tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 10, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
[inaudible conversations] earlier today the house passed a bill requiring the health and human service department to notify people when their personal information is stolen from health care exchanges. democrats say there has been no security breaches and the obama administration issued a statement saying the bill would cause unrealistic costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally identifiable information on the health insurance exchanges. the senate is not expected to consider the bill. we will have live coverage ..
here's a look. >> during this academic year, reports of sexual assault decreased at two of the three academies when compared to the previous academic years. with an overall total of 70 reports, involving at least one military victim, one military subject. of those 70 reports, 53 were made by cadets and midshipmen.
because there is no prevailing thread available for the past school year, the department cannot determine whether the decrease in reporting this year at the service academies was due to fewer assaults occurring or due to fewer victims opting to report. rates of unwanted sexual conduct and harassment will be updated via survey conducted later this year. as part of our assessment, faculty and staff participated in focus groups, along with cadets and mid-shipment at each of the academies. during these focus groups participants believe the reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault would be taken seriously by the academy leadership and dealt with a properly. that's good. cadets and midshipmen also identified. pressure as a barrier to reporting. that's not good.
in both the academic year which concluded this past may and the intervening period we have seen considerable energy and emphasis placed on the service academy sexual assault prevention and response programs. still, there is more work to be done. >> a portion of a briefing held earlier today at the pentagon. you can see the entire event later in our schedule, or anytime online at c-span.org. >> disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration, deterioration of the security inside iraq. i spent a lot of my life over there. from 2006 into 2006, the number 20 and i was there as we continue to reduce the level of violence in the sectarian violence was going on. i believe we left it in a place where it was capable to move forward. we've now seen it because of several political issues, internal. that city situation is now
devolved into something that is in my mind concerning. but this is not just about iraq. in my mind it's something we have to be cognizant of as we look across the middle east, what's going on in syria, in lebanon, what's going on inside of iraq. and it's this sectarian potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shia and then exploitation of that by nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other organizations who will try to take advantage of this. >> this weekend on c-span army chiechief of staff general ray odierno looks at the security situation in the mideast and the future of the u.s. army. saturday morning at 10 eastern. live saturday on c-span2, political strategist mary matalin and james on their love and war relationship at 11 on booktv. on c-span3's american history tv, prohibition and the rise of the gangster.
>> nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to address the united nations and the first to address the nation in a joint appearance with the president. so to my young friends out there, life can be great, but not when you can't see it. so open your eyes to life. to see it in the vivid covers that god gave us as a precious gift to our children. to enjoy life to the fullest, and to make account. say yes to your life, and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan in our original series "first ladies: influence and image" returns monday night live at nine eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> yesterday the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on the conflict in south sudan. the fighting started in december
between the current president army and rebels linked to a former vice president. these are the worst clashes in south sudan since it broke off from sudan in 2011. this is two hours 50 minutes. >> let me welcome our panel is, all of whom are as deeplyorder. troubled as all of us are by the situation in south sudan. the reason for this being the first hearing of this committee of the new year is the hope thar our attention can send a messaga to all parties in the sudan that a cease-fire, a continuing cease-fire, political solution and reconciliation is criticali, for u.s. a long-term assistance. and in doing so hopefully we can save lives here we have many questions about the direction in which this young nation is headed lives. we have many questions about the direction in which this young nation is headed and the greater implications of the conflict and
i hope our panelists will provide us with deeper insights into the situation on the ground which i might add in a different context underscores the importance of congress moving quickly on embassy security with our embassy in juba, operating at severely reduced capacity as a result of the violence. looking back, the united states government and members of this committee were hopeful that when we strongly supported south sudan's independence in 2011. after decades of war with the sudan niece government, the people of south sudan voted in favor of self determination and the chance to include an inclusi inclusive, democratic and prosperous society. they were united in that goal. now over 1,000 people have been killed, more than 194,000 have been displaced and human tirn conditions will surely deteriorate as access to conflict areas diminishes. i think we can all agree that it is absolutely necessary that to
avoid a downward spiral into further ethnic violence and chaos, all armed elements must cease hostilities immediately. a continuation of violence will only jeopardize future u.s. engagement and further u.s. assistance. having said that, there is some sign for hope and reason for some optimism. i commend the enter governmental authority for development and or african leaders for successfully arranging negotiations in ethiopia and i commend president kiir and former vice president machar for sending delegations to talk in addidas ab back ba. at the end of the day there's only one option. let me reiterate secretary kerry's remarks, all parties must make serious efforts to seek an inclusive political sugs. today's panelists are here to help us better understand the road and the broader implications of the current crisis. we hope to gain insight into the nature of the rebellion, are the units cohesive, are they
fragmented? how much does machar -- control does he have over rebel forces? i would hope our panelists can provide answers to the basic questions before us. what is the danger of the violence spiraling out of control, what are the most immediate humanitarian needs? what can the united states do to play a role towards the long and -- short-term and long-term reconciliation and what should that reconciliation look like. with that let me turn to senator corker for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you both of you in the second panel for being with us here today. we thank you very much for that. as it's an understatement, i guess, to say south sudan is at a critical juncture today. our ambassadors there with beefed up security and not much in the way of other staff members. 30 month ago i guess there were real expectations about the future solve south sudan.
we're seeing the difference between a rebel movement and a government. i think we all understand it was that movement that united the country and now that that has been achieved, things are dissipating. unfortunate unfortunately, due to the lack of good leadership is dissipating, but very quickly it could dissipate along sectarian lines that could harden and make the conflict even more difficult to overcome. so khartoum is obviously benefiting from this. we are seen as the de facto back stop. we have a long history there and people expect us to be that de facto back stop. and while uganda, ethiopia and kenya are playing important roles and obviously south sudan is very important to china, this is a place where obviously people expect us to make a difference. in addition to the conflict that we have there that's on going
that is causing murders and the kinds of things that we hate to see taking place in any country, we also realize that the institutional framework there is a morass and is going to take incredible effort over a longer period of time. i do look forward to hearing the administration's point of view today. i know they share the sense of urgency that we all have regarding this conflict ending and us moving on to another phase there. i do look forward to hearing your comments as to where we as a nation should go from here relative to south sudan. so thank you for being here. thank you, mr. chairman, for having the hearing. >> thank you, senator corker. let me introduce our panelists. linda thomas greenfield, assistant secretary of state for african affairs. we appreciate her work in her former role as well as this role and to be here today. nancy lynd befrg, from the
democracy conflict humanitarian affairs at usaid. your full statements will be included in the record. we'd ask you to synthesize those to five minutes. madam secretary, we'll call upon you first. >> thank you. chairman menendez, ranking member corker, members of the senate foreign relations committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i know the subject before us is one in which you and other members of congress are deeply concerned and that you deeply care about the situation in sudan. i regret that ambassador booth, our special envoy is unavailable to testify before you today as we have him working to get the peace process under way. mr. chairman, ranking member corker, three years ago today -- and it is really important that it was three years ago today --
this is the anniversary of south sudan's independence, on january 9, 2011, the people of south sudan voted in overwhelming numbers for independence from the republic of sudan. after decades of war, they were peacefully and joyfully voting for separation and for a new future. then senator kerry, my new boss was there to witness that historic moment. the united states played a critical role in getting the world's youngest nation on the map. today tragically the world's youngest country and undoubtedly one of the most fragile democracies is in danger of shattering. the united nations has report that more than a thousand people have died, over 240,000 have fled their homes including a number of refugees in neighboring countries. political rivalries have taken on ethnic dimensions. atrocities are being committed.
men, women and children are caught in the crossfire. this is not the future for which the people of sudan voted three years ago. south sudan's crisis began less than a month ago on december 15 with a political struggle that escalated into broader violence. however, the fighting began -- as the fighting began, a few things became crystal clear. first, neither the united states nor the international community or continue nens the armed over throw of a democratically elected government. second, hostilities must stop. any and all hostility directed at civilian populations must end. those responsible must be held accountable. third, this crisis will not be solved on the battlefield. we have made that point over and over again. although fighting started less than one month ago, the roots of
this conflict are much deeper. resolution can only come through immediate dialogue between the two sides and a broader reconciliati reconciliation. finally all parties must permit immediate humanitarian access to those in needs, to the tens of thousands south sudanese men, women and children who are the real victims of this violence. the united states has engaged in an all-out diplomatic effort to end the fighting with engagement by secretary kerry, national security adviser susan rice and other high-ranking officials with president kiir and former vice president machar as well as with the heads of state, foreign ministers and neighboring countries around the world. we have galvanized support to end hostilities and open a broader dialogue between the two sides with calls for accountability for atrocities and which sought to secure the release of political detainees now being held in juba. but while we need a political settlement among the fighting
parties, the meade what security situation remains critical. particularly for the thousands of internally displaced civilians who have sought protection in the u.n. compounds. this must be addressed. as the crisis began to unfold, we proposed and security council unanimously adopted a resolution nearly doubling the size of the contingent. in turn we're now actively encouraging member states to provide additional troops and police units to the u.n. mission including through the transfer of contingents from other missions in the region. as my colleague assistant administrator lindbergh will discuss, we have committed an additional $50 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. the president's special envoy to sudan and south sudan, ambassador don booth who as i noted could not be here today to testify because he is in ethiopia, he's been in the
region since december 22nd. he has been working around the clock. he has med repeatedly with president kiir and other officials. he's had lengthy discussions with rhee ak machar and he's sat down with local religious leaders and civil society members to help find a solution. this is an all-out effort on our part. given our special history with south sudan, we're working closely with south sudan's neighbors through the east africa enter governmental authority on development who are spearheading the mediation efforts. a special summit on south sudan was held just 12 days after the conflict began. the ethiopian minister and kenyan general are the two negotiators on the side of egad who are leading this effort. south sudan's neighbors are also providing asylum to the new refugees. these negotiations offer the
best hope for south sudan and the region. an agreement to end hostilities will provide much needed time and space for dialogue to begin on the core political and governance issues that are the root of this crisis. both sides must recognize that there can be no military solution. we've made clear to the rebels that we will not recognize a violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. at the same time we made clear to the government that they must open political space to allow for greater inclusion. the united states strongly believes that the political prisoners currently held in juba must be released. and each day that the conflict continues, the risk of an all-out civil war grows as ethnic tensions and more civilians are killed, injured or forced to flee. the humanitarian situation grows more dire and those who have remained on the sidelines are pulled into the conflict. let me conclude by saying i'm
greatly concerned that the crisis in south sudan has the potential to escalate even further. while we do not know the scale of atrocities that have been committed thus far, there's clear evidence that there are targeted killings taking place. dinkas are asking nair, nair are killing dinkas. countless civilians, women and children have become victims of of the rebel forces. each violent act threatens to return south sudan to the violence and destruction that south sudanese voted to end when they voted for independence in 2011. in addition to calling for an end to the violence, humanitarian access, dialogue and release of political prisoners in juba, the united states is exploring the possibility of appropriate pressures against individuals on both sides who interfere with peace and reconciliation in south sudan and those who are
responsible for committing serious human rights abuses. let me thank you again forgiving us the opportunity to speak before you today. let me thank you for your commitment to the people of sudan and also your support for our efforts in the region. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. administrator sdm. >> thank you, chairman menendez, ranking member corker, members of the senate foreign relations committee, thank you very much for holding the hearing today and inviting me to testify. and thank you, also, for your on going support for our work around the world which continues to save millions and millions of lives. the u.s. government including many of you has been a strong supporter of the people of south sudan through the decades, through civil war, the comprehensive peace agreement and since independence of 2011. we're all deeply, deeply alarmed by the horrific violence that hell threatens this struggle.
as my colleague noted, today is the third anniversary of independence in which 99% of the people voted to form the world's youngest nation. the outbreak of hostilities on december 15th has since erupted into heavy fighting across seven of south sudan's ten states. the fighting is the result of longstanding deeply rooted grievances in a fragile new state that has nas yent institutions that are not yet able to deliver justice or services to its people. coupled with this unresolved power struggle this has united tensions along ethnic lines and we're seeing a renewed and vicious cycle of killing. as this new fighting creates urgent new sets of humanitarian needs, it also significantly complicates our ability to meet the extensive needs that already existed across south sudan, one of the poorest nations on werth. an estimated 40% of the country's 4.4 million people
were already in need of humanitarian assistance before the recent violence. this is the result of two decades of civil war, communal violence t recurring floods and droughts, plus the influx of over 2,000 refugees into south sudan from southern court fan and blue nile states since 2011. the lack of roads, the pervasive underdevelopment that already made south sudan one of the most logistically difficult environments further complicates our work today. there are seasonal rains that routinely cut off access to entire regions for months at a time. our challenge today is twofold, both respond to the immediate hostility-driven needs as well as finding ways to continue our longstanding work that seeks to assist nearly half the population already in need. the united states remains deeply committed to the people of susan and today, just a few more words
on what is a rapidly changing situation and our humanitarian response. so in the few weeks since the fighting erupted, the violence has already claimed the lives of more than a thousand people and, as of today, we've seen 270,000 people driven from their homes. of those 60,000 have been forced to seek protection in the eight peacekeeping bases of the local u.n. missions which are located in maj our towns around the country. almost 39,000 have sought refuge in neighboring uganda, ethiopia and kenya which are straining the reception capacities at key border crossings. the town of bohr is a strategic gateway to south sudan's capital. it's caught in a desperate tug of war. it's born the brunt of the violence in looting. we're hearing graphic reports of unburied bodies along the roads.
more than 80,000 people have fled bohr to make a treacherous journey across the white nile river to seek shelter where relief agencies found people living under the hot sun with very short supplies of water, food, medical assistance. parents are making difficult choices of whether to separate from their children so they can pay for their safe passage out of a dangerous area. the new fighting is accelerating development. just yesterday we heard new reports of several thousand displaced people in numerous sites including a newly discovered group of 30,000 displaced south sudanese in jong lay state. people continue to flee the shifting lines of control and the on going violence. our humanitarian response is immensely complicated by the difficult and i have chaotic conditions. the nile river which is typically a major supply conduit, has been off limits for weeks because barges have been
commandeered for hostile purposes. we currently have ample stockpiles of key supplies that have previously been pre positioned around the countries as a part of our normal response effort. it's the security conditions that are impeding the movement of those supplies and disrupting supply chains. u.s. aid stood up a disaster assistance team in nairobi as well as a response management team in washington shortly after the violence began and we've been working with partners to support the urgent new programs as well as seek to plan for the upcoming rainy season. the good news is that in the middle of this crisis there's deep humanitarian expertise. on january 3rd we announced additional $50 million in addition to our on going humanitarian commitment of $318 million for 2013 and 2014. the new funding will help us do a multisector humanitarian
response operation, support the displaced, family reunification and most importantly, additional logistical capacity. we have especially prioritized additional support for flights that enabled the u.n. to regularly reach seven of the unmissed compounds now with urgent food and supplies. we just received compensation that three u.n. flights reached bohr as well that previously we were not able to reach. today the u.n. reports have reached 167,000 people in the bases and in the new settlements with urgent relief. immediate, unconditional and full access for humanitarian assistance throughout south sudan is of urgent and utmost importance. humanitarian workers, both international and south sudanese are currently working at great personal risk, and they must have safe passage to reach those
in need. we need to ensure not only that we reach those who lives have just been upended by new violence, but also to begin to reply? advance of the april rains or risk an even greater crisis with rising hunger through the country. pressing for humanitarian access is a key and urgent part of the on going negotiations for peace. the south sudanese leaders have the ability to ease the suffering of their people. the united states remeans stead fast in our decades-long commitment to the people of sudan and most of all we thank you for your on going support, your commitment and your attention to this new crisis. thank you. >> thank you. let me start off with you, secretary greenfield. what evidence is there to suggestion there are underlying -- and i want to talk about that floepg this first question. but what evidence suggests that the events that triggered the
crisis were a coup attempt by former vice president rhee yap machar. >> thank you for that question. i think we have looked at the situation that has been an ongoing political situation in south sudan for almost a year. there were internal dynamics within the svlm and -- i'm sorry, the spla that started with rhee yack machar being put out of -- voted out of his vice presidential position. and what we have heard through many sources, all public, was that there was a fight that occurred at the party convention that took place on the 15th of december, and that that led to the on going conflict.
we have not seen any evidence that this was a coup attempt, but it certainly was the result of a huge political riff between rhee yack machar and the president. >> so how do you view machar's decision to take part in an armed rebellion against the government of south sudan? >> i think it is an armed rebellion against the government of south sudan and it is -- it started as a result of the political riff. we think they should resolve this through political talks, through negotiations and not through war. what happened on december 15th was we understand an attack henri yack machar's home, that he then left juba, and the armed conflict resulted after that. >> are we advocates of expanding
the peace process? we're all focused obviously on the urgency of the moment and the attempt to create a ceasefire and save lives. but the long-term prospects here seem to me to impart fundamentally be hope by expanding the peace process and including -- in other words, a quick and what some might describe, quick and dirty, resolution of power sharing tweechb the powers that exist isn't going to bring the long-term stability that we seek. are we advocates of expanding the peace process and creating a more inclusive broad range set of participants? >> absolutely, sir. we do not believe this is going to end with the cessation of hostilities, that what must
follow the i understand of a conflict is a very, very organized political dialogue that will lay out the grievances of the various parties so those grievances can be taken into account and plans can be made for the next election. we think it's absolutely important that the 11 detainees held in juba be released so they can participate in that political dialogue and bring to the table issues that they have that they did not -- they're not part of the conflict, but they do have political grievances, and it's important that those grievances be addressed by the current government. >> are we collecting evidence of atrocities? >> absolutely. >> i hope not only are we vigorously not only collecting evidence of atrocities but we send clear messages that we will find ways to punish those who commit them? >> yes, sir.
we have sent that message to all sides. i hinted at that message in my remarks today. but they have both heard it from am boss door booth and they are hearing it from others in the region. we were pleased to hear that the au peace and security commission has also looked at establishing a commission of inquiry and others in the region are as well. we are trying to bolster the u.n.'s human rights monitoring capabilities so that again we can collect the information we need. at the same time we want to prevent atrocitieatrocities. so part of our efforts to get the u.n. forces built up was to get enough troops on the ground so that they can provide protection for the population. >> that's my next question. the u.n. peacekeepers that are providing security to tens of
thousands of south sudanese in the unmiss camps is incredible important. what, if anything, are we doing to insist in this effort to protect these people, the vast majority of whom are women and children? >> we have -- we went immediately to the security council and supported the efforts of the security council to increase the unmill contingent by 5500. and we have been working around the clock on the phone with leaders in the region as well as outside the region to contribute to those numbers. nepal has provided additional troops. bangladesh has provided additional troops. we have a commitment from ghana to redeploy some of their troops from unochi as well as provide new contingents. >> what do you suppose the
ability of unmiss? >> it's challenging. >> i know it's challenging. i don't mean to pressure, but quantify challenging. >> they don't have enough troops on the ground to do this. this is why we want to help them build up those troop numbers. >> administrator, let me ask you two quick questions. one is the 50 million is welcome under the crisis. but looking at the nature of this crisis, how long do you think it will take you? what are you doing to work with others to join in assistance? you mentioned flights arriving. what about these reports of child soldiers firing upon flights? are children being used in this regard? >> the $50 million is in addition to what was already a large pipeline of humanitarian assistance. we have employed all of our flexibility to enable existing partners to redirect portions of their existing programs to meet these new needs. the world food program, for
example, has been able to redirect some of their food. we have something called a rapid response fund that we've had since 2011 that is built to be able to respond to the many different crises that have erupted in south sudan including floods and droughts. so for right now we have a good pipeline to help us deal with the existing crisis. we have also worked closely with our other donor allies, and there is a new action plan that the u.n. has put out that has already gotten significant resource from the u.k., from norway and a few of the other donors who have long been key supporters of south sudan. so we have a solid partnership with others who are stepping forward with resources as well. on the flights, the reports that we've received about the firing of one of the flights was that it was potentially an error of
communications. there have been no -- not further incidents of flights where getting into most of the unmiss compounds. the big problem is getting into bohr where we were not getting support from the south sudanese government. that was changed yesterday when we got reports of two flights going into bohr. our hope is that will now be a regular occurrence and allow us to get supplies into that compound. >> do you have information of the children being used as soldiers? >> we're hearing reports of child soldiers. we don't have confirmation of how many. that is one of the many issues of great concern in this rising violence. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, both for being here and for your work on behalf of our country. the talks that are taking place this week, do we have the right
people at the table? >> you mean on the -- >> from the opposing sides? >> the government has sent a very strong delegation, and we were very pleased with that. on the rhee yack machar side he requested the 11 detainees be part of his delegation. he has a delegation on the ground. his full delegation is not there. so i do think it is a good team there. they are able to speak with to authority for both sides. but they do not have the full delegation that it wants. >> so are you sensing that without that full delegation and yet having participants from both sides that can speak, are you sensing that these talks are going to yield any breakthroughs? >> not at the moment.
we got agreement, i understand, from ambassador booth from sesation of hostilities. but the other side is still insisting that the 11 detainees be released before they sign off on anything. and we are working here in washington to pressure the government to release the detainees. the two negotiators, the kenyan and ethiopian negotiators were there yesterday. they met with the detainees. >> is there any chance that's going to occur? >> we're hopeful. we heard early right around christmas that the president was going to release eight of them.
secretary spoke to him several times on this. we hope he is getting the message from around the world. he's getting phone calls from within the region as well as outside the region to impress upon him how important it is to release the detainees. we think it will bring added talks to the negotiations. it will bring political views much more moderate than what we're hearing. they're not part of the fighting party. >> so what would be the president's resistance to release him to be a part of this? if he knows that, why would he resist? >> that's a question i can't
answer for him. he's accused the prisoners as being part of the alleged coup plot, and that there are legal procedures that they have to go through before he can make the decision to release them. >> and so then on our side, just to understand how this is playing out, i know we've had ups and downs. . we've had vacancies the there. who is actually in charge of u.s. policy relative to this conflict and trying to resolve it? >> we are in washington in charge of the policy. ambassador booth has the ability of implementing that policy in terms of negotiations, but our ambassador on the ground is major for the government. she's there 24/7.
he is currently full time leading our efforts to push for the negotiation. ambassador page has continued to have meetings with the government. continued to push the government to release the detainees. she's had several meetings with the detainees. >> so you think the arrangement we have relative to how we have arranged for our leadership to be, you think it's working the way it should? >> it's working well, sir. >> and we've invested obviously millions of dollars as a country. invested a lot of time and a lot of people. south sudan and sudan in general has had a lot of interest from
the u.s. especially what is happening there. certainly 30 months ago. has the state department at all questioned our efforts there? has there been any feeling like we could end up in a place there that is good? what's the effect on state departments there? >> i think i can say that we are disappointed with the way things are going in sudan. but we are committed to ensuring that sudan does not fail. we're committed to staying with the process to get them to the peace negotiation table and committed to sudan having a future for their people.
they are disappointed. they've been failed by their leaders. we still we have to stand with the sudanese people to take this to a conclusion that that will lead the country back on the right track. >> chairman menendez was asking a little bit about the u.n. forces. many of us have been to darfur and seeing the mandate the u.n. had there and been frustrated in the past by that. does this have a right to mandate on the ground in south sudan right now? >> we think they do? but we have looked at the mandate. and given the current situation on the ground, we need to beef up their mandate, particularly on the peace keeping side. they are there as a protection force. and certainly in terms of their numbers and capacity, they're not a place to handle the current situation.
and it's our hope to fill that up rather quickly. >> mr. chairman, first, thanks for conducting this hearing. what you do to promote u.s. interest under extremely challenging circumstances. so i thank you very much. and strongly support the frame work that you have laid out. this needs to be critically evaluated to make sure there is adequate resources to implement, we hope, some form of cessation of violence. the humanitarian issues are incredibly difficult, the ngo community not able to operate as they did prior to this violence.
whether the resources and aid will get to the people who really need it. they can do the release that is desperately needed. and that presented challenges that we expect the united states to play a major role in trying to sort out. and you're correct. three years ago as the election started as insouth sudan, the united states was cheering. a new nation. the last two and a half years we have t and i hope we will understand that it's not just acknowledging a new country, but working to make sure that the of the institutions necessary to protect all the citizens from the challenges of ethnic diversity. but i want to talk about one point that chairman menendez mentioned. and your response was what i expected to hear, and in your
written statement you say -- you said verbally that you want to hold responsible for perpetrating human rights abuses must be held accountable. i've heard this before. we've been through rwanda, been through bosnia, we been through syria, been through darfur. now south sudan. and it seems to me that as we start negotiating and we say we are getting documentation and we're going to make sure that tribunals -- that this becomes an afterthought rather than a primary thought. quite frankly i think one of the problems that we have, is that those who perpetrate ethnic cleansing and ugly the international community will ever hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity. and endlessly make this a real priority, unless we talk about
it, and don't put it on a side, and we have to take care of stopping the violence and to the parties talking to him we don't want to bring up issues that might be divisive. we're never going to get the type of attention to accountab accountable, accountability for those who commit crimes against humanity that we need. so i've been here for too many of these ethnic cleansing problems around the world. and the response of those who perpetrated it has been weak at best. so what can you tell this committee about how the united states, which is always been the leader on these issues, will make sure that those who committed atrocities will be held accountable by the international community? >> thank you for the question. my answer, i'm not sure will satisfy you, because it's not going to satisfy me. it's hard. but having worked in africa for
many years, we have some examples where we have succeeded. if we look at library and look at the fact that charles taylor was held accountable and is serving the rest of his life in prison, that's the example that i want to follow for us in sudan. as we look at how to be successful in holding people accountable. but it is hard. i can't say that this is something that we will be able to accomplish easily, but i can say something that we are committed to making every effort to accomplish. >> let me just point out, if the united states does not make this the priority issue, it will not be a priority issue. it's up to us. so you are responsible for putting together the agenda on these international meetings,
and i do appreciate the fact, the testimony, that we are documenting and providing, i hope, the legal information that will be necessary in order to be able to present to the appropriate tribunals the information. but it seems to me that your public statements at every opportunity that you can about we will not tolerate those who perpetrated these atrocities being -- not being held accountable. we're going to make sure that they are accountable. and i just hope that when i look at the headlines and the papers and see of these negotiations are taking place, that i see this theme consistently throughout. because if not, as sure as we are here today, there will be the next country where we will see the same type of atrocities
committed against people because of their ethnicity. and that cannot be tolerated by the international community. and leslie held accountable and make sure that there can be no peace without accountability, it will happen again. thank you. >> and i want to thank the distinguished senator for being a longtime advocate in this regard. i'm wholeheartedly with you in this regard to this is why the commission is incredibly important on helsinki commission, incredibly important i look forward as the chair to work with you to press this issue, not only in south sudan but elsewhere as well. senator rubio. >> thank you chairman following the same and the ranking member as well. i want to ask you in light of tragedies that occurred over the last couple just for some foremost what are we doing to ensure the security of our personnel? i know on the 21st of december
the u.s. military aircraft was dispatched to rescue i believe americans that was fired upon. they had to abort the mission and servicemen and women, i don't know the details, were injured in that. so multi-pronged question. how confident are we that our personnel is secure? secondarily, do we know and we have plans in place to hold accountable those who fired up on our aircraft and injured our personal? >> senator, thank you for the question. and let me just start by saying that the security of our personnel for me, for the department, for the administration is our highest priority. we watched the security situation on the ground in juba almost on an hourly basis. river 24 hour task force. as you know, our staff at the embassy are down to the minimal levels. right now it is the ambassador being supported by two staff, and the rest of them are security people.
we have nine officers, seven brains and 45 forces from the east africa response unit. es from the east africa response unit. to provide that support. and again, on almost an hourly basis we're looking at the security situation with the concern of the ambassador and the rest of the team. they are security in mind. the attack on our planes, i know that after, is looking into that. we do not know who shot at those planes but that's something that we're in the process of investigating. we want to give our embassy open to we think it's important to keep our embassy open. we think it's important for us to have a diplomatic presence on the ground to continue to engage all of the parties but is also having our flag flying, it's
also -- it's a symbol for the people of sudan. and we don't want to abandon them. but at any moment where we determined that the situation is not secure or our ambassador to remain, we are prepared to get them out of there before the situation is at the point where we have to get them out in extreme conditions. >> my second question has to do with a follow-up to the sender -- to the question center court as. whether we have the right people. the army reports about groups and may or may not be responsive to some of the folks at the table in these conversations. how concerned are we about that? there have been reports of these community based groups that armed who allegedly may have participated in some ethnic targeting. how big of a problem could impose in terms of reaching a resolution in terms of these -- or how big a problem are these armed civilian groups that are
out there conducting attacks and other operations? >> that's a big problem. because our concern is that they are not under the command and control of any of the leaders there. so that's the problem i think we have to be very, very conscious of. >> so it's -- is it -- so it's a real problem? >> it is a real problem spent the last question has to go to some of our national interest. anytime with to deal with issues happening abroad, fundamental question for many people is wednesday it's a horrible tragedy and the decoupling but why should the united states care? it's not our business. i hear that from some. i believe they committed issues without going to did both with your testimony and ms. lindborg's testimony and we just heard senator cardin's comments as well. i agree with all of them. those in and of themselves aren't interested the united states but beyond that. i want to talk about regional stability and get your input on this.
ironically, ironic to see the leaders of sudan in south sudan desperate to get this thing figured out because oil exports. so this indeed tend and somewhat put a strain on sudan's economy because of the loss of the oilfields. minutest and is domestically incidental was quite, creates an internal controversy with regard to that. talk to us about the threat that this poses to sudan and ultimate to other nations in the region, in particular the loss of oil revenues in those fields, and also the flow of refugees that imagine are poring over the border back into sudan, from south sudan. what is the possibility this is not resolved of this undermining and spreading creating real problems within sudan, and then ultimately the entire region becomes unstable and we all know where this leads to in operations basis for real bad actors. describe about that threat spiraling into that.
>> the situation in south sudan can really spiral into problems for all of its neighbors. but i think particularly the fact that we saw president bush year visit south sudan last week that he clearly is concerned about the impact of that situation on what is happening in sudan but particularly on the flow of oil. we had heard that there had been discussions about sudan providing military support to south sudan. the press reports that have come out have indicated that they do not plan to do that, they're going to provide experts to assist in the oilfields. we can interpret that in many, many different ways. the government of uganda has indicated that they have real concerns about the impact of the
situation in south sudan on uganda. kenya already has a very large, and uganda, very large refugee camp with sudanese refugees, both from the south and the north. and as you heard from my colleague, we are seeing more refugees flow of crossed the border. ethiopia ivory coast last some concerns. and what i'm concerned about is if these countries get involved, the conflict would spread. >> i just want to wrap up by asking about the refugees because in addition to the loss of the oil revenues that would create some export and domestic pressures in sudan, thereby treating the potential problems as well but what risk are these refugees at going out into -- if you could just describe briefly the ramifications of having these camps and other installations crossing over into other countries, but
particularly sedan, the risk the refugees are at and violence in those other countries as well. that's a real thing we're concerned about as well and that would be in our national interest. >> if i could turn to my colleague here to talk about the refugee situations and, in fact, but from a political standpoint having outflows of populations into neighboring countries, the problems from the country into the neighboring countries, and i think that is a concern that all of south sudan's neighbors have. having the neighbors of sudan during the conflict of more than 30 years, they know the impact that refugees will have on their societies, on the economies. >> i would just add that it's the region that's had significant displacement for several decades. you've got a neighboring country of central africa, a republic
that is dealing with its own series of spotting -- spiraling crisis as well. 200,000 people have come from sudan from the two areas of southern kordofan on an blue nile into south sudan just in the last two years. of those people are now doubly peril. as people continue to move across these borders there's always greater danger once families are displaced, and once they're moving into countries where they have fewer resources. and some of them are already fragile because of pressures of dealing with so many displaced populations. >> thank you. >> as i call upon senator coons, let me thank you, as the chair of the africa subcommittee, senator flake, as ranking member has done some tremendous work over the last year your. .. the last year.
at this time they're recognizing. i would like to thank the witnesses for sharing their insights today. 2011 i led a resolution welcoming the independence of south sudan, and urging that its leaders address some of of the long standing challenges in order to put them on a path towards long-term stability. and just three years down from the date of the referendum, as you mentioned. secretary, deeply dispinted by the senseless violence, by the expanding i want to commend you and the administration for your response and the leadership that the investor has shown, and for the ability to step up to the plate quickly. start, if you would for me, madam secretary, with a summary as to why south sudan matters to the united states and why it
matters to the people of the state. >> thank you for that question. for 30 years the united states has been supporting the people of south sudan even before it became an entity putting their right to excess, right to freedom of religion, and fight against the government of sudan there are americans from all walks of life. my e-mail has been burning up since this started on december december 15th from americans who are concerned about what is happening in sudan. from someone saying don't spend your time working on this. so we do care as a nation. we also have a significant population of sudanese americans
who have thrived in our country but have an abiding interest in sudan. so i think it goes without saying that we care. we have an interest, but we also have an interest in maintaining peace in the region and making sure that there is no and governed space that extremist groups can take advantage of. while that has not been an issue in south sudan, i think that if we leave if it could be a problem and then it becomes a bigger problem. >> i appreciate you putting it that way. we have a somewhat new fragile democracy. we want to see just not birthed but launched and healthy and successful but it has regional implications and also has leadership publications in the court. do we address not just the humanitarian crisis but do we
remain engaged as we fight for democracy in many ways one of the most important comments and as the ongoing negotiations and audits are moving forth, my sense from your testimony is there was a cease-fire focused immediately, and i am hoping that once there is a protein from both sides there will be brought focus, broader range of issues including corruption, which was one of the main challenges. what role might the united states be asked to play monitoring the cease-fire? what additional resources might we bring to the table or be called upon to bring in to the table to make sure that it is successful? and what additional resources i might ask both of you to we need to be deploying to be effective in our humanitarian relief efforts? >> thank you for that question and i will turn to my colleague. we have been viewed by both sides as an honest broker we
have been accused by both sides of supporting each of the other side, so i think that we probably got it right. and we are looking at how we can support the efforts to ensure that there is peace and each side honors the commitments to a ceasefire. we are looking at what resources we have available in our account to support that effort. >> on the humanitarian side we added another $50 million in addition to what was already 318 million-dollar portfolio. if this conflict persists, if the needs continue to be this urgent we will start running into some tough choices given the rising crisis that we have
with syria, central africa republic in a typhoon that we just responded to. as we look ahead there will be tough decisions and the need for the support of all of you in order for us to maintain global humanitarian leadership. >> this was a great example of how the rapid response capability that you were giving makes it possible for you indeed. my last question has to with a regional actor and global actor. ugonda has played an active role in support of the government. what sort of messages are we sending to him about the role that we welcome your hope that we might play.
what role is china playing? they have been quite active in have been seen transitioning to the stability rather than taking sides. how might we more engage positively and supporting long-term stability? >> ugonda initially went into south sudan to support the needed infrastructure. so they provided troops to secure the airport and to secure and to ensure that the citizens were able to come out safely. we do know, and this has come out as an issue at the talks that they've indicated and they've said it publicly that they support the government and
they have an interest in the region and they want to insure a democratically elected government is not overthrown by violence. they are a part of igad and igad is the negotiating party, but it announced very early on after the summit that they would support stability in the region and be prepared to do so momentarily. so, this is something that we are watching very closely. we have cautioned our view gone then to the to -- ugonda friends that they have to be careful and need to be conscious of their actions and that their actions do not lead to the greater conflict. the indicated to us that they
strongly support the peace process. they support the negotiations, but in the meantime they will continue to provide a stabilizing force in. on that china there is a special envoy who is at us and has been working very closely with the ambassador booth. it seems to be playing a role in supporting the peace process. >> thank you. >> i appreciate working with the senator on these issues. with regards to ugonda, a move in quickly with the troops to secure their citizens and whatever else. was that always under the u.n. auspices or was it simply living in the troops?
>> it wasn't under. they did it as a neighbor, and at the request of the government, south sudan they were asked to come in. the peacekeeping troops, what countries make up those sources right now. >> recently bangladesh, we have kenyans, we have nigerians and we are expecting them to come and buy can get to you on which countries are participating. >> thank you. with regards to the oil revenue, there are some reports that i see the production is down 20% and others say that it stops completely. what do we know at this point?
>> the latest information is that many of them have been stopped. i don't know what the percentage is. there is some oil left out in the pipeline, but much as it has seized. >> the only option is through sudan over land by a truck to the coast. that is not much of an option. it never was. so, this and no other industry in the country to speak of really. i think the largest industry outside of the oil industry is a brewery. so there is not much to fall back on. let, and in terms of the u.s. aid, this is one of the first examples i have seen where the u.s. has actually taken the provision that the congress has placed on aid to countries that undergo the two or the new government by virtue of the two
and said basically come and tell me if i'm wrong, they said that if this is a coup and succeeds, there will be a cutoff of aid. are we using that policy as a leverage now against those opposition forces? >> in the opposition we will not support their efforts to violently overthrow this government. and i think that would include the programs. but when i say the aid programs, i have to be very careful because we are not talking about the programs that support the people of sudan. right now all of our support to the government of south sudan, all of that support has -- its not being implemented because we can't implement it. we are not doing any programs right now. but i would suspect that if this
violence continues, that we will suspend that support. >> what percentage of them are in the humanitarian area that would not be affected by the restrictions. is it a real threat to those in the opposition the vice president forces or whatever that the aid would be cut off? >> i don't think it is a threat that works because if either of the sides cared about their people, they wouldn't be fighting. we told them they stand the chance of losing all support from the u.s. government and the fighting has continued. but again on the humanitarian side, if i may turn to -- >> to make a sharp distinction that in the humanitarian funds that go directly to support people that are in the need of the development activities, some of which went directly to
support the government capacity building and standing of the new institutions. they're putting very separate categories. >> a lot of the people, is that a fuzzy area or is there a distinction as to what is humanitarian and what is not? >> there's always a consideration of the kind of programs under the development portfolio. the directly assists people such as health facilities for health programs and even some of the community based reconciliation programs that we've conducted. and so that is exactly the kind of consideration that would come into play should we need to. >> can you give me some idea if we are saying we are going to cut off the aid if this succeeds, for example if it does succeed, how much of the aid will still flow? do you know or can you give me
any percentage? that is why i am wondering what will still go for the u.s. to the new government if one comes in. >> let us get back to you with that information because to be more precise, i think we will take additional consideration, but we will definitely be happy to get back to you on that. there is an inability to conduct some of the programs right now in any case just because the confusion and the violence that is underway. it's the humanitarian programs that were continuing to push out and able to ensure that the aid is getting to people. >> with regards to china, this is the first time i can see that china has issued even a statement with regards to security concerns. china tends to when they invest they invest in human capital as well and have a capital. is there a concern of safety of
workers or have there been casualties among those who are in the country? >> i've not heard that there has been any casualties that the chinese have suffered, but many of them are working in in the areas of all production and all of them have been evacuated. so for that reason they are not operating. >> is china doing anything more than simply making a statement or as i said, that is the first time that they have gone that far. but have they done anything else? >> they are actively involved in the peace process. i ever stand they have been holding meetings with the various parties, and they certainly have been working very closely with the ambassador. >> it is a tough to be and i know that you are working hard
so thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman for being here. i am sorry that i missed your testimony. as a, you may have already talked more about this. and as you talk about that additional humanitarian aid and the redirection of that, can you talk about to what extent we are cooperating in the u.n. and other groups on the ground there and how that is working, and whether there are ways to improve that or how concerned are you about what is happening? >> we are working very closely with the u.n. and with our partners and our key allies including those who have been long strong partners on south sudan. the u.k., canada. we are in almost daily contact with that the level and in nairobi and through our headquarters conversation.
the u.n. country team is leading the charge in terms of coordinating the overall assistance seeing when the opportunities arise to get to the area in the compound the community is courageously still operating any of their programs. there are ngos underdoing protection controls in a side of some of the compounds, for example, so there's active close coordination as i did say earlier, one of the bright spots in the bad news is that there is a long history of a very strong humanitarian action in south sudan born of necessity that it gives us the capacity to respond rapidly and as effectively as one can in a tough situation. >> now, obviously some of the stories that have come out have been about the atrocities against women and the particular
challenges facing the women and children. can you talk about whether there are specific efforts around the humanitarian assistance to address some of the concerns? >> against a backdrop of a lot of security constraints and and he did access to the degree that they are able to reach some of the populations, they're has been an effort like these protection controls so that you have the workers actually and a whiff of the displaced communities. some of the real effort has been to get the medical supplies, food and water to these spontaneous settlements of displaced people including 30,000 people who were just discovered yesterday. so the humanitarian and the protection needs are hand in hand, and one of the most
important things that we can do is improve the security situation overall which my colleague spoke about in terms of increasing the troops and most of all having improved access and peace negotiations. >> there was a report on the news this morning criticizing our efforts in south sudan as having not been tough enough and i don't remember the exact phrase, but that is the gist of what they were saying. some of the new leaders not expecting enough of them. can you respond to them and whether there are other things that we can do to help put pressure on those leaders to help encourage them to resolve the situation? >> thank you. we have to keep the pressure on the coming and we have been tough with them at every level from the start of this, but even before this started, our
ambassador had made numerous statements concerning her concerns about the situation. she has been in regular contact with the government come and as the political situation started to unravel almost a year ago she was making those statements and indicated in the congressional testimony in june expressed concerns about this publicly, and also we have continued to express those concerns both in to react as well as to care. >> you talked about ugonda and the role that they've played. are there others influencing the situation either for good or bad that we should be concerned about?
>> we should think of the government to have been actively involved in the negotiation to want to bring to the peace table. the president visited south sudan and pressed upon the president the importance of sending a delegation. i know that they are speaking on a regular basis with the government and pushing particularly the government to release the detainees. they have been working very closely with us, looking at ways that we can support their efforts. so i think that there are efforts that have been extraordinarily positive. we have also talked to many countries in the region, concerning and contributing to the additional troops for the
u.n. and all of them are looking at ways that they might either move the troops from one peacekeeping force to provide support to the u.n. and south sudan and pretty much we are asking them to rob from one crisis to contribute to another. >> senator has been waiting for his opportunity. >> if you patiently wait which is not a bad thing you get to hear the answers to questions you want to ask the just a few things. to what extent is the control of the oil resources and a motivating factor in the conflict as more of a collateral consequence of the conflict? >> i think it is probably both. i think in the north of the rebel forces clearly want to
gain control of the resources and the government certainly fighting tooth and nail to retain those resources and certainly any government that wants to take over power will be looking at those resources as resources that they would want to have contributed to their efforts. and we have made very clear that there is a violent takeover of those resources will certainly be sanctioned. >> to pick up on questions senator shaheen was talking about delivering the humanitarian aid. some of your testimony mentioned that and i want to make sure that i understand it sounds like the challenges with the delivery of humanitarian aid right now are mostly security challenges. there's not other kinds of challenges that are making it hard to deliver the humanitarian
aid that we want to deliver. do we understand your testimony correctly on that? >> i would say security plus logistical because it is very complicated logistical environment even before this. >> can you talk a little bit about that because you've testified about the security side that would be helpful. >> so, it is a virtual highway for moving supplies around, and all of the barges have been unavailable to move the relief supplies. there are very few roads and we are having to work out against the upcoming rainy season. to play on an annual basis this is the dry season and in which we need to prepossession the critical relief supplies around the country that are shut off during the rainy season. so, there are a lot of those logistical surprises. we are seeing -- we have funded additional flights so that the u.n. can fly to the base is
where we have about the concentration of displaced people because they are otherwise not very easily reached. so the flights are happening and we have augmented that capacity and it is far, it doesn't let us move as much as quickly. so it is security compounded by the difficult logistics. >> how does it start? >> it will start in may to position to the following year or we will be facing increased thunderbirds -- hunger. >> if you have the steps that we should be taking more should be working with the administration to promote to facilitate the humanitarian aid. >> thank you for your support, senator. >> thank you, senator, very much. ambassador, they're have been reports of atrocities by all
sides of the conflict in south sudan with at least several mass graves discovered and reports of numerous civilians being murdered for belonging to the ramesh ethnic group. i've is especially sad and destroyed by fire human-rights watch report that members of the sudanese army has had civilian side on the basis of their ethnicity. given the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars on security assistance that the united states has supported since 2005 this raises some disturbing questions. the united states has now suspended security assistance and training. my question is under which circumstances will the security assistance be allowed to presume and will there be considerations now paid to the fact that we need assurances that our
assistance and in training one of be used to commit human rights violations? >> thank you very much for that question. we have been really saddened by what the defense that have clearly turned the site into a battle that is ethnic in nature, particularly that is happening inside of the military were. we have asked the u.n. about the information. they've not been able to confirm those. we hope to help them get their human-rights monitors out in the field so that we can collect that kind of evidence and be prepared to deal with the evidence in terms of holding people accountable but have not seen yet the evidence of the mass agree of this.
this is something that has all of us very worried. security systems i think would have questions on how we will implement programs that provide training what to the sudanese military after some of these actions have been made public. >> carries my question. in january 2012, president obama added south sudan to the countries eligible to buy weapons from the united states and during fiscal year 2012 reported it had commercial sales of $9 million worth of u.s. aid military equipment including military electronics and technology. more than $3 million worth of equipment was shipped. in contrast to you continue to maintain an arms embargo since
july of 2011? the question is will the state department suspend or limit given the risk of the u.s. weapons being used to commit atrocities? >> at the moment we are not implementing the programs but let me get back to you with a full answer. that is likely going to be the case that i prefer to get back to you with more detail. >> the administration in general is in the process of what loosening the regulations that govern of the exports under the new rules most types of weapons and equipment could be exported without a license, and without a legal requirement in the state department first review the proposed sales to ensure that they will not fuel the arms conflict or harm human rights. the press has reported at one point the administration was considering loosening control on guns and ammunition since they
were not critical to maintaining of its military or intelligence advantage of the united states. can you give us your opinion, madame ambassador, whether or not we do need a very careful review of the arms exports in general to assess the potential for them to be used to commit human rights violations that is critical to protecting civilians both in south sudan and others in the world? >> i can speak on south sudan, and i certainly will take your question back but my view is south sudan suspending the implementation of all of those programs and we will be looking very closely at any kind of support that we improvised the south sudan military in the future. >> i think the european union is closer to where we should be on these issues. i think the united states has to
step back because it is a long-term implication of anything that we can do can be profound if we start selling nuclear power plants to countries that have longer-term and stability issues are we selling arms to countries that we know have a much higher probability than not of being turned around for joost purposes of those which were originally intended. whether it makes any sense going forward. finally, the overwhelming majority of the self sudanese people depend on the natural resources for their livelihoods temperatures have increased, rainfall has decreased over the last several decades with negative consequences for agriculture and improved security. we know that creates a threat multiplier outside countries like sudan. can you talk a little bit about
that in your opinion as to what we can do as a country to help to reduce the long-term impact of the climate change on a country like sudan? >> thank you for that question. the last two years we have had an intensive initiative and east africa on building a greater resistance, said pacifically in areas that are have chronic poverty with the continual shocks of droughts and floods and the changes that you are identifying. we've made great progress in kenya and ethiopia and even somalia, and we were moving forward in south sudan. what we are seeing is the description of all of that which is all too often the case when you have conflict rules that process and gains. hopefully we will the level to provide greater management of risk and a greater adaptation to these kind of changes so that we get ahead of the kind of natural disaster.
>> you get into a very bad - feedback groupware the thing that caused the problem, the instability, fighting for the smaller and smaller amounts of natural resources, that leads to the conflict that makes it more difficult to solve the problem that was the average and will cause of the problem. >> that's absolutely right. understanding how to manage and mitigate the risk of conflict is critical for these programs. we've done a lot of that work at the community level for about south sudan and i would note we are not getting widespread reports. violence among the communities, so far it is armed actors who are perpetrating much of the violence and we want to continue to be able to do that and we would love to brief you on the resilience program. >> the absence of the natural resources that are related to climate change then further exacerbate the ethnic conflict fighting less and less which makes it easier for the armed forces to enlist their ethnic
brethren over the fight of the limited resources so climate change at the end comes back as a major factor i would urge that human rights be a factor it is much higher in priority in terms of arms exports in the united states. it's time for us to have that evaluation. thank you mr. chairman. >> i think you have raised some very important critical issues and some of the questions raised about who in our continuation of assistance is why this committee voted 16 to one and a bipartisan basis to create language to deal with these circumstances. my hope is that as the omnibus bill moves forward the appropriations committee will look at that language and have an opportunity to consider that language on the floor. i think the state department cannot be in the position of picking and choosing but by having a standard that's universal with the options of the national security i think that's incredibly important.
>> thank you again for the testimony. i'm just listening to a lot of questions here. i know in the opening comment or the opening question you mentioned fact musharraf did not undertake a coup in your opinion. forces came to his home and left. and i've heard you on a continual basis talk about no flow if there was a coup of any kind or a violent takeover. i hope -- and i have seen ugonda has reported to have thousands of troops may be helping the regime. i hope that all of the international players and neighbors and ourselves are applying enough pressure here to want to solve this because as i listened to all of the questions and the answers it feels like most of the pressure is on the other side and i just hope the pressure is being applied in a very balanced way.
you don't have to respond to that but just in listening to the answers i am not sure that would come out in this testimony. >> thanks for your appearance today and your work. we will move on to the second panel. and a thanks to our next panel for their patients and the input they will have before the committee now, ambassador who served as the u.s. special envoy for sudan from 2011 and 13 and previously served as the senior adviser on the negotiations. mr. what john what pendergast of the enough project to end the genocide and crimes against humanity particularly on the continent of africa kate who served as the administrator for africa and sudan mission
director. evidently with you all know each other very well. handshakes and kisses are being shared. let me again thank you for your patience, but your testimony is incredibly important. we ask you to summarize your statement and about five minutes so that we can have a dialogue with you and your full statements will be included in the record without objection. ambassador, we will start with you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, senator corker and all of the members year. this is a tragic situation, and it's important -- >> one moment. if we can ask those that are leaving to do so quietly and exit so that we can hear these witnesses. >> ambassador? >> i was asked to talk about the context of the crisis, but if i
can, let me make two comments about some of the issues raised earlier today i think the importance of strengthening the u.n. peacekeeping moderation as was discussed here it's vital that people that have sought protection be protected, and that structure means a great deal of help. it would take more than the u.n. resolution. a lot of work and i hope that you can provide logistical and other support to get the added troops there. the mandate is there but it needs to be activated. there has to be a much more aggressive role in protecting civilians and eventually monitoring the cease-fire. so i appreciate the attention that has been given to that. the second thing is i want to point out that the work of the special envoy and the work of ambassador susan page in cuba is very important working on this issue all the time.
but their presence in both places sends a message that they are not walking away from this crisis. and on the ground it is difficult as well as the special envoy is very important and i'm glad that it was emphasized in the testimony. i want to her talk about the run-up to the crisis to illustrate the weaknesses of the institutions, the political and the military institution center south sudan because it's important that as we look ahead to how these issues are resolved, it's not simply a reconciliation between the two men or even return to the status quo because the underlying issues, the underlying weaknesses are going to take something much more, and it's going to take their role by the international community in solving these problems than we
had before. let me just describe to developments that led to this crisis. one, going back a year and a half or more was the uneasiness in the ruling party and the way the country was being governed. there was not attention to the party, not even to the cabinet. it was more on the basis of the small group of advisers, and even more disturbing relying more and more on intelligence security people to harass opponents, journalist was assassinated, others being pushed out of the country to become a major concern and our relations with south sudan. and so there was a concern about that government. and then the second challenge came from signaling he was going to challenge the president for the leadership of the party and for the presidency. now, he's a very controversial
figure he fought against it and there was a major massacre. if these things haven't been forgotten. so the party was faced with a dilemma. if you don't give a path to the presidency, it could be a crisis. if you do give them a path to the presidency, other people will be very upset. this is what the party had to deal with. and instead of having a party capable of doing it, he went the other direction. she froze and eventually dissolved all of the party mechanism spigot he treated the elements from both of the crisis has just direct challenges to him and as an unrest. what did it is bring these two together by the centers in the party and not because the mostly in detention or supporting the
presidency kaput they can to get there to criticize the way the these issues were not being addressed. and instead, by december, the president designed many of the policy institutions and was very clear that there was no resolution taking place. and then we had the incidence of december 15th and all of the unraveling. i emphasize this because when we look ahead it's not enough to say it's reconciled. there needs to be a process that gets at the basic structure of government in south sudan. enough protection for the democracy and human rights for how the parties are supposed to operate etc. the constitutional process in the south sudan has not moved forward and that gives us a vehicle for dealing with a lot of participation from the civil society, the churches, etc.. in the new constitution for south sudan, they would develop and proceed the next election
and bring new leadership to the country. the international committee has to play a bigger role. it should be international experts involved. it should be an advisory committee from the u.n., the u.s., africa union etc. the same goes for the economy. it is now uncertain. there has to be a much more dynamic relationship between the international community in south sudan over the management of the economy so people can be helped. it's quite be a much more active involvement. but otherwise, going back to the old institutions it wouldn't be sufficient, so it is a challenge. we have invested the united states heavily in this process between saddam and south sudan, the united states has about $12 billion of peacekeeping in
darfur and the berthing of south sudan. important constituencies have been involved in the move to independence. we can't turn back on this. it's going to take a lot of time and effort. but we've recognized the fundamental weaknesses in these institutions. we and our partners can start to address this over the next several years. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman and ranking member corker. this defeat could you have been important to the development for now years even decades. and i think that having this hearing right now it sends an important signal to the people of south sudan that we care and we are watching very closely. >> i want to move right to the solutions on page four of my testimony i want to propose for ways that the administration and congress can help right now to stabilize a broad peace process
that many of you talked about. the first way that the u.s. can help i think is to help expand this peace process beyond just a deal. this goes to the heart of what you were saying, senator menendez. the u.s. can play a major role in helping to ensure the current process doesn't repeat the mistakes of past mediation efforts in sudan and the mistakes in the region and i would try to document some of them in the written testimony earlier. this will require i think a team of diplomats that can be accompanying the current special envoy. let me just say that sudan itself has no peace process to speak out. they're our stovepiped efforts with darfur and all these places particularly the first three there are huge conflicts with thousands over the course of the last year alone and hundreds of
thousands of newly displaced people over the course of the last year alone. nothing is happening on that front, so we need a team i think of people to work with our special envoy to be able to deepen the process and on the south i want to associate myself very strongly with what ambassador lynman said. there are a number of lawyers in the process. it does involve those with the biggest guns but then you have to bring in others and get involved in the reform and it has to be part of the process. there are reasons why it erupted so quickly whether it was the true or not and is spread to the different regions of the country. there are a lot of problems so they are not being addressed in the political channels that the need to be reformed. dnr tunnell reconciliation effort sort of petered out to be the fight in the process. the constitutional process has lost talked about, and of course the support for the reform ddr
we can talk about more if you want to because we were talking about senator kaine. so i think their work gets back of course by susan rice and ambassador power. they are making the contributions in a good way just like the past administration where we've seen that from the secretary and others. that needs to continue but it's having the team on the ground. congress can be helpful in ensuring that the resources are available for the diplomatic efforts building that kind of team to the will to undertake the projected negotiation because that is what it's going to require to potentially have a chance to me get a package. the second we the u.s. can help i think is to reinvent the troika. it went back to the late nineties. over three administrations
played a role in supporting the mediation process leading up to the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement and its implementation. i think that it could play an important role in the new peace efforts in south sudan an ongoing efforts to try to build the peace process itself. so if they added another member, and that is china, bringing china and a more informal way to increase the process and the parties. we need leverage and engaging even india with a major role in this regard will also be the potential to use of a high level white house effort should be undertaken to define common problem with the support and a lot of work has already been done. but very high level specific effort to try to figure out how the u.s. and china will work together and they can do that in the context of what would be the revived work if they were to formalize it. i think china can help by
engaging directly with some officials and exploring the way that the u.s. and china can work together for peace in sudan. the third way they can help is to collect evidence of atrocities and the sanction and the perpetrators. this goes to the heart of what the senator was talking about earlier, and i think we all know what that means. but there are two ways you can do it, you can collect the evidence and use that evidence immediately to impose targeted sanctions against individuals who are found to be perpetrating suspected of perpetrating mass atrocities come and you can collect that in turn it over and look for the creation of bodies are existing bodies like the icc but it's like a mixed court in south sudan that can end this cycle of impunity and prosecute those. when we don't start to deal with
those kind of questions and just leads to the deepening of the violence and impunity that we have seen not only in south sudan but as it was mentioned already in other places around the world. i think that congress could ask for regular briefings from the administration on the evidence of atrocities come and how specifically the u.s. has responded on these areas, targeted sanctions and prosecutions. what are we doing? the fourth way that it can help is to help negotiate humanitarian actions. i think the u.s. has been admirable in the way that we have responded to the humanitarian crisis. we have a long history of a negotiated access agreements in south sudan that we can build on. we don't want to wait a long time before we get those actions to get the people, particularly there are people all over south sudan that if we want to highlight one group of people that are at risk and those are the refugees from sudan and they
have no eight or resources to call upon and they are the subject right now of intensive bombings in the mountains and the blue nile to date. so to begin to negotiate the actions and ensure that the parties uphold those agreements is terribly important. the track record of this congress i think particularly in the senate foreign relations committee over the last three administrations i know i speak for my fellow panelists and so many others in expressing our deep appreciation for your continued advocacy on behalf of the people of sudan and south sudan. >> thank you ranking member corker and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. in nearly four weeks more than a decade of humanitarian development progress to improve the lives of people has been
undone by the outbreak of violence between the former vice president. as others indicated the violence can go further into the full-scale war resulting in severe implications for the regional peace and security. i would like to offer a few observations and then makes several recommendations. let me be clear from the outset. they declared independence in 2007 the united states pledged a commitment to stand by its people, to continue to stand by its people. we should remain resolute, not flinching in the face of recent development. the united states is a unique influence and reservoir of goodwill that gives an indispensable role in overcoming the crisis. my first observation is that the crisis was neither inevitable or motivated. it's a political crisis precipitated by the failure of the president and former vice president to sell their political differences without resorting to violence.
they couldn't stop it and the first priority is inducing them to do so. second, institutional development takes decades and it's inherently messy and not a surprise that there's a crisis and the government. it is in fact to be suspected. whether it is a temptation to play the blame game it's important that it wasn't afforded self-determination based on its capacity for the self-rule. it wanted self-determination from oppression and to end the decades of the war. south sudan must develop its institutions indigenously from the ground up and it's unreasonable to expect them to take root in two and a half years. sadly, the government's records and independence is one of to leverage undermining any erosion of the accountability between the states and societies by those who want power. this is the root of the crisis and the fundamental issue that must be addressed if and when the fighting ends. feared the united states is a deep relationship with
protagonists and unparalleled to the influence and responsibility to use that influence to broker the return to nonviolent. this is not a time for incremental approaches. while the process to the media between the parties are to be supported the united states must continue to the full weight of its diplomatic capabilities on the parties directly and multilaterally. the united states should move to the president's authority to institute travel bans on the leadership on both sides as well as prepare to expand the sanctions multilaterally through the resolution in the u.s. and to the council is the following actions are not forthcoming. without further stalling or delayed. the international partners must foreclose the option for either side including by explicitly excluding ugonda and sudan from directly or indirectly participating in the conflict. member to commit the release of
the will and political detainees arrested following the outbreak of fighting. they've been targeted on the basis of the political and its vital to reaching a political arrangement to great number of recommitting and parcel delivery of the need humanitarian aid including providing humanitarian actor is full access to all of those needs not just in the protected enclaves and it's an active conflict zone such as and full cooperation including the former u.n. commission of inquiry which should be established and investigated and documents. neither is indispensable to the stable peaceful space south sudan. courageous leadership is required however to rise above the personal ambitions and animosities to achieve a ceasefire and interim political settlement. is getting the cycles of violence is hard but it can be done.
if the settlement is reached, the leadership will need to dedicate itself to three critical tests to restore confidence and demonstrate accountability to its people. building the coalition to support key institutional reforms and the security and justice and jobs, expanding the space for independent voices with a national dialogue is possible and tangibly demonstrating the state responsiveness to its citizens. particularly by drafting and adopting the present constitution fostering the national and local reconciliation and conducting fair and peaceful elections prioritizing road that works and radio communications is a must to achieve any of these. the united states is the largest donor to south sudan and should remain so. sycophant areas of the country in fact or peaceful and the governments, communities and church leaders in the area are to be commended and supported in their efforts to stem the conflict spread including the continuation of development partnerships. an abrupt stop will only worsen the national crisis, not
alleviate it. the u.s. has been providing development assistance to the south sudan continuously since 1998. first and the stability through the international local partners, and eventually through the newly independent government. the gain from the programs to not mean peacefully or unnecessarily. doing so will only make a reconstruction that much harder if and when a political summit is reached. further harming the people of south sudan. let me conclude on a practical note. this ability to respond effectively to the crisis with her through diplomacy, humanitarian assistance for development would be significantly and a check without the presence of american presence with the knowledge and relationships in south sudan. as the former head of the bureau and former mission director in sudan, i anderson and all too well the trade-off between the security and impact. it is imperative that the u.s. government return as quickly as possible.
thank you again for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> let me ask you, ambassador, you refer to other splm leaders and their grievances. was there a popular support in those views that they were exposing themselves? >> i doubt it. they were inside the beltway arguments including the authorities'. ontario is the harassment of human rights workers of journalists, etc.. that was raising a good deal of concern in south sudan. the challenge did of course
reverberate through the history and that is when to be a major one to be managed by the government as it became more. >> the composition of the government delegation is interesting to me, particularly since it was once part of a faction that imposed the vision for south sudan. what might the composition of the delegation mean in terms of the larger regional dynamics? >> you know, you have really three parties here. you have the government, the president supporters. you have a group of detainees who are not either. that is, they are looking for a broad party for all for the
broad use of the party mechanisms authorities. .. and authorities. and to make them part of the negotiati negotiations, you have to enlarge those negotiations to allow for views other than just the two contending parties. but you need to do that to give them a role, because there are two things that have to happen. after a cease fire, you have to have an understanding as to what the government's going to look like for the next two years. and that means that those people now detained, and president kiir, and people from machar's side, have to agree on the structure of a government over the next two years. meanwhile, you have this -- what i think a broad constitutional process that delves into the longer term issues of democracy, human rights, and governance.