Bush had enormously considered that request and signed the Sudan Peace Act into law and this act becomes faithful peace to people of Sudan in general.

Believed it or not, the deed for that proposal (Sudan Peace Act) went into effect on April 11, 2002, when my Red-and-White Book was torn, it became urgent ways to start the peace processes from my home to Sarpy County Court, Bellevue (Omaha) Nebraska, and then to Washington D.C.

On June 13, 2002, the United States House of Representatives passed An Act to facilitate relief efforts and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, also referred to as the ‘Sudan Peace Act’—PERPETUATING AFRICA’S LONGEST WAR.

The Act (House, 2002), (1) has professing to wish to end the war in Sudan, (2) Findings of the Act was the claim that the Government of Sudan has intensified its prosecution of the war against areas outside of its control, (3) Sudan Peace Act’ links the United States to a group with an appalling human rights record, (4) It is ironic that the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ also contains a section dealing with the investigation of war criminals, or accused of involvement in war crimes, (5) The ‘Sudan Peace Act’ states and restates concern about the facilitation of relief efforts within southern Sudan, (6) That the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ envisages channeling relief in southern Sudan rather than the neutral and accountable UN mechanisms, (7) Instead for the people of Sudan want to resolve the conflict, the best interest of US is committed to overthrowing government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States . . .Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically liked to promote a continuation of the war.

Pan appreciates land of America, its Government, People, and its Laws including—116 STAT.1504: Public Law 107-245-OCT-21, 2002, which is Sudan Peace Act.

The Sudan Peace Act (Pub. L. 107-245) is a United States federal law Purposed by Jock Pan and sponsored by Thomas Tancredo condemning Sudan for genocide. President George W. Bush signed the Act into law on October 21, 2002. The Act was passed to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the Second Sudanese Civil War, and condemns violations of human rights on all sides of the conflict; the government’s human rights record; the slave trade; government use of militia and other forces to support slaving, including enslavement and slave trading; and aerial bombardment of civilian targets. It authorized the U.S. Government to spend $100 million in the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to assist the population in areas of Sudan outside Sudanese government control.

The U.S. President certified within 6 months of enactment, and each 6 months thereafter, that the Sudan Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement are negotiating in good faith and that negotiations should continue, as illustrated, according to Act. If the Sudanese government did not do so or if it interfered with humanitarian efforts, the Act authorized the President of the U.S. to seek a UN Security Council resolution for an arms embargo and to actively seek other financial and diplomatic methods to influence the conduct of the Sudanese Government, as it must be. Various members of the U.S. Cabinet must report on a regular basis about any measures that U.S. federal departments take to make the Sudanese Government comply with the measures in the Act.

The Act stated that the U.S. President should seek to end Sudanese veto power over and manipulation of United Nations humanitarian relief efforts carried out through Operation Lifeline Sudan, and that the U.S. administration should make contingency plans for relief through other channels, and Implementation of the peace.

The Act requires that the president should collect information about incidents which may constitute crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and other violations of international humanitarians’ law by all parties to the conflict. The Secretary of State must report every six months on the steps taken to collect information and on the information collected including any findings or determinations made by the State Department (Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC October 21, 2002).

Sudan Peace Act is approved in October 21, 2002, by a vote of 359 members of congress who voted for its approval, and 8 among 367 voted for its disapproval. That mean, 98% voted for its approval, and was signed at the same day it was approved. This Sudan Peace Act ended or will end 50 years of war formally started from August 28, 1955 and officially will be ending on April 11, 2011, According to Jock Pan. That war was not a war of 17 years of the First Movement (ANYANYA 1); 11 years of Second Movement (ANYANYA 2); 21 years of continuation of Second Movement (SPLA/SPLM); it includes this 6 years of peace time as part of hostility since the peace process still on table; above all, it is a war of 56 years (August 28, 1955-Aprill 11, 2011).

Also, Pan like to talk about identity of the Sudanese American, because most of Sudanese Immigrants became US citizens; hence, we and our Natural born children-in the land of America have to share this name with us, as Sudanese American; in the events of our recognition. In the Land of America, physical appearance prejudice some people’s citizenship, and it is hard to many people to check out one’s ethnic background (Ethnic Group) in a job application because some people have no specific title in United States, but it doesn’t matter since black non-Spanish (Caribbean and, Latinas/Central and South America black) and African American might represent us. To earn both full-citizenships, this advertisement has to become a title in recognition of South Sudanese background in the Land of America, despite none-citizens. In addition, carrying both citizenship, Sudan Peace Act, and other cooperation amplifies/strengthening relationship between both countries.

The United States President, George W. Bush signed Sudan Peace Act into Law on Monday morning in Oct 21, 2002. The act became Public Law 107-245—OCT, 21, 2002 in the United States. After the comprehensive peace agreement became a deal therein, Arop Madut-Arop (2006) insisted that the Current Sudan Peace, (CPA) starts from peace within and peace from without that he believes stands as a tool to divided SPLM/SPLA and a thesis" in that topic from his Book Titled Sudan’s Painful Road to Peace (P. 391); he also stated that the Machakos Protocol is signed in July 20, 2002, after the peace that was signed in Geneva, January 20, 2002, page missed. He continuing insisting that, the activities of religious groups, continued prosecution of Christian, supporting of Bush by Black Caucuses in American Congress when Bush was elected in 2000, and the continuing of slavery practices in Sudan and report of eminent person group in May, 2001 influenced George W. Bush to take immediate action (Pp 401), but unspecified.

Arop also illustrated Danforth’s frequent visits to Sudan and discussions with SPLM, Khartoum Government and IGAAD on the mediation of the Peace Process; consequently, Arop continues stating Danforth’s description on his memorable experiences of open Air bombardment in the present of John Danforth in Rumbek and vital agreement on the Peace that had been signed in Geneva on January 19, 2002 between SPLM and Sudan Government (Pp 401, 402).

Arop’s imagination is not right, he torn between days of Geneva Peace, January 19 and 20, 2002; the Machakos Protocol was not signed after Geneva Peace; it was signed after Sudan Peace Act passed by Congress on June 13, 2002 and finally signed into law on October 21, 2002 by President George W. Bush in the White House.

Arop seems misinformed or tried to change foundation of peace; in his Book, he did not mention Bush’s signing of Sudan Peace Act. And an Air Bombardment that he said occurred in the present of Danforth at Rumbek that led Danforth to witness an aerial strike and fledged to Geneva Peace was one of my examples that I illustrated in the Sudan Peace Act Paper, he just switched it, I had explained an Antonov bombardment clearly in that paper that is why he tried to make similar imitation, since he knew it is one of major reasons that piloted Sudan Peace Act’s consideration; in his views, he imagines that Geneva Peace and Rumbek Bombardment was source of present day Peace, completely inappropriate statement. Can you edit your book please for your goodness, future integrity and better off of our society? This peace is mind and Ngundeng’s because Ngundeng helped generate it by tearing of my Red-and-White Book on April 11, 2002, at 4:00am, and that became urgent ways to start the peace processes from my home to Sarpy County Court, Bellevue (Omaha) Nebraska and then to Washington D.C. If you don’t like Ngundeng or I, Pan, please, better be away from it (Peace and its resolutions) *** (10 Stars quality).

Accordingly, the part you know which is a note that had been written on my student website, was wrote by a member of Sarpy County Court, Bellevue (Omaha), Nebraska who erased the entire 12 pages/original paper and left only one paragraph and her announcement of peace approval became a second paragraph; so, her name and phone number were there for the first time, after that, they were erased, and finally, in 2007, the two remaining paragraph was also erased by someone who has a hope to hide/steal a peace. Please, PEACE is a something that cannot be stolen like money, it is everybody’s gift.

Bases on my/everyone is knowledge, Danforth went to Sudan to carry out the Peace that was signed in Washington D.C, which is not a Geneva Peace, and air bombardment that I mentioned in my paper, I didn’t construe it from Arop’s book, not heard it from somebody as Arop’s surprised, and Rumbek bombardment that had no date is not part of Sudan Peace Act and peace process from Protocol to CPA. I, Jock Lul Pan, describe Arop Madut-Arop and those who shared this illegal idea with him as ruined outlaw, who discredited/jeopardy their part from peace, and his Book may contain similar fake, illicit and illegitimacy, and I am going to perceive any his further information as nonintellectual etc, Washington, Khartoum, and Danforth have to witness it.

I am also remembering my Dad, Lul Pan Chuol for the nick names that he called me Guer Yaak, and Payuerkor to exemplify this paper of Conventional Wisdom, April 11, 2002. For Lul’s, Pan’s, and Chuol’s sakes, I am remembering, dedicating and also celebrating 21Century equipments and South Sudan, starting from Blue Nile, Khartoum South to the border of Libya, Egypt and Dafur, all away to Southern Sudan, that I called the South Sudan, CPA’s signing; South Sudan attempt to administrate themselves whether they are going to be able-bodied to cease or be incapable and call for Unity, departure of Northern Army and other peace Implementations and relieves.

This Article incorporated Southern Sudan representative (Chief Both Diu)’s Article of Independence that he documented in front of British and Northern manipulators (1955) that, South Sudan must be Independent state when their qualification for Independence is recognized—since South Sudan’s Independence was disqualified by Northerners with certain reasons that Southerners had no 800 graduates/qualified individuals who can run the government. Though British made an effort to make south an independent state after some years, but Egyptian President, who signed Sudan’s Independence, declared that, it is too late for South to be apart from North since their report for independence came after I had already signed Sudan’s Independence. Accordingly, Egyptians President’s slogan is interpreted by Southerners that, Egypt rejected south’s Independence due to Arab relation with North, and actually is true, Chief Both Diu and British tried a lot and the result of negotiations became a start of war in Torit, 1955.

Even if, South Sudan’s Independency will not be signed, Both Diu had already signed it in 1955; so, it is going to be celebrated on April 11, 2011, and Independent date would be shifted back to August 28, 1955.

Diu and few intellectual struggled to communicate and acceded south to remain under British colonial for while, but some Southerners’ conspiracy, gossip and bad tongue (Language) made British resigned and let South felt under second Colony, which is North Sudan; however, British was at fault for the first time by accepting South-North unification in 1947, and that maneuver happened at the time British did not think that they can be overthrew/ let goes Colonization.

Actually, the Sudan permanent peace is an endowment or wisdom (gift of idea from our lovely God) because my first intention was to request war, but the inspiration of God instantly changed my mind from requisition of war to peace stipulation that I stated that, you Khartoum Government, you are going to face it if George W. Bush has to sign Sudan Peace Act. As a result, the act is being signed by President and followed by other signatories, which bear CPA. Promptly, that act became public law in the United States implying elimination of National Islamic Fundamentalist (NIF)/Khartoum Regime that enslaved Animists, Christians, and black Muslims marked by the year before the Independence of the Sudan, 1956. Nonetheless, Bush had signed the Act to withstand expansion of the armed Jihad force of the North.

When Bush signed the Peace, he was surrounded by Secretary of State Collin Powell, lawmakers, and former senator and special envoy for peace to Sudan John Danforth, Bush said the bill Demonstrates that the congress shares my commitment to help end suffering and promote just peace in Sudan. For too long the people of Sudan have endured slavery, violence, disease and forced starvation. More than two million South Sudanese, mostly civilians have died from consequents of 20 years unsettled civil wars, the United States declared in the law that "the acts of the government of Sudan constitutes genocide and SUDAN PEACE ACT became Public Law 107-245—OCT, 21, 2002 to resolute the ravage crimes against humanity and destitute of freedom. The bill was signed publicly and millions of American and the world observed that singing of the Sudan Peace Act, so, that act was approved to facilitate famine reliefs/starvation efforts, diseases, uncertainty of endured freedom less to comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan. When Sudan peace Act was signed Nancy Pelosi vowed and prayed heavenly God through Jesus and she tears similar to Sudan man who held SPLM flag in tears when CPA was Signed and I, Jock Pan, raise and look up and prayed Ngundeng and heavenly God, but did not tear, which is dissimilar to Ngundeng that said in his song that his tears flew due to his people (African Niles).

The act was enacted by the United States Congress in the assembly and their findings based on offenses and brutal killings that I had listed in my paper and the numerous reports and cruel treatment the U.S. Congress have experienced from Sudan bases on that paper. The act is full article with 11 sections and more subsections, and this scheme’s results are:

1. Sudan Peace Act came to effect on April, 11, 2002; from my home to Sarpy County Court, Bellevue/Omaha, Nebraska . . . . .and then to Washington D.C.

2. On June 13, 2002, United States Congress passed Sudan Peace Act

3. On June 23, 2002, Sudanese started Peace Negotiation

4. On July 20, 2002, the Machakos Protocol was signed

5. On September 25, 2003, the Agreement on Security Arrangements was signed;

6. Sudan Peace Act signed into Public law by George Bush—107-245-October,21, 2002;

7. The Agreement on Wealth Sharing singed by January, 7, 2004;

8. The Protocol on Power Sharing signed by May, 26, 2004;

9. The Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict in Abyei Area singed by May, 25, 2004;

10. The Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States signed by May, 26, 2004;

11. The Permanent ceasefire and Security Arrangements Implementation Modalities and Appendices signed by October, 30, 2004;

12. The Implementation Modalities and Global Implementation Matrix and Appendix signed by December, 31, 2004; and then

13. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by January, 9, 2005.

Long Lives Sudan Peace Act that Swabbed the Endured War that started from 1955 to Present Peace days and to 2011 Referendum (undergoes 56 years [1955-2011]): Long Lives Africa Niles (South Sudan). Over all, I dedicated all words I wrote above to Ngundeng because he knew every single step we roar on these days.

To Practice more, Read Pan’s (2010) Sample

Hi, guys, this is a sample of dream you may prefer on; please, read it all, if you don’t like it after you read it, just pass over it, otherwise draft yourself a 10 pages assignment that is illustrated at end of sample as an example or test for your education, goodness, and future of our nation, please.

1. The National Government of Africa Niles

2. Africa Niles National Constitution

3. Africa Niles National Legislature

4. Africa Niles National Supreme Council (Executive)

5. Africa Niles Judicial Council (Laws)

6. Africa Niles House of Nationality (Parliament)

7. Africa Niles External Relation Departments (Foreign)

8. Africa Niles Finance and Investment Services Department

9. Africa Niles Legal and Internal Affairs Department (Justice)

10. African Niles National Security Council

11. Africa Niles National Defense Command Council (Defense)

12. Africa Niles National Army Forces Department

13. Africa Niles Anti-Corruption Security Services Department

14. Africa Niles Communication and Intelligence Department

15. Africa Niles Public Power and Natural Resources Department

16. Africa Niles Trade and Exchange Corporation Department

17. Africa Niles Farming, Plantation and Harvesting Department

18. Africa Niles Urbanization, Census, and Rural Development Department

19. Africa Niles Land, Capacity Building and Housing Services Department

20. Africa Niles Boring-escapes and Portfolio Department

21. Africa Niles Roads, Aviation and Transportation Department

22. Africa Niles Personnel and Public Services Department

23. Africa Niles Human Rights and Peace Commission Departments

24. Africa Niles Pensions, Retirements and Veterans Affairs Department

25. Africa Niles National Reserves and Accounting Services Department

26. Africa Niles General Inspection, Auditing and Evaluation Department

27. Africa Niles Life, Causality, Auto, Property, and Health Insurance Department

28. Africa Niles Levy, Service Fees and Tax Revenues Department

29. Africa Niles Budgeting and Appropriation Service Department

30. Africa Niles General Counsel and Communities Relation Department

31. Africa Niles Industrializations and Scientifics Focus Department

32. Africa Niles Religious, Cultures, Sports, Music, and Nationalism Department

33. Africa Niles Vulnerable & Aging, Public Health and Social Welfare Department

34. Africa Niles Education, Higher Institutions and Cadre (Cadet) Department

Africa Niles National Government can be divided into three:

1. Africa Niles National Supreme Council

2. Africa Niles National Legislature

3. Africa Niles National Judicial Council

Africa Niles House of Nationality (Parliament) can be divided into two:

1. National Lawmakers (Representative, or lower House)

2. National Delegates (Senate, or Higher House)

Nationality: African Niles

Parties: With only two Parties:

1. Africa Niles Nationalists Constituency Party

2. Africa Niles Constitutional Party

For example: If Africa Niles Public Power and Natural Resources Department includes:

1. Bureau of Africa Niles Gums, Plankton and Drugs of Native Plants

2. Bureau of Canals Operations, Moss and Waterway Clearing, Dams, and Insular Affairs

3. Bureau of Fire Combatants

4. Bureau of Fishery-Growths and Fishing

5. Bureau of Flood, Weather, and Draught Conglomerate Directorates

6. Bureau of Geologist, Oil, Metal Ore, and Coal Mine Discoverers

7. Bureau of Local Affairs

8. Bureau of Metal Ore, Coal and Gold Extraction

9. Bureau of National Parks Services and Surface Mining

10. Bureau of Natural Gas and Ethanol

11. Bureau of Natural Resource Transaction Marketing

12. Bureau of Natural Resources Regulatory Council and Executive Boards

13. Bureau of Oil Refinery, Quantity and Quality

14. Bureau of Recreational Parks and Land Management

15. Bureau of Parks, Forestry, Fishery and Wildlife Squads and Special Division

16. Bureau of Plant Processesing of Civil Engineers Directorate

17. Bureau of Hydroelectric Power Engineers Directorate

18. Bureau of Nuclear Power

19. Bureau of Public Access Lightening and Ventilation

20. Bureau of Science and Facilities Research Center

21. Bureau of Scientific Researches and laboratories for Uranium and other metals, Radio Active Waste, Energy Renewal, Biofuels, Petroleum and Natural Resources Conservation

22. Bureau of Slaughtering, Danger and Endangered Wildlife Conservation Services

23. Bureau of Sting and Bitterer Reptiles Cleansing

24. Bureau of Swarms Mosquito-Malaria Brawl and Stagnant-Water Disease Control

25. Bureau of Timber Deforestation and Reforestation, Native Plant Lodging and Carpentry

26. Bureau of Votugas and Stove Fire Management

27. Bureau of Water Technology

28. Bureau of Pipelines and Plumbing

29. Bureau of Generators Preset and small Engines Training Services

30. Bureau of Wind and Solar Energy

The Office of Public Power and Natural Resources can have one Secretary, 2 Deputy Secretaries, 10 Under Secretaries, and 90 General Directors/Administrators, and Directors. This Department can employs hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) if it includes local agencies’ workers.

Please, Southerners, choose one of the following above mentioned 30 Offices (Child Agencies/Bureaus) of Public Power and Natural Resources Department, and write 10 pages policy of each on how you can run that agency if it happens that you become a Director, or you want to be director one day, and keep your papers with you as a test to your education, and advances in further research in order for you to obtain necessary knowledge that can help our nation in the future and better way to make you understand jock Pan Book, when is on hand. Let say, if you are a director or whatever position you get and your agency employs 5,000; how can you organize the positions and titles, exemplify Mission statement/Vision, policy and bylaws of agency relative to parent agency/Executive Agency (Public Power and Natural Resources Departments) and part of a constitution that represent our natural resources; if you are unable to organize agency’s policy and bylaws and integrated them to its part of South Sudan Constitution; please, Read this Jock Pan’s Books carefully when you hold it, and then you will be perfectly and more logically beyond administrative laws and administrative ethic and leadership you practices, I know.

If you write 10 pages of each these 30 child agencies, plus their parent agencies/executive agency which is—Public Power and Natural Resources unrelated to constitution, it can become Regional Geography of South Sudan if you add Department of Agriculture to it. Or if you add Department of Commerce, Public Power and Natural Resources, and Agriculture, it can become Economic Geography. And if you add General Revenues—which is Levy, Service Fees &Tax Revenues Department to three Departments—Natural Resources, Commerce, Agriculture, you can have/write South Sudan/Africa Niles government book that can be called Africa Niles Public Economy, if you need help for how to illustrate Child agencies, contact the Author. Pan at jpan@mail.unomaha.edu, jockpan2007@yahoo.com. The way I want you to write 10 pages at the movement is a political strategy bonded to constitution, keep it up. Is it a bad idea? My answer is no.

First Original Article

THE ‘SUDAN PEACE ACT’: PERPETUATING AFRICA’S LONGEST WAR

by the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council.

On 13 June 2002, the United States House of Representatives passed An Act to facilitate relief efforts and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, also referred to as the ‘Sudan Peace Act’. A more explicit example of confused, distorted and poorly-informed legislation would be hard to find. It is an Act that while paying lip service to the need for a negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan at the same time provides one side to the conflict with millions of dollars worth of logistical assistance. It is an Act that decries the manipulation of food aid while ignoring the fact that the side it is supporting has been accused of diverting two-thirds of food aid within the areas it controls. It is also an act which decries the abuse of human rights within Sudan but provides millions of dollars to those accused of appalling human rights abuses in Sudan.

In so doing the United States seeks to continue foreign interference in a conflict that has raged since 1955, fought, in its most recent phase, since 1983 between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) led by John Garang. Even a brief examination of attempts to achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan and relief efforts within that country reveals the deep flaws within this legislation.

A negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan

In any examination of the search for a negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan, a little should be said first about those people who drafted this Act. The Act was drafted by legislators such as Representatives Tancredo, Wolf and Payne and Senators Frist, Brownback and Feingold, whose previous involvement with Sudan had resulted in an escalation in the Sudanese conflict and regional tensions. In April 2002, former United States President Carter, one of the most respected and objective commentators on events within Sudan, said of this period: For the last eight years, the U.S. has had a policy which I strongly disagree with in Sudan, supporting the revolutionary movement and not working for an overall peace settlement. (1) This echoed earlier concerns voiced by Carter. In December 1999 he had observed: The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States . . . Instead of working for peace in Sudan; the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war.

(2) It is clear, then, that these legislators are hardly the best qualified group of people to talk about peace in Sudan. Far from working for peace they have stood by while the United States militarily and economically destabilized the largest country in Africa. They helped shape American Sudan policy from 1993 onwards—precisely the period referred to by Carter. While they publicly lament the numbers of deaths during this conflict, they are themselves directly responsible for the deaths through war, starvation or disease of thousands of Sudanese. Far from taking Carter’s concerns into consideration, the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ merely perpetuates the Clinton Administration’s failed and farcical Sudan policies. The United States Congress has shown itself either amazingly naïve or blatantly hypocritical in drafting the ‘Sudan Peace Act’. In either case this piece of legislation reflects very badly indeed on Congress. This American attitude is all the more regrettable since the Sudanese government has repeatedly invited constructive United States involvement within Sudan.

(3) A comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan? While making for good rhetoric, Congressional calls for a comprehensive solution illustrate either naivety or cynicism. For a solution there has to be some sort of political objective on the part of those waging war on the Sudanese government. The political complexion of the SPLA movement has varied from professedly Marxist through to now politically identifying with American Bible-belt Christian fundamentalists. Even on such a fundamental issue as to whether the SPLA is fighting for a separate south or a united Sudan, there continues to be confusion.

(4) The war has always been about the political status of southern Sudan. While the SPLA appear to be confused, the Khartoum authorities’ approach would appear to be clear. If the SPLA are fighting for autonomy or even separation this has already been offered by the government. In 1997, having already introduced a federal system and exempted southern Sudan from Sharia law, the Sudanese Government, in the Khartoum Peace Agreement, also offered, amongst other things, the holding of a free and fair, internationally-supervised, referendum in which the people of southern Sudan could, for the first time ever, choose whether to remain as a part of Sudan or to become independent. This offer has also been written into the 1998 Constitution, and repeated on several occasions (5), most recently during the June 2001 peace talks in Nairobi. (6) It is an offer that has also been acknowledged by the SPLA.

(7) The Sudanese government has repeatedly offered a comprehensive ceasefire.(8) Throughout 2002, the Sudanese government once again called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In April and in mid-May 2000, Khartoum once more declared its readiness to enter into an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and to restart negotiations for the achievement of a comprehensive peace: it called upon the SPLA to do the same. (9) Khartoum appears to have sought out every possible peace forum. (10) The Sudanese government has also repeatedly requested international assistance in securing a peaceful end to the conflict.

(11) It is difficult to see how much further towards a comprehensive solution the Sudanese government can go. The SPLA’s inability to articulate what they are fighting for is echoed in its approach to the peace process. In erratic shifts in position, the SPLA has both accepted and then refused regional attempts at peace-making, sometimes within the space of 48 hours. (12) Its commitment to a peaceful solution is questionable. John Garang, for example, commenting on the November 1997 round of peace talks in Nairobi, stated that We intended not to reach an agreement with the [Sudanese government]. This is what we did and we succeeded in it because we did not reach an agreement.

The ‘Sudan Peace Act’ has exacerbated an already critical situation. While professing to wish to see an end to war in Sudan, the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ actually authorized the release of $10 million dollars in assistance to what they called the National Democratic Alliance. This followed an earlier payment of three million dollars. (13) All this funding will be channeled to the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. As prominent American Sudan specialist Stephen Morrison, the head of the Sudan project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington-DC, has pointed out: The NDA is a bit of a phantom. It is basically the SPLA and a few elements. (14) Commenting on the release of American funds for the SPLA, Morrison also stated: This package feeds false hopes and expectation on the part of the southerners and sustains excessive paranoia in Khartoum.

(15) For all the immediate implications of such clear American assistance, of even deeper concern is the fact that such aid serves to encourage the SPLA, already patently without any clear political objective, to continue with what is an unwinnable war. Shortly after the announcement of American assistance, for example, the SPLA launched a concerted offensive in the Bahr al-Ghazal region of southern Sudan in May 2002. The offensive continued during a regional peace summit in Nairobi in early June, with the rebels ignoring further calls for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

(16) It was thus particularly ironic that Congress passed this Act at the time it did given that amongst the findings of the Act was the claim that [t]he Government of Sudan has intensified its prosecution of the war against areas outside of its control.(17) The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels had themselves launched this offensive in the Bahr al-Ghazal region of southern Sudan in late May and June which had certainly intensified the civil war in that country. In so doing they had ignored repeated offers of ceasefires by the government.

This SPLA offensive has resulted in massive displacement of southern Sudanese civilians. On 8 June, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the offensive had led to the displacement of at least 20,000 civilians. The Sudanese Catholic Information Office reported that most activities within the region had been halted by the offensive: locations from Tonj northwards remain no go areas forcing both church and humanitarian agencies to suspend their flights to the region. (18) By 11 June, the United Nations estimated that 30,000 civilians had been displaced within Bahr al-Ghazal. (19) Two days later, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rumbek, Bishop Mazzolari, reported that just under 60,000 civilians had been displaced by the offensive, and that these civilians were in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. (20) The very humanitarian access spoken of repeatedly in the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ has been disrupted by the SPLA.

History would appear to be repeating itself. Former President Carter has in the past stated that the millions of dollars of assistance to the rebels previously provided by the Clinton Administration had a negative effect on the SPLA’s interest in negotiating a political settlement. (21) The Bush Administration’s financial support for the SPLA has also clearly encouraged the SPLA to once again ignore calls for a negotiated settlement of the conflict and to continue with what can only be described as a no-win war. Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail accuses the United States of pursuing a policy that prolongs the Sudanese war: Your [i.e. the US] policy will not lead to peace. It will lead to the continuation of war, the suffering of the people, the loss of lives in the south . . . This war, this problem; will not be settled by fighting. It has to be settled by political means. The government of Sudan is ready for that.

(22) America’s provocative acts take place at a time when the there have been significant positive political changes within Sudan itself. The former Prime Minister, Sadiq al-Mahdi, himself ousted in 1989 by the present government, and a pivotal rebel leader, was quoted by an April 2001 American fact-finding mission as saying that: the United States has been an obstacle to peace in Sudan and also to unity among the opposition. The United States’ policy has been a problem. He said that Sudan is like a pregnant woman that is about to deliver and needs a midwife to help the delivery. They all believe that the United States could act as a midwife. They all accept this. But, the United States, instead of helping deliver the baby, killed it . . . The former prime minister has also declared that: There are now circumstances and developments which could favor an agreement on a comprehensive political solution.

(23) Congressional Support for Sudanese War Criminals What then is the nature of the organization so enthusiastically embraced by the United States Congress? Simply put, the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ links the United States to a group with an appalling human rights record. A previous attempt by the American government in late 1999 to provide assistance to the SPLA had resulted in considerable concern domestically. In November 1999, for example, eight reputable US-based humanitarian organizations working in Sudan, groups such as CARE, World Vision, Church World Service and Save the Children, no friends of the Sudanese government, publicly stated that the SPLA has: engaged for years in the most serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, beatings, arbitrary detention, slavery, etc. (24) In December 1999, Human Rights Watch stated that: The SPLA has a history of gross abuses of human rights and has not made any effort to establish accountability. Its abuses today remain serious.

(25) ‘The New York Times’, another outspoken critic of the Khartoum government, was also unambiguously critical of any assistance to the SPLA: Channeling assistance to southern rebels would ally Washington with a brutal and predatory guerrilla army. One of the tragedies of Sudan’s war is that John Garang’s S.P.L.A. has squandered a sympathetic cause. Though its members claim to be Christians resisting Islamization, they have behaved like an occupying army, killing, raping and pillaging. (26 It is ironic that the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ also contains a section dealing with the investigation of war criminals given that the same Act provides the SPLA, an group accused of involvement in war crimes, with millions of dollars worth of American tax-payers money. The ‘New York Times’, for example, has stated that SPLA leader John Garang is one of Sudan’s pre-eminent war criminals.

(27). The U.S. Congress cannot have been unaware of this appalling human rights record. The Clinton Administration’s Sudan expert, John Prendergast, who served with both the National Security Council and State Department, and who has briefed many of these legislators, has, for example, stated on record that the SPLA was responsible for egregious human rights violations in the territory it controlled.

(28) Prendergast also personally placed on record that: The SPLA has faced a tidal wave of accusations and condemnation from international human rights organizations and local churches over its human rights record.

(29) Prendergast personally recorded SPLA involvement in wide-scale killings, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, widespread raping of Equatorian women, systematic abuse of humanitarian aid, corruption and an absolute disregard for human rights. Prendergast confirmed the existence of ethnic tensions between the largely Dinka SPLA, and the Nuer tribe, as well as communities in Equatoria in southern Sudan, ever since the SPLA came into being in 1983, with the SPLA showing an absolute disregard for their human rights.

(30) He was also able to confirm that, in an echo of the war crimes carried out in Bosnia; SPLA behavior included the systematic raping of women from different ethnic groups. (31) Very significantly, given the Act’s desire to make SPLA access to relief even easier, Prendergast further documented the SPLA’s deliberate abuse of aid and society in those areas it controls: "The human rights abuses of the SPLA are by now well-documented . . . What is less understood is the abuse and manipulation of humanitarian assistance, the undermining of commerce, and the authoritarian political structures which have stifled any efforts at local organizing or capacity building in the south. These are the elements which have characterized the first decade of the SPLA’s existence.

(32) While Prendergast was advising on Sudan, the SPLA engaged in ethnic cleansing every bit as murderous as that carried out in Bosnia or Kosovo. SPLA ethnic cleansing continues to this day. The BBC and other reliable sources have reported on SPLA violence towards non-Dinka ethnic groups, groups which accused the SPLA of becoming an army of occupation" (33), exactly the phrase used by Prendergast himself in 1997. (34) It would appear that the United States would believe that the human rights of black and brown Africans are not the same value as those of Bosnians or other white Europeans.

Humanitarian Assistance to Sudan: Operation Lifeline Sudan

The ‘Sudan Peace Act’ states and restates concern about the facilitation of relief efforts within southern Sudan. The Act is also hostile to the United Nations-administered Operation Lifeline Sudan. It further repeatedly refers to the manipulation of food aid by the government of Sudan. Whatever the veracity of the claims about the Sudanese authorities, what the Act conveniently ignores is that the SPLA, the organization it seeks to logistically assist, and to whom it wishes to make access to relief aid easier, has been the biggest abuser of relief aid in this conflict. The human rights group, African Rights, for example, has clearly stated that: "On the whole, SPLA commanders and officials of the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA, its humanitarian wing), have seen relief flows as simple flows of material resources. The leadership has also used aid for diplomatic and propaganda purposes.

"(35) Despite stated concerns about the manipulation of relief aid; this did not feature in the legislation. While professing deep concern about urgent humanitarian relief deliveries within southern Sudan, the U.S. Congress also ignored that fact that in June 2000 the group they support deliberately broke a humanitarian ceasefire in Bahr al-Ghazal. This humanitarian ceasefire had been brokered by the European Union in July 1998 in order to stabilize aid access to southern Sudan’s most famine affected areas.

(36) The European Union registered its grave concerns regarding the offensive launched by the SPLM/A in the region of Bahr al-Ghazal. (37) The recent offensive was launched by the SPLA, still clearly without any discernible political agenda, despite UNICEF warnings that the drought situation in drought-affected areas of Sudan was fast approaching critical (38) and that the food supply outlook was highly precarious and likely to worsen". (39) The World Food Program has repeatedly warned of the impending crisis in statements headlined ‘Acute Hunger Set to Hit Sudan as War Continues and Drought Unfolds’, ‘Major Food Crisis Looms in Sudan’ and, in June 2002, ‘Sudan Food Crisis—On the Brink’.

(40) It should be noted that the horrendous 1998 famine in southern Sudan was precipitated by similar SPLA offensives As much was reported on by CNN in early April 1998 under headlines such as aid agencies blame Sudanese rebel who switched sides: Observers say much of the recent chaos has resulted from the actions of one man, Kerubino Kwanying Bol, a founding member of the rebel movement . . . He aided rebel forces in sieges of three government-held towns, which sent people fleeing into the countryside. (41) Newsweek magazine (18 May 1998) also reported that: Aid workers blame much of the south’s recent anguish on one man: the mercurial Dinka warlord Kerubino Kuanyin Bol.

Humanitarian relief to the war affected parts of Sudan is provided by Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS). Operation Lifeline Sudan began in 1989 under the auspices of the United Nations, and with the approval and cooperation of the government of Sudan and the SPLA. Operational Lifeline Sudan is a consortium of aid agencies bringing together the UN World Food Program (WFP), the UN Children’s Fund and 35 other non-governmental organizations. It seeks to bring food and humanitarian aid to those communities in southern Sudan most affected by the fighting and drought, communities within both government and rebel-held areas of the south. Operation Lifeline Sudan was unprecedented in as much as it was the first time that a sovereign government had agreed to the delivery of assistance by outside agencies to rebel-controlled parts of its own country.

As the London ‘Guardian’ newspaper observed: Most of the people affected live in areas controlled by anti-government rebels and they were reached by flights from Kenya. Governments involved in civil wars usually refuse to authorize cross-border feeding. (42) The Sudanese model, developed during the tenure of the present Sudanese government, has subsequently been used in several other areas of civil conflict. It is a matter of record that the number of Khartoum-approved Operation Lifeline Sudan feeding sites in southern Sudan has grown from twenty in the early 1990s to well over one hundred by 1998. During the 1998 famine, the number increased to more than 180 locations. (43) So, far from diminishing access to humanitarian relief, Khartoum would appear to have greatly increased access. These increases in food delivery sites were agreed by the Khartoum authorities despite it being widely known that the SPLA were diverting very sizeable amounts of this aid for its own uses, something which itself serves to prolong the conflict. Washington’s claims about Sudanese non-cooperation with humanitarian relief are also undermined by the fact that unanimous United Nations resolutions have acknowledged with appreciation the cooperation of the Sudanese government with agreements and arrangements facilitating relief operations.

(44) The strength of Operation Lifeline Sudan is that international relief aid is delivered by a neutral United Nations structure in keeping with international humanitarian law. The often questionable nature of previous non-OLS humanitarian assistance to Sudan has been documented. The American government, for example, has given millions of dollars in funding to Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), a non-governmental organization active in southern Sudan. A November 1999 Norwegian television documentary, entitled ‘Weapons Smuggling in Sudan’ has highlighted the role played by NPA in logistically and politically perpetuating the Sudanese civil war.

(45) There had always been considerable speculation as to whether NPA was militarily involved with the SPLA. This documentary confirmed that the NPA has for several years organized an air-bridge for the supply of weapons to battle zones within Sudan. One of the NPA pilots involved in the gun running stated that on one occasion his plane had landed at SPLA bases with some 2.5 tonnes of weapons. It was stated that Norwegian People’s Aid had flown between 80-100 tonnes of weapons into Sudan in aero planes supposedly carrying humanitarian assistance. Among the tonnes of weapons flown into Sudan were landmines. The documentary also placed on record other clear evidence of NPA military involvement with the SPLA. Given that Norwegian People’s Aid openly states that [a] major contributor to our program in Sudan, is the USAID

(46) Two questions must be asked. The first is how much American taxpayer’s money has been used to provide the Sudan People’s Liberation Army with weapons of war, including landmines? And secondly, was the Administration and Congress aware that it was in effect funding such operations? The activities of Norwegian People’s Aid have long been of considerable concern to some of its donors. The Norwegian government had previously commissioned an independent investigation into NPA. The subsequent report documented NPA complicity in the diversion of food aid to the SPLA. It stated that: NPA’s intervention is that of a solidarity group. It has taken a clear side in the war. It supports the causes of SPLA/M . . . NPA’s solidarity approach means that in practice the activities of NPA are closely related to the political and military strategies of the rebel movement.

(47) This is the sort of organization that the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ envisages channeling relief in southern Sudan rather than the neutral and accountable UN mechanisms. The United States Congress cannot be unaware of the SPLA’s systematic theft of humanitarian aid and its diversion for its own purposes. In July 1998, at the height of the devastating 1998 famine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the starvation-affected diocese of Rumbek, Monsignor Caesar Mazzolari, stated that the SPLA were stealing 65 percent of the food aid going into rebel-held areas of southern Sudan. Agence France Presse also reported that: Much of the relief food going to more than a million famine victims in rebel-held areas of southern Sudan is ending up in the hands of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), relief workers said.

(48) There is also a direct link between the supply of food aid to the SPLA and the war in southern Sudan. The SPLA has been documented as having clearly engaged in the systematic theft and diversion of emergency food aid intended for famine victims and refugees. The SPLA has repeatedly used food aid, and its denial, as a weapon in their war against the Sudanese government. In so doing it has been at least partly responsible for the famines that have resulted in the deaths of so many Sudanese civilians. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of SPLA food aid diversion is that there is evidence that the SPLA sells diverted humanitarian aid, either stolen from civilians or directly from aid agencies, in order to purchase weapons and munitions with which to carry on the war. (49) The ‘Sudan Peace Act’ seeks to make it even easier for the SPLA to divert relief aid, directly affecting famine-stricken communities and indirectly prolonging the war.

What then would be the sort of non-OLS relief situation in southern Sudan? We already have a clear indication of what this would entail. In February 2000, because of unacceptable demands made upon them by the SPLA, eleven international non-governmental aid organizations were forced to leave southern Sudan. These NGOs included CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children and Medecins Sans Frontieres. The SPLA had demanded that all aid agencies active in southern Sudan sign a memorandum which dictated SPLA control over their activities, and aid distribution, as well as which Sudanese nationals the agencies employed, and which stipulated a swath of taxes and charges for working in southern Sudan. The NGOs involved handled about 75 percent of the humanitarian aid entering southern Sudan.

(50) The withdrawal of these NGOS directly affected US$ 40 million worth of aid programs. (51) The expelled aid agencies stated that one million southern Sudanese were at risk as a result of the SPLA’s decision to expel the NGOs. (52) The European Union described the SPLA demands as a serious violation of humanitarian law and suspended its substantial aid program to rebel-controlled areas.

(53) One can only imagine the uproar within Congress had the Sudanese government cut the provision of humanitarian aid to southern Sudan by 75 percent. Such behavior by the SPLA does not even rate a mention by Congress. Not only has the SPLA severely restricted humanitarian outreach within southern Sudan for political reasons, but the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ would make it even easier for the SPLA to engage in massive food aid diversion.

Conclusion

The flaws of the ‘Sudan Peace Act’ are there for all to see. The Act is characterized by cynicism, misinformation and double standards. While professing deep concern about relief delivery in southern Sudan, for example, the Act ignores the fact that the group it is sponsoring has been guilty of diverting two-thirds of all relief going into the areas it controls, was responsible for a suspension of 75 percent of humanitarian projects in southern Sudan by insisting on SPLA control of the relief aid, and has repeatedly launched offensives within areas that are already seriously famine and drought affected. The Act claims to be concerned about war crimes and yet actively seeks to sustain some of the conflict’s worst abusers of human rights.

The most constructive role that the U.S. Congress could play with regard to the Sudanese conflict would be to bring the SPLA to the negotiating table. Far from doing this, however, Congress has sought to encourage the SPLA, a group without an identifiable political objective, with millions of dollars in support—in effect encouraging further conflict. When one has the respected former American president Jimmy Carter, former Sudanese prime minister and opposition leader Sadiq al-Mahdi and the Sudanese government all agreeing that the United States has been the biggest single obstacle to peace in Sudan it is a concern that must be recognized.

The Bush Administration’s Sudan policy can only be described as confused and uncoordinated. It would appear that a group of legislators who are at best naïve and at worst dogmatic religious fanatics are at present driving America’s Sudan policy. In so doing they are damaging the reputation of the United States within the international community. The simple fact is that Sudan has moved on politically, domestically, economically, regionally and within the international community. The sooner American policy reflects these changes and works towards a peaceful solution to Sudanese problems the sooner Sudan will be at peace.

Second Original Article

116 STAT.1504: Public Law 107-245-OCT. 21, 2002, which is Sudan Peace Act.

On October 21, 2002, Bush Signed Sudan Peace Act into Law as such:—

SECTION. 1. Short title: This Act is cited as the Sudan Peace Act.

SEC. 2. The congress makes the Following findings:

(1) The Government of Sudan has intensified its prosecution of the war against areas outside of its control, which has already cost more than 2,000,000 lives and has displaced more than 4,000,000 people.

(2) A viable, comprehensive, and internationally sponsored peace process, protected from manipulation, presents the best chance for a permanent resolution of the war, protection of human rights, and a self-sustaining Sudan.

(3) Continued strengthening and reform of humanitarian relief operations in Sudan is an essential element in the effort to bring an end to the war.

(4) Continued leadership by the United States is critical.

(5) Regardless of the future political status of the areas of Sudan outside of the control of the Government of Sudan, the absence of credible civil authority and institutions is a major impediment to achieving self-sustenance by the Sudanese people and to meaningful progress toward a viable peace process. It is critical that credible civil authority and institutions play an important role in the reconstruction of post-war Sudan.

(6) Through the manipulation of traditional rivalries among peoples in areas outside of its full control, the Government of Sudan has used divide-and-conquer techniques effectively to subjugate its population. However, internationally sponsored reconciliation efforts have played a critical role in reducing human suffering and the effectiveness of this tactic.

(7) The Government of Sudan utilizes and organizes militias, Popular Defense Forces, and other irregular units for raiding and enslaving parties in areas outside of the control of the Government of Sudan in an effort to disrupt severely the ability of the populations in those areas to sustain them-selves. The tactic helps minimize the Government of Sudan’s accountability internationally.

(8) The Government of Sudan has repeatedly stated that it intends to use the expected proceeds from future oil sales to increase the tempo and lethality of the war against the areas outside of its control.

(9) By regularly banning air transport relief flights by the United Nations relief operation OLS, the Government of Sudan has been able to manipulate the receipt of food aid by the Sudanese people from the United States and other donor countries as a devastating weapon of war in the ongoing effort by the Government of Sudan to starve targeted groups and subdue areas of Sudan outside of the Government’s control.

(10) The acts of the Government of Sudan, including the acts described in this section, constitute genocide as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (78 U.N.T.S. 277).

(11) The efforts of the United States and other donors in delivering relief and assistance through means outside of OLS have played a critical role in addressing the deficiencies in OLS and offset the Government of Sudan’s manipulation of food donations to advantage in the civil war in Sudan.

(12) While the immediate needs of selected areas in Sudan facing starvation have been addressed in the near term, the population in areas of