tv Discussion Focuses on Crisis in South Sudan CSPAN June 30, 2017 9:31am-10:37am EDT
the pentago pentagon. as far as not using your office to make money, barack obama made $85000. year prior to being elected in between getting elected and when he left office he made over $20 million. i'd say if mr. trump's network goes up by the same factor that president obama said, we've got something to worry about. if not, let the man do his job. >> the question is on the substitute amendment offered by mr. byrne. those in favor say i. those opposed say no. the i's have it. you asked for a recorded vote, is that true? >> yes. >> okay we need to take it in real-time. the clerk will call the roll. >> we are alive at the center
for strategic and international studies in washington for a look at famine in south sudan and what the international community can or should do to help. this is getting underway. >> three follows of the program which kick started the series here at csi s, of the international career advancement program. a marvelous unique program in aspen that has formed the careers of many foreign affairs expert including several of the table. thanks to the 470 fellows that we have, we have begun the program but is not limited to the fellows. it includes others and you will see in a series of sometimes different events new discussions on foreign affairs. we have a new #, we also have the i cap alumni association twitter feed which we are using along with csi s. travis will moderate for us today.
he is an awesome moderator. without further ado, i'll turn it over to him. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. thank you investor mccarthy for the fantastic introduction. a huge thanks to csi s as the hole for gathering us this morning and the specific think you to victoria for whol helping orchestrate our gathering this morning as well. one administrative note for all of you, we will be taking questions from you on note cards. if you would like to have one of those cards, you can raise your hands now. you will have another opportunity before the q&a starts to get the cards to ask a question. without further ado we will get straight to the heart of the matter. the we've entitled today's discussion south sudan, when
war and famine collide, we are clearly a war aware -- aware that these are just two things of a much more complicated and convoluted history of conflict, oppressio oppression and attempts to resolve those issues. one of the things i wanted to start by pointing out is that even though, in the west, we have a tendency to mark the struggle in south sudan based on when we began to engage. you hear about jeni july 9, 2011 and july 9, 2005. you hear about information like operation lifeline sudan in the '90s, but if you were to sit down with southerners or south sudanese, you would hear a different take on the struggle and that is about a 200 year struggle for them to get to the place where they
are. it essentially starts with rule in that region by the ottoman empire, rule by the egyptians, rule by the british colonial powers, and then rule in the region by northerners situated in the post independent government. the reason why i wanted to bring that together is that all of those powers who ruled that region had one central principle in mind and that central principle was that the region of the south, which is now south sudan was to be only a region for the extraction of natural resources, only for the extraction of human resources and was not to be cultivated or integrated. it was to be isolated and not to be developed. that is essentially the
beginning of the struggle they had which essentially made it a place designated for plunder. and successive governments and post independent cartoons made that very clear. one of the things that happened in that history, specifically around the second civil war in sudan versus the south was they designated as something they termed in air back. that means the abode of war which was to say they were giving themselves religious justification to freely plunder and decimate that area for themselves. one of the things we hear all the time in the west about sudan is religious justifications, regional justifications, ethnic and racial justifications, but all
these are veneers for greed and the lust for power in resources by specific ruling entities in that country and in that region. the sad irony of the contemporary moment is that though many southerners sacrifice their lives to resist these forms of governance, and founded the sudanese people's liberation army, south sudan has become the abode of war. this time without the religious veil in a conflict that is a naked contest for wealth and power, and again, not for the development and cultivation of the people of that nation. this all reminded me of the african proverb that states that when the elephants fight it is the grass that suffers.
i thought it would be good for us to take that symbolic metaphor to look at who the symbolic elephants are, what their actions mean for the suffering of the people who are at the bottom of that conflict and who have long been ignored in this process. i know many of you are experts and have given great service to try to ameliorate the suffering of those people. so to get us right in our panel, i wanted to go over to ashley who will give us a readout from the usa perspective about the human toll of the conflict and where we are right now. >> thank you travis and thanks to csi s for organizing this. i want to pick up on how travis framed this and emphasize yes, we are in a humanitarian catastrophe but it is rooted in a political
crisis. normally in a system of governance we have rules for governing how competition is going to take place. it takes place within a framework were people agree on the rules around that framework. we don't have that kind of consensus in south sudan. instead we have leaders who have decided to go outside of the peaceful rules of the game and pursue their political objective through violence. that is destroying their country. this is a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions but it is rooted in this political crisis. just to frame the humanitarian piece, we are talking about 2 million people who have fled the country around the neighboring regions. we have two more million people displaced inside south sudan and 2800 people continuing to flee the country every day. that's about one in three people who are displaced from
their home right now. by july, that's just around the corner, we estimate about 6 million people will be in need of life-saving or will face life-threatening hunger. seven and half million people will need humanitarian assistance at large. just to put this in context, that's about 60% of their pre-conflict population. this is a massive impact on the overall population, displacement and humanitarian needs. the we were pleased, as i'm sure many of you were, to see last week that parts of south sudan have been declared famine free or no longer in famine, we need to remember the food security situation remains dire and continues to deteriorate across the country.
usaid is helping to us lead the u.s. government response to this catastrophe. we have been working aggressively to help save as many lives as possible with our partners. long before the famine declaration in february of this year end we will continue to do so. we are reaching about 1.3 million people each month with lifesaving assistance. this is a really difficult and dangerous undertaking, not just because we are in a conflict zone and there's lots of insecurity. there have been numerous deliberate and brazen attacks on humanitarian workers in south sudan. they are violations of international humanitarian law , 84 aid workers have been killed in south sudan since the conflict began and 80, 17 of those have been since this year alone.
that makes south sudan the most ugly place in the world for humanitarian workers to operate. that is shocking if you think about complex going on over the globe. yemen, iraq, syria. aside from insecurity and these willful attacks on humanitarian workers, we are also facing the direct willful obstruction and intervention of the government of south sudan by imposing impediments that inhibit our actors from being able to access the people who need their assistance. it is a range of things from imposing worker permits, fees and registration fees that dramatically increase the cost of delivering humanitarian assistance and then we see direct attention and extortion, harassment,
egregious acts to deter the delivery of this assistance that will save the lives of the people of this country and the fact that the government is taking these actions to prevent this kind of lifesaving assistance is really unconscionable. the u.s. government expects that our system is going to reach the people that need it the most and we are doing all we can to press all parties to allow humanitarian actors to function without restriction. finally, just a note about the human cost that travis referred to. there was a un survey done in 2015 looking at protection of civilian sites where about 200 30,000 idp's internally displaced across the country are sheltering. the survey conducted in 2015
reported that over 70% of women have been raped since the conflict began. 75% have witnessed someone else being raped. this is a weapon, a strategy of war at this point. it is a mass atrocity crime and largely perpetrated by soldiers and police. there has been complete impunity for these actions and we can anticipate that as long as the conflict rains we will see those strategies being utilized. i feel like i'm often the doom and gloom voice in some of these discussions, but as a united states, we will continue to provide assistance. i think the humanitarian assistance and other assistance we are providing is
critical and it is saving lives, but it's a drop in the bucket when we look at the scope and scale of the humanitarian needs. the civilian protection needs and ultimately again, going back to the remarks i made at the top, this is a political crisis and it needs a political solution and until the parties are willing to decide that the strategy of war is either too high a cost for their brothers and sisters or it's ineffective for them if their goal is to gain power , until they decide we will continue to have these kinds of humanitarian needs. thank you. >> having started with the current usg official, i thought it would make sense to follow that up by getting an honest perspective from a former senior usg official who has worked extensively on africa and on the sudan's to
talk about essentially where we are with u.s. engagement on south sudan, whether we have policies in place that makes sense for where we are at this time, and to speak a little bit about regional actors, united nations and others. with that alternative over to linda and their team. >> as travis was saying, i spent a long time in the u.s. government working on sudan in south sudan and a lot of neighboring countries. in some ways i have a lot of sympathy and appreciation for the work that these people are doing right now to ensure that despite what we see as a pretty depressing lack of depression on this very important crisis, aid continues to flow, people
continue to make sure they are advocating for continued assistance and support even in the face of what's going on in the government. that said, south sudan is not just a political crisis or not owning up to the responsibilities are taking further people, we are also seeing a crisis of international leadership. that is pretty dramatic. the united states knows that we gave ourselves a lot of credit for different, important milestones in south sudan's recent history from the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 to the declaration of independence for the new country that was finally born. we know over decades we've seen church leaders in the united states and we've seen
people from the right and left come together to actually support the people of south sudan and make it a cause that has been a very american cause. what we are seeing now with the lack of attention is frankly depressing, and the idea of advocating the role of u.s. historic leadership to basically saying it's only the responsibility of the parties on the ground is something we should challenge actively ,-com,-com ma especially folks were in this room working on these issues. next, travis mentioned the fact that it's not just the united states. we have the united nations biggest peacekeeping force on the planet and we've also got the african union. again the most dangerous place in the world for humanitarian assistance, famine, civil war, and yet these bodies and institutions whose main job it is to make sure they are
intervening appropriately and calling countries and leaders and individuals on the wrongs that they're committing have basically also stepped back and said we will provide assistance or protection within our role, but because of issues of sovereignty or complexities, we are stepping back and i think what we see across borders a lot of people waiting for somebody else to step up and take action on the crisis. when we look at humanitarian workers being detained and obstructed, that the human rights violation. it's not a language we use. we haven't seen the un stand up and say these are crimes against humanity.
there have been many investigations that these are sort of the language in the things people need to start talking about. there was one report where we talked about ethnic cleansing, it's sort of reached the point where we need to go a little bit further. one of the things we've seen is that this idea that they're expecting wreck refugees. uganda has been an amazing recipient but uganda has been a major problem when you talk about coming to a resolution of a political crisis. on the one hand, you see this willingness on how to accept people and deal with the outflow of the problem but no one is stepping up willing to take on the route causes of why the crisis is continuing. until that happens we know the suffering is only going to get worse. i think one of the challenges
for all of us is to figure out at what point are we willing to push forward aggressively and say okay we let this go on for over four years. the last war was over 20 years. maybe this is the time to say enough is enough and take some concerted action to making sure that the people who are responsible for these atrocities are brought more justice. >> thank you linda. with linda giving us pretty much an overview of the bilateral u.s. engagement in the region and on south sudan specifically, i wanted to turn to steve vigil who is joining sbs satellite. it may not technically be a satellite, but i will refer to it in that way. steve, given your background in un peacekeeping in south sudan, could you talk to us
about the challenges you've seen, some of the issues or challenges in terms of the protection of civilians which actually linda may have talked about, and a little bit from your perspective on the nexus between what the un mission in south sudan is trying to do related to conflict, and how that might be hindered or helped but issues of governance in south sudan. >> that is a lot to unpack. i've prepared some notes that i was to go off and i think i can address some of that within the notes. forgive me i'm actually going to be reading off of it in interest of time because if not i feel like i could strike and i understand we have limited time.
first off, thank you, i would like to thank the center for strategic international studies for hosting this panel and specifically ambassador mccarthy is the international welfare project. another thing, in terms of what i'm going to say, i want to preface that these are my views and not the views of the un or nmi previous employers. going to share my thoughts on my experience in sudan during the time of 2010 national election and 2011 referendum. during part of this time i coordinated a group focused on referendum security incidents. i think it's important to look at this particular time and where south sudan is today and
hopefully this will contribute to some understanding of steps that can be taken towards ending the civil war and moving towards peace. i think about the roots of what's been discussed on the piano. we are already visible and for me coming from south sudan during that time, having not had any experience in south sudan before, there was a lot. my understanding from before, the situation on the ground challenges what i understood before i got there. some of the roots that we are seeing look at the national election with the key element i observed was that the leadership in south sudan is very willing to use violence to achieve its goal even while participating in the democratic process. additionally it was clear there is a deep division within the time.
they use the sp l.a. to interfere, often violently to ensure their preferred candidates one. we had many incidents of candidates being detained and beaten, voter intimidation was common. we even had a case of s pla soldiers burning ballots after the race had become clear that the candidate backed by the leadership have boss. at this time the military was moving soldiers 11 region to another that they considered there was a chance the non- backed candidate would lose and many people were observing that they were attempting to secure the election and i think it was more moved to secure the position they wanted for the future. south sudan was a violent
place and contributed to the death toll. the right of passage in some passage in the region, but in the time that i was there that aspect had been lost as rival military commanders, politicians and other actors exerted increased control. rates were being coordinated with mobile technology and done using automatic weapons. cattle, women and children were taken. this was during the time of this ppa. many cases they were living off the land and this put them in conflict with villagers in areas they were patrolling. activities i've observed appeared like moose to secure territory.
some parts of the country were moving as if they were still. [inaudible] >> what i observed is the violence in south sudan did not happen in isolation. it seems coordinated, intentional and uses a mean to an end. it was used to ensure favorable outcome in election and used to increase territorial control and grazing land for cattle for one group at the expense of another. it was used to intimidate journalists and un staff. at one point when i was there there was an issue where the south sudanese police had arrested, jailed and beaten him and charged them with false charges for counterfeiting. i think that's important to note in the discussion that the head of the human rights for the un was being intimidated. that says a lot about what was going on. much of the violence that was
taking place in the pre-referendum. seems to be motivated by establishing control and determined. [inaudible] friends and family from tribes were concerned that the expansion in other areas. seemingly with the support of the s pla or large enlisted groups such as the white army, some shared concerns that it would increase and lead to war. these are concerns that south sudanese colleagues were sharing with me as we were running into the referendum. many said now the real country will begin. they were concerned about the large number of soldiers. during that time the leadership tried to display a more unified front and invested heavily in reaching out for support for independence. the people were enthusiastic
and hopeful that an independent south sudan would pursue nation building, develop infrastructure and work together to build a nation. on the run-up to the referendum they strongly supported society groups our educating south sudanese about the democratic process and governance. those hopes were never realized. what happened is a continuation of what was happening before independence. they achieved violence to achieve their goal. the civil society groups that were previously supported became enemies of the state as they report on corruption and advocated for more inclusive and transparent government.
recently, in speaking to a former colleague, one of the things she commented on was that she felt during the referendum. that the leadership intentionally pulled the wool over the eyes of the south sudan citizens. she felt they were given limited options in terms of the choices and that it was really all about the leadership maintaining control. when looking back at 2010 elections and the referendum i feel that an expedient solution with pda and peace, reconciliation, cohesion and promoting a unified identity on a national scale did not happen despite the presence of actors in the international community and the will and desire of the people of south sudan. although there was a great deal of investment to ensure that the election and referendum took place, not enough was done on the front and to make sure they would have a viable solution.
the creation of a new independent state was not enough to ensure an end of violence and the first step towards peace. the process that led to independence, there feeling was that the process that led had limited engagement in society. it was primarily made up during the sudanese civil war. many of the conflicts that occurred carried over into the birth of south sudan as an independent nation without resolution. the same actors are now once again in conflict and charged with bringing an end to the war. it was seen that without greater political engagement south sudanese society, ensuring there were many people at the table and real political will. >> steve, may i chime in
quickly. >> in the interest of time, if you might give us one final comment and then i'm going to move to mario. >> my final comment was thank you. that was it. incidentally, i would, speaking to the un and particularly to the time i was there, i think even now we are seeing it's the largest un mission on the ground. i also think we need to look at during this period the mission was never adequately supported. i deftly have a lot of issues of how things were done i think, in a certain content there was enabling of some of the leadership in south sudan without really having the will to step up and push back against it. i also think that has a lot to
do with the general political will of the international community in general. the un. [inaudible] at the end of the day they respond to the will of the member states and they think, if you look at other cases around the world when members of the p5 come together and make a decision that were going to move on something and one other country step in and step up as well and follow their lead, you see outcomes that are much more, use the actual process is moving. i think right now we are in a situation where things are stopped and are stepping back and waiting for some of the else to take the lead. unfortunately, i think we keep waiting all we will see the continued deterioration of the situation in south sudan. in particular, my last point would be, a lot of the
violence that was happening was definitely targeted. i felt like a lot of it was based on moving different groups off their land and maintaining control now i think you're seeing a much more different version of that. areas of south sudan that were not experiencing great amounts of violence are now the epicenters for violence. >> thank you for the insight. i just want to make an administrative point that if you have questions developing in your head or that you've scratched on notes that he very had, this would be the time to call or raise your hand to receive a note card for our q&a which will ensue right after mario gives his remarks. quickly, after having that rundown from steve, i wanted to turn to mario who is a former lecture at the john
durango memorial university in south sudan to give us his insights not only as a south sudanese but also is one whose focused on politics and governance in the region as well as refugee issues. we will turn it you. >> thank you very much. i was there for three years. also. [inaudible] i would like to be independent. want to live outside, like me,
i was in northern kenya before i came here. with the issue mentioned, south sudan is very complicated. sometimes one doesn't know until once you get to something else. did not know south sudan was such a complicated country until i went there and spent three years. the country itself, south sudan cannot get independence
from other european colonies. it got its independence from sudan. that neighboring country, sudan has a deep-seated interest. [inaudible] the interest that focuses on the left is to make sure that south sudan on on one of the reasons why, this has become an issue. each of this tribe has its own interest in how the country should be run.
telling them not to go back or they won't qualify for the benefits. coming here and seeing that the governmen government of sudan is making it impossible for people to go out of their villages. where my family members in that camp, well it happened, what can you do. but they know that because it says you cannot be an idp in your own district.
that they are together. this is one of the reasons i say south sudan is more complicated than we think. [inaudible] i lived there for three years, by the way. i've seen this with my own eyes. i've been part of the issue. thank you very much. >> thank you mario. our first question, i think we compose to the entire panel who would like to speak to it, but it is specifically reference to a point that linda was making earlier. that is the role that the u.s. government played in the birthing of independence of south sudan, and what
specifically the u.s. should do to help bring about a political resolution in the conflict. i like to say that i've been working on south sudan since 2002. i saw it through the bush years and i was also up close and personal because i started the national security council under obama during the referendum time when we're talking about how we would bring independence about and so, i will say that during this time there was a strong realization that the terms of the comprehensive peace agreement had not been met fully. i think there was a strong recognition that the 2010 elections were not where they needed to be.
i think there are a lot of and resolved issues and a government that felt like they had to stand up on their own even as that point in time will revenues were high. at the same time, when we went around and did checks with people in the country, you have to remember it happened not within south sudan but that we were excited and optimistic about their future and we heard very clearly from people that they didn't want western countries taking over their countries. they wanted separation and the vote on time and they thought they could sort through these other things by themselves.
they tell people you're not ready for that yet, you need to wait and there's some other steps or do we say no, this is your right as with negotiated under peace agreement but that we will be there as the united states continues to support you going forward. there was a lot of concern that if the referendum did not happen on time that there would've been a civil war that started right then. there was a call was made to move forward with the referendum and you have dedicated budgets for south sudan at the state department and that, even for defense. there is even after separation
that the envoy would move forward. there was a thought that the envoy was only to accomplish the peace agreement and help with norway, the u.s. and uk and un and move out from there. at that point time we said there is going to be a lot of other things to resolve. the united states needed to remain involved. that was a special relationship that continued with south sudan before and after the referendum took place. understanding that a lot of the terms of the cpa and challenges would continue after. with that understanding, moving forward, that is the time that we are in now. the question is one of the choices and the decision-making that happens now that we are in this time where you actually have to deal with the new country but you know they're not protecting their civilians rights.
>> the next question touches on ashley's presentation. this questioner is curious about the impact on u.s. foreign aid in south sudan since the departure and re- engagement by the usaid by some of the partners who were there right up in the lead up to the conflict, and how that may have impacted our overall mission, objectives and achievement of goals in south sudan. >> usaid continues to be enforced, to be actively implementing programs to respond to the crisis. we did a revamp of what we were doing after the 2013 violence broke out. we had primarily, in line with
linda, we had a mission to support south sudanese as a country and a lot of programs geared in that way and there was obviously a fundamental shift when the contacts changed and we emerged into a humanitarian crisis beginning in 2013 and our programs adjusted accordingly. certainly, after last year's violence there was an impact on international personnel that needed to leave the country, but we have returned usaid personnel back into our mission, our partners are back, we are implementing programs actively and so i think the message that we will continue to do that. we will continue to be there to mitigate the impact of this
conflict to the extent that we can. >> thank you. mario, there is a question i think maybe you might be best placed to answer since we talked about this before we came up on the stage, and that is, what has been the role of the oil industry in particular , especially in relation to foreign investment in oil in south sudan and the ways in which those competing factors have contributed to the conflic conflict. >> 90 some percent of the government come from oil. it is by the economy is said to have collapsed because the oil prices is down. so, south sudan, the oil industry. [inaudible]
the oil companies are there. bp is there, the chinese companies are there so it makes it more complicated than otherwise thought. we don't see these immediately. oil is doing a good thing because it's a source of income, but at the same time it is much of the problem today. >> another question relates to vestiges of the british colonial legacy in south sudan. since i spoke about that little bit in my opening remarks, i will try to answer to that.
i think the answer is yes, when you look at the fact that sudan and south sudan were administered as two different countries under the british colonial administration from 1899 until 1856, they had, in the 1920s what they call the closed-door ordinances. that essentially stated that people from southern sudan would not be allowed to enter northern sudan and people from northern sudan would not be allowed to enter southern sudan. no exchange in business, no exchange culturally at all. then they decided the north was more advanced, more prepared to be integrated into the modern world. they allowed islam to continue to flourish. they allowed the arabic language to be the predominant
language in terms of education and commerce and in the south they decided they would bring in missionaries from the uk and educate them primarily in english. their plan all along was to integrate itself into what they called british geese africa which would have been a combining of that territory with kenya and uganda. they never intended for the nation actually to be unified. in addition, they made a decision that the south was backwards and it wasn't ready to join the modern world which, as i stated earlier was essentially the same position that every entity that had governed south sudan had. then you follow that up, january 1, 1956, independence
comes in the british just disappear, essentially examining two nations that for over 50 years never administered as one nation and then no one could figure out why they couldn't get along so clearly that legacy is problematic for what we see happening in south sudan now. another question i had for you guys, as we prepare to close, is a pretty broad question. some of the answers that we have given already may cover some of this, but i will try it anyway and that is, given all the all of you have shared , how would you assess the capacity and political will of the u.s. and international actors in this moment to meet the crazies in south sudan. the u.s. has no for its -- is known for its can-do attitude.
do you think the international order is prepared to resource and properly coordinate an effort where we can't seem to find leverage point to bring the parties to the table and perhaps we can close on that question. each of you who choose can do so. >> i tend to be an optimist and maybe part of the is some of you know that they performed on world refugee day. issues like south sudan were people from the laughter from the right can actually agree that we don't like human suffering, as americans, we actually care about it a lot
and that even with political attempts to cut foreign assistant bills, the one thing that you see pretty consistently is the hill coming forward and saying no we don't like famine, we don't want people to starve, we do want a solution. what we are seeing right now, and this is why a call the crisis of leadership is that nobody wants to step up and take the lead. that doesn't mean were not born billions of dollars of resources into self there and that people don't care and other people are suffering. in that sense, the fact that were willing to spend money and be engaged is absolutely encouraging to me because what you often see is people saying we don't really care what's going on in that faraway place. we've got a first step for the world community and that people are willing to actually resource this. what they are lacking right now is how do we stop it, how
do we the fighting, what are the solutions in the options? it's about the region, the african union, neighboring countries standing up and saying we have an illegitimate government that is violated all sorts of international norms. we will not stand by and let them continue to do so. the chinese oil workers, the p5 chinese workers have been killed, they've had to shut down productions multiple time. they are losing money right now. they should have an interest in this. russia, we've seen terrible stories about russia funneling funds and equipment into south sudan that were aiding and abetting in the war. i think the international community has been clear to russia that right now we don't like what you're doing. there is a lot of movement and momentum and work that can happen in the security council.
several months ago they were still struggling with leadership issues. the african leadership should now be able to step forward. they have a mediation team and the u.s. government itself is putting billions of dollars into this, as has the uk and norway. this is something that given the money and given the fact that everybody agrees that this is not right, what's happening, it's not as hard we need to put pressure on all of these institutions to say stand up for what you actually believe in, stop making this more difficult than it has to be, and start putting pressure on these leaders to do the right thing. >> thank you linda. go ahead ashley. >> it just want to emphasize that the u.s. government continues to care and invest deeply in what is happening in south sudan.
it's always been an issue that has garnered bipartisan support. i think we can anticipate that same level going forward. >> did you want to provide some final comments on where we go from here? >> following up on linda and ashley statement, i don't see, i think all the elements are ther there. we've seen it before when international community comes together with regional actors. we've seen that we can come together and bring about a solution to what seems to be an impossible problem. i was in liberia in early 2000 and people thought that was how on earth, and it was. two years after the end of the war, i was standing talking with colleagues from different areas and you didn't feel like
you are in a place of work. people stepped in. there was reconciliation process and accountability and leadership. this is something that we can do. it is an incredibly complicated situation and sad situation is getting worse by the day, but this isn't the first time this has happened. we have seen when we get together and take action in a unified manner that we can bring about resolution. >> excellent, thank you for that. mario, closing thoughts.
>> sunday night on "after words," temple university professor keith davis examines gender identity in his book beyond trends, does gender matter? use interviewed by sarah ellis, glaad president and ceo. >> when we're talking about transgender discrimination i think we're talking about something different which is about the predicates of those stereotypes. so it's not so much about what you should shouldn't do as a matter woman but do you get to belong to the category of man or woman in the first place. and so i think that's an important kind of distinction to draw. transgender people just like anybody experienced traditional sexism, but what i try to point out in the book is something else going on when we talk about transgender which is sex identity discrimination which is about belonging to the categories themselves. >> so you put forward in this
book that we should eliminate those categories in a lot of different places, right? so from a birth certificate to college or professional level, sports, right, and anything in between are most things in between. >> watch "after words" sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> yesterday on capitol hill u.s. capitol security budget was a focus of a senate appropriations subcommittee hearing. lawmakers heard from the senate sergeant at arms and the capitol police chief just 15 days after majority whip mr. scalise and to capitol police officers were shot in alexandria, virginia. this is about 45 minutes.