tv Hearing Focuses on Violence in South Sudan CSPAN September 7, 2016 2:00pm-4:31pm EDT
disabled veterans. >> will though incorporate into the commission on care? >> yes. >> who else compromises the commission? what are their back grounds? >> it's a tremendous group. i want to -- if i can find it here. here. i will let you look. these are very, very skilled and competent people. >> health care professionals, physicians, veterans service organizations, others. >> this is found online. if you want to find the report and read it our guest representative and serves on the veterans affairs committee. next call for him is gene in jackson, michigan. >> caller: i have been going to the v.a. hospital in ann arbor michigan for 15 years. it's the best medical care i have had in my life. i have had to go there two occasions unannounced for urgent care and i never had to wait
more than a half hour to be taken care of. all you are to do if you want to fix the v.a. is just send them down to see how ann arbor is run. i think a lot of this is overblown. someone is behind this. if they want to privatize the v.a. i think that's behind a lot of it. there has only been two improvements on the v.a. in ann arbor. once when bill clinton was president and now they are doing more work under obama. you guys didn't take care of it. you got after the -- not the vietnam war but persian gulf war you got flooded to country with hundreds of thousands of wounded and sick soldiers and you just wasn't prepared for it.
right now i don't think there is less than one percent that is from world war ii and i'm 80 something years old. i'm one of the youngest korean war vets. >> thanks, caller. >> thank you. there are 154 v.a. medical centers in the u.s. ann arbor sounds like a great place to go. there is a v.a. medical center in johnson city, tennessee.
we were cautioned by ambassador booth at the time. in your testimony you said these were the most significant advancements yet in implementing the peace agreement but you cautioned and said it is only a first step towards lasting peace, the most difficult work still lies ahead. those words were prophetic and very, very true especially given what happened in july. peace was never fully established in south sudan. as we all know fighting spread to areas that had not previously seen armed conflict. an estimated 50,000 have been killed since december of 2013. more than 2.5 million have been displaced and 4.8 million face severe hunger. according to the mission in the republic of south sudan gross violations of human rights have
occurred on a massive scale. women have long reported cases of sexual assault by armed forces throughout the country, sometimes in sight of bases. this past july between 80 to 100 armed soldiers broke into the apartment compound which houses aid workers and for several hours they sexual assaulted women, beat residents, murdered one journalist and looted the facility. even though their own personnel lived in the compound and officials say various components didn't respond to orders to mobilize within the organization. u.n. peace keepers were just minutes away but refused to intervene despite being asked.
contingent of military rescued the victims from other rampaging troops. the investigation by the government is scheduled to be completed within days and just over the weekend ambassador samantha power has asked there to be an independent panel to look into what happened there. and there must be consequences for those who are found guilty. the rapidly deteriorating security that nato undertake emergency mission two weeks ago along with staff director. i have known since he first became vice president in the government of the republic of sudan in 2005. i met him only weeks after he assumed that office. i hoped my visit might convey to him the outrage over the murder, rape, sexual assault, attack on aid workers and the precarious
situation that his government faces. south sudan is at a tipping point. united nations will likely take up a measure to impose an arms embargo if they do not see implementation to deploy some 4,000 peace keepers. the international monetary fund recommended a mechanism for financial transparency and that meets next month. likely expecting a response from south sudan. meanwhile, the house and senate both had measures that had arms embargo embedded in it, as well. in juba we met with president kier, other members of the cabinet and his defense minister and took the top members of his general staff including the chief of general considered by many to be a power behind the scenes. >> the widespread rape and
sexual exploitation must stop now and perpetrators must be prosecuted in response both president kier and defense minister agreed to produce a zero tolerance presidential decree against rape and sexual exploitation by armed forces. such a decree not only informs perpetrators that they will be punished for actions and places government on the line. u.n. commission described the government to hold perpetrators of abuses accountable as, quote, few and inadequate and that, of course, must change. he also gave us a copy of a presidential order forming a commission to investigate the incident. the results of that is due any day now. there are four military officers and one civilian in custody for looting the compound but no one has been arrested for sexual
assault, beatings or the public murder of a journalist. one of the victims of sexual assault is from my congressional district. after relaying horrible details of the assault she gave us the name of the soldier who, quote, rescued and who might be able to provide information to prosecute those who attacked her. as you know there were about 20,000 humanitarian workers in south sudan 2,000 of whom who are from the united states. there was not greater security in the personnel vital assistance will diminish at a time that it is needed most. the exploitation of children must stop, as well. 16,000 child soldiers recruited since the civil war began in
december of 2013. the u.s. state department trafficking persons report gave south sudan a failing grade in part because -- there is time for south sudan to make its pivot by implementing a comprehensive peace accord including and especially establishment of court signed one year ago. time is running out. it is a very, very fluid and unfortunately volatile situation. the governments are guarantors of south sudan peace all have expressed their disgust with the government and its armed opposition for not adhering to the peace agreement and providing for security in the well being of people.
expressions of disdain are not enough. this area is not only intended to examine culpaability but to try to find solutions to safe guard the future. as a garren torof peace the united states can and should do no less. i would like to yield to my friend and colleague. >> thank you for your trip that you and made. i know it was on very short notice but a very important delegation. i'm glad that you did that and also that we are having this hearing so quickly. i also want to thank ambassador booth and ambassador limen. i'm glad we will be hearing your testimony today. i was in south sudan in november and i went there with a small delegation to look at the u.n. peace keeping mission at the time and that was before machar returned. the question was will he return and will the nation hold to the
agreement? it was shortly after president kier had divided up the nation and expanded the provinces. we were very concerned about how you could possibly since that was done after the peace agreement, how can you hold to the power sharing that had been agreed to in the peace agreement if you have reconfigured the entire geography of the nation. at the time we were concerned about what is happening then. now what is going on and how it is victimized south sudanese citizens. in response to the crisis i joined several of my colleagues in a letter to president obama outlining the severity of the deteriorating situation in south sudan and calling on the u.s. to lead the way and calling for an
arms embargo on south sudan to stop the needless killing, endless brutality. the august 12 decision to renew the proposed revision and inclusion of additional 4,000 strong regional protection force must be applauded but there must also be clarification regarding specific rules of engagement. i understand that the government agreed to the additional regional protection force as recently as sunday. i look to ambassador booth to outline the next steps which must be taken to bring an end to the nightmare of violence not only by the long-term suffering citizens of south sudan but also by the foreign nationals who with total disregard for personal welfare seek to assist these citizens. several of the questions that i have we'll get into in the dialogue but i want to propose those in the beginning. the central question is what
more can we do? an arms embargo, will it be effective? it seems as though there needs to be a whole international effort that is beyond and i want to know what your thoughts are in terms of the au and the capacity. and also in terms of uness what will their role be? will they be able to intervene and be aggressive or are they just going to be in a position where they will watch something happening. i just think that this situation has reached and we all know this, has reached dire proportions. i was in nigeria a couple of weeks ago. a staff member from the state department had just been evacuated and sent to nigeria. i really want to be as specific as possible. it's important to understand the situation but i really want to get down to the brass tax of now
what? what can we do? what can we do as a nation and what should the world do? because otherwise i just don't see the situation getting particularly better. with that, i yield. >> thank you. chair recognizes mr. donem. >> i will yield my time so we give the witness more time to testify. >> i want to thank all of our witnesses and ambassador booth for being here today. i look forward to hearing from you on the deteriorating situation in south sudan and what we can do to be effective in responding. i was optimistic when south sudan emerged as independent country however the civil war that has ravaged since 2013 has escalated alarmingly since the subcommittee's last hearing in
april. the impact is devastating and potential for even deeper crisis is greatly disturbing. massive and chronic humanitarian needs, high level corruption but increasing human rights abuses including recruiting child soldiers. officials averted targeted attacks may constitute war crimes and reports civilians have been directly targeted often along ethnic lines. forces have committed widespread violence. more than 260 attacks in 2016 alone including an attack on residents for aid workers which resulted in assaults of several americans. the dangers faced by foreign aid workers could have a devastating effect on relief efforts. this is a critical time.
if the current crisis cannot be brought under control and the situation would likely deteriorate and could spin into chaos. i hope the decision to allow the protection force to deploy will enable the beginning of real improvement in this dire situation. i look forward to hearing from witnesses on what else we can do to support stability in that part of the world. i thank our witnesses for being here. >> we are joined by ed royce of california. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i would just start by commending you, chairman, for your sustained focus on the crisis in south sudan. as all of you know chairman smith just travelled to engage with our embassy there and to engage with our other partners. this is the fifth, i think, south sudan specific hearing that the committee has held since this crisis began.
what is unfortunately and frankly maddening is the underlying problems haven't changed in the past three years. it is still a man-made crisis. it is still a crisis political in nature. and what does change, what changes every day is the number of innocent south sudanese killed, tens of thousands have been killed, millions have now been displaced. and i very much appreciate the recent senior level engagement of the administration including secretary kerry's trip to the region and ambassador samantha powers leading of a security council delegation to south sudan. i was on the phone a few hours ago with secretary susan rice on this issue. it is really unclear whether this high level diplomacy can have an impact on the ground.
one of the oddities here is that the anti-american sentiment is growing as of late. there is reporting today of an incident in which the presidential guard deliberately opened fire on a u.s. diplomatic convoy traveling through the city. i understand command and control of armed forces in south sudan is practically nonexistent in this situation, but there should never be an instance in which american diplomats should target after lengthy security council negotiations, the security council approved of deployment of regional force. i met with the secretary general recently of the u.n. on this
issue. and i shared that we welcome the establishment of force, but i know how difficult it is going to be moving this from concept to reality. it's going to be far from easy. especially envoy booth in your prepared testimony you explained that if the secretary general reports that the government of south sudan is impeding the new forces deployment, the administration would be prepared to support an arms embargo. we made similar threats and other resolutions. i'm not sure anyone takes that threat of an embargo seriously anymore. i hope that we will be serious in terms of implementation of it. interestingly in your prepared testimony you made no mention of the existing executive order that would allow the sanction of individuals who threaten peace
in south sudan. i think that is worth contemplating. i look forward to hearing from you why no one has been added to the u.s. sanctions list in over a year. there were surely people who deserved to be on that list. if we fail to hold south sudan's political leaders on both sides accountable for the atrocities committed we cannot expect anything to change. i thank you and i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. rooney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for letting me sit in on your hearing. mr. ambassador, since the sciencing of the peace agreement in august 2015 and violence in july the u.n. security council and the u.s. have failed to implement an arms embargo in south sudan. the u.n. and the u.s. have failed to sanction additional
individuals that we have proof have been involved in the attacks against civilians and continue to procure weapons and military equipment. secretary kerry in february in state foreign ops committee both told me that the u.s. is committed to holding senior officials accountable for continued cease fire violations and human rights violations that undermine the terms of the peace agreement. you both said that the administration would be willing to implement sanctions on such individuals. secretary kerry stopped short of endorsing an arms embargo. in august during a trip to africa secretary kerry threatened to with hold humanitarian assistance if leaders continue to violate the peace agreement. so i'm curious to hear your testimony why the u.s. is threatening to with hold assistance to the people of south sudan rather than holder
leaders who perpetuated the violence accountable through sanctions. i would like to know who in the administration is preventing additional individuals from being sanctioned and who do not want to implement an arms embargo. thank you, i yield back. >> i would like to welcome ambassador booth. donald booth was appointed special envoy on august 28, 2013. he previously served as ambassador to ethiopia and liberia. prior to that he was director of office of technical and specialized agencies. he has served as director of the office of west african affairs. deputy director of office of southern african affairs, economic counselor, division chief of bilateral affairs. your full resume will be made part of the record.
the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, chairman smith, ranking member and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. i want to discuss some of the tragic events that occurred over the past two months without ignoring the bitter reality on the ground i want to focus remarks today on the possibilities for the way forward. chairman smith, as you know from your visit south sudan is in a dire state. the most recent outbreak of violence in early july created perilous security situation in many parts of the country. the humanitarian situation as many of you have noted is one of the most extreme in the world with 4.8 million people, over 40% of the population facing life threatening hunger, 2.5 million displaced and the economy in free fall. serious crime is part of daily
life and aid workers and their supplies are targeted, as well. the violence in early july came about because neither president nor first vice president was willing to work with the other to implement the peace agreement or to set up the security arrangements that were designed to prevent or return to fighting. we saw the moment of greatest optimism since the signing of the august 2015 peace agreement. the establishment in late april of the transitional government, we saw it shattered by the irresponsibility and ruthlessness of south sudan's leaders. both leaders lost control of their forces during a moment of tremendous political fragility and government soldiers engaged in sexual violence including attacks on foreigners. i would be remised not to pause here and praise the work of ambassador and her team at embassy juba.
they have faced enormous hardships and real danger in doing their jobs and their work has been extraordinary. they have against long odds reserved the engagement needed to help the people of south sudan. they have done so despite two events that i know are on your minds. first on the night of july 7 just a few hours after a deadly encounter between government and opposition security forces, two vehicles carrying several diplomats were fired upon by government soldiers. fortunately, because they were both armored vehicles the occupants were not injured. ambassador confronted the following day and received an apology as well as assurances that there would be a thorough investigation. that day, however, was also the same day that major fighting broke out between the government and opposition. the second event was much more tragic. the attack by scores of
uniformed government security forces against the camp where 12 americans and other third country and other nationals were located. the attack involved hours of looting, beatings, rapes and murder of a journalist. i would like to express at this point my personal condolences to john's family and to all survivors of the attack. that attack occurred towards the end of two days of heavy fighting which saw government forces drive out the security contingent. even as shooting raged as soon as the embassy was alerted to the attack, ambassador fee contacted security officials whom she believed still had command of their forces and convinced them to intervene. i want to stress that she did everything in her power and resources in those circumstances
to assist those who were under assault at the camp. in the after math of the attack our priority was the care and evacuation of the victims and then to protect their privacy and to demand justice for them. my written testimony contains a thorough account of what we know of the awful events as well as what we are doing to ensure safety of our personnel. i would like to focus the rest of my statement on what i see as the way forward or at least a way forward. first, in the wake of the fighting in july political accommodation to avoid further fighting and suffering remains as important as ever. given that neither president kier nor former vice president could prevent security entourages from fighting we do not it would be wise for him to return to his previous position. this cannot serve as
justification to monopolize power. what is most urgently needed is creation of a secure space for inclusive political process to forestall further violence. that is why we strongly support intergovernmental authority for deployment of protection force to provide for free and safe movement throughout the capital. the rpv should contribute to stability and allow for demilitarization of juba. we must be clear that the government will need to allow the rpf to do its job once it is in juba. no political process can take place as long as large numbers of armed men and heavy weaponry remain in the capital. stabilizing the security situation in juba is only the first step. any political process to be credible and viable must be inclusive. i believe what is needed for political and military leaders in and out of government to meet
together to figure out how to jointly shoulder responsibility for preventing further blood shed. however, this can only succeed if those currently in power are willing to accommodate legitimate interests of others. the violence in early july drove out significant factions of opposition of former detainees and other political parties. these groups must be deterred from supporting any further violence. thus they must see a path for peaceful engagement. south sudan's leaders must look ahead to the creation of a professional inclusive national army and other security institutions. they need to be able to articulate an agreed end state of security sector reform. as any international support for contonement or ddr activities will depend among other things of the credibility of envisioned
security sector end state. the transitional government should prioritize legislation establishing an open process for drafting and ratifying a new constitution under which elections will be held at the end of a transitional period. in addition the transitional government should prioritize legislation regarding african union led hybrid court. a recent opinion survey showed 93% believed there can be no enduring peace without accountability. we agree. what i have described is a sequence of interdependent events. i'm describing them as a way forward not because it will be easy to implement them, but because it is difficult to see any other path that does not lead to a future of oppressive one party rule, renewed conflict or most likely both. i am not naive about the chances of these things happening.
our ability to influence events and steer leaders is limited. the security council's permanent representatives just returned from a trip to south sudan. we were pleased that the council is able to come to agreement with transitional government on several key issues including the government's consent to deployment of the regional protection force and to work with u.n. mission that is already there. however, we now need to see those words turned into action. if the secretary general's report finds the government is obstructing deployment of regional force or continuing to prevent from fulfilling the mandate we are prepared to support an arms embargo in the security council. beyond an arms embargo we stand prepared to impose restrictions on individuals involved in public corruption as official corruption has long history in south sudan and played a direct role in furtherance of conflict in the country. i would have liked to come
before this subcommittee today with better news. unfortunately, we now face a difficult and uncertain path for south sudan. it is a frustrating and disheartening situation particularly for south sudanese. we must continue to press to give peace a chance. thank you for inviting me to speak today. >> thank you so very much for your statement and your work, your fine work. without objection your full statement will be made a part of the record. just a few opening questions. i want to add my congratulations and thanks to u.s. ambassador to south sudan and her staff who have been working around the clock to try to secure the peace, provide for access of humanitarian aid workers which
is one of the biggest impediments and why so many young people especially children and babies are succumbing to starvation. they are working hard. i want to thank her for her leadership. let me ask you about the zero tolerance policy that the defense minister when i asked him said they would do against rape and sexual assault. he made it very clear that he was going to call the president to try to get him to do it, as well. we did meet and i raised it with him and he said he would do it. we called back since then, a little over a week. it hasn't been promulgated yet. of course, the mere issuance of a statement without implementation is not worth the paper it is printed on. we are hoping that the two will go hand in hand. good strong statement, hold the service members, armed forces to
account and police and put them behind bars when they sexual assault and rape and kill and maim. your thoughts on that. secondly, ambassador limen who will be testifying on the second panel who performed your job with great distinction when he was special envoy makes a point in his testimony that the new rapid protection force should not be under uness. greg simpens and i met with head of united nations mission. she said they tried to get commanders to make the trip which is only less than a mile away to try to save people who are under assault. they wouldn't go. this isn't the first time it has happened. they have the right rules of
engagement. they have a robust rules of engagement charter seven powers. he suggested it bener separate authority or mission. and then the access issue. it seems to me that if we -- as i said, people will do if there is not humanitarian access. the huge majority of workers are south sudanese who are in a special category of risk. and then security sector. you put the agreement under four basic baskets which are mutually inclusive of each other. security sector reform and justice and reconciliation. i think as you pointed out the court ought to be set up to hold people to account for acts of
impugnity and crimes against humanity. the security sector reform seems like the most daunting challenge with all the militias and all the lack of chain of command that appears to be the situation there. your thoughts on the prospects of meaningful systemic reform of the military? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me go through those. first of all, i want to thank you for being such a strong advocate for the zero tolerance policy on gender-based violence for rape and other such crimes and raising that at the highest levels. it is certainly something that we are following up on. unfortunately, like many commitments that are made when we meet with senior officials in south sudan the promises are not always turned into reality. but it is something that certainly is important and we
will continue to push on that. we will let you know what success or lack of success we may have in that regard. secondly, as regards to the regional protection force, there are a number of reasons why egad proposed and we have supported putting a regional protection force as part of the u.n. mission in south sudan. first of all, there is the issue of funding it. and a separate stand alone force under an african union or egad flag would have faced problems of being funded and would have severely delayed the ability to be deployed. doing it under the u.n. may not always be the fastest, but that is one of the things that i have been engaging on in my many trips to the region and talking with chiefs of defense and foreign ministry officials as well as other senior leaders to
ensure that the three countries that have pledged troops to this regional protection force would be prepared to move their forces very quickly. and we would be prepared to help them to move them quickly to do that. also, this force was designed in a way that it would be under one commander and that commander would report to the force commander but would have the authority and the mandate from the troop contributing countries to use that force for the very specific tasks of the mandate in u.n. security council resolution 2304 which is to ensure the free movement of people in juba to protect crilictical infrastruct
and in intervening should anyone be planning and engaging the attacks on u.n., civilians and a very broad mandate. again, in our discussions with troop contributing countries they have assured us that troops they would deploy to do the mission missi mission -- i understand the skepticism that many may have having looked at other u.n. missions but this seemed to be the most practical and expedient way of getting troops on the ground who could actually provide a security umbrella in juba. but as i said in my testimony just putting those forces on the ground will not solve the problem. they need the cooperation of the government and in the peace agreement particularly in the security arrangements that followed it that were negotiated after the signing of the agreement. there was a limitation of number of forces and the opposition
could have in juba. and all other forces were to be at least 25 kilometers outside of the city. so that is at least the starting point for taking the heavy weapons and many of the security forces that are currently in juba and getting them out and we would hope that the government would cooperate in further reducing the military footprints so that the citizens of juba can feel more secure and so that there is the room for the political dialogue that i have talked about. on humanitarian assistance, this is indeed a terrible situation. since the outbreak of this conflict 59 humanitarian aid workers have been killed making south sudan the most dangerous place for humanitarian aid workers, more dangerous than syria i am told. so this is a serious problem. it's something we have engaged repeatedly on in my visits, many visits i have engaged with
president kier defense minister and others on this. we keep receiving assurances that this issue will be addressed, that orders are issued, that they simply need to have a specific example so they can go after individuals who might have been harassing aid workers or stealing aid. frankly, this has become a systemic problem. shortly after the fighting in july there was looting of many different stores in juba. one was the world food program warehouse. it was very organized. a truck came with a crane not only to loot the food but to take the generator from the compound. so this indeed does need to be investigated and people need to be held accountable. i think that is the only way that the message will get out that the government is truly serious, that humanitarian aid workers and their supplies are meant for the people of south
sudan and should not be interfered with. this is going to be a continued engagement and a hard slog i'm sure with the government in juba. on security sector reform, the peace agreement and the security arrangements negotiated after it called for a security and defense sector review board to outline sort of the end state of security arrangements of south sudan, what the army would look like, police, et cetera. that board had just begun meeting when things fell apart in july this year. but even under the peace agreement it was foreseen it would not come to conclusion for about 18 months into the transitional period whereas the idea of contoning forces and beginning a ddr process was to start prior to that.
what i am proposing and i have said in my testimony is that we really need to have an idea of what the end state is. south sudan has suffered for too long as a heavily militarized state. probably understandable and it was the product of a long liberation struggle against the government so almost 50 years of struggle. it is time that south sudan in order to be able to be at peace and to prosper needs to be a less demill terrorized state. so can we get them to agree on the end state and if we agree that it is a sustainable and reasonable end state that is something we can look to support. really our leverage on getting a meaningful security sector reform is that we will not fund things if it isn't a reasonable outcome that we are driving towards. and then on the hybrid court,
again, we share frustration that this is moving more slowly than we would like. i have engaged numerous times and we had our legal experts engage with the african union. we are at the verge of giving them $3.3 million to actually begin some of the work. we have encouraged them to move forward on at least establishing an officer of the prosecutor so that testimonies and evidence can begin to be collected even before the court is established and judges can decide on who would be indicted or who would be looked at by the court. so that is something we want to push forward. i have discussed that with the african union special representative for south sudan, honorable president, former president of mali who has been deeply engaged for the past year, as well, in trying to sort out the problems of south sudan.
thank you. >> pthank you, again, mr. ambassador. i wanted to know if you could tell me the status of the former president and if you can review the role he is playing and then the status of that. we have talked about humanitarian aid. and i know no one wants to see that end, but how can humanitarian aid get to the population? you mentioned the world food program and the theft, the organized theft that took place. i wanted to know if that was the government or the opposition. you talk about -- we have talked about an arms embargo. i mention that in my opening. i wanted to know what is the position of the administration on arms embargo and where are
the south -- south sudanese getting arms from now? >> let me start with the question about the joint monitoring evaluation commission. he was appointed by egad to fulfill the role as chair of jmeg, a committee that is made up of south sudanese parties as well as members of egad plus. and he chairs monthly meetings of that group. his function is to oversee the implementation of the agreement and where the parties get stuck in implementing she to recommend ways forward. if the parties are blocking implementation his recourse is
to report to the u.n. security council. he has done a number of reports to those various bodies. he has tackled issues such as the problem of the 28 states, the impasse in seating of members of the transitional legislature and other elements of the agreement that the parties were unable to find a way to implement because they were not working in good faith with each other. after the events of july 8-11 it temporarily moved operations. they have gone back to juba. and one of the tasks that the security council asked to undertake is to hold a security work shop to determine the level and arming of forces that should remain in juba. i understand that president has convened a meeting held on the
22nd and 23rd of this month to look at that. those are the types of activities. we are one of the major supporters of jmec. we have contributed over $3 million to the operation of it. we believe it is a critical component for successful implementation for any part of the peace agreement. it has been criticized by the government in particular for being u surping government authorities. we see it as the neutral arbiter of implementation of the agreement. on humanitarian access, i just really would like to clarify one thing on what secretary kerry was expressing in the press conference. i really think what he was expressing there was not a plan to cut off humanitarian assistance from the united states but rather a frustration
with the continued interference with the humanitarian assistance that we are providing. and really trying to put south sudan's leaders on notice that they have to get serious about . that was the message -- >> i wasn't referencing secretary kerry, really. i mean i know there are concerns about that here. >> so, again, how do we get the humanitarian assistance delivered? it's a systemic problem and it's partly related to the criminality of the wfp warehouse incident, for example, occurred after opposition forces were driven from the capital. so it would have to have been government forces that were doing that looting. and again, that's the type of thing that needs to be investigated and examples need to be made of people involved in that activity. of the people that the government claims it has arrested for looting in the aftermath of the fighting in july, it's not clear to us that
any individuals -- of those individuals are particularly involved or being looked at for involvement in this attack. and then the arms embargo. what we have tried to do with the arms embargo, as it is a major tool, is to achieve progress toward peace by threatening it, and we have used that on a number of occasions, and we think it's one of the reasons that the government is seriously looking at allowing the deployment of the regional protection force. because they know that if there is impediments to that, and they know that many other members of the security council are already on record of supporting the arms embargo. but i think most importantly, what they heard when the security council permanent representatives went to juba this past weekend was a unanimous security council that
was saying, when we pass a resolution, even though some may have abstained on it, it is the security council that is speaking. and so, you have to take that seriously. and as i mentioned in my testimony, if the secretary-general reports that there is continued obstruction of this force, we are prepared to move ahead. and as we said in security council resolution 2304, which we have the pen on, that there is an appended resolution to be voted on, an arms embargo resolution, and we are also prepared to look at other tools, such as sanctions. i must say, though, our record in getting additional people sanctioned in the security council has not been good. we had what we thought was a very good case back about a year ago when fighting flared up in the area right after the signing of the peace agreement. and the two generals responsible
for this, paul malong on the government side and johnson maloney on the on significance side, we've put their names forward for sanctioning. and the council, certain several members of the council blocked that effort. so, even when you think you have a clear case, it's not easy to get the council to agree on that. and to be effective, travel and financial sanctions really do need to have the backing of a broader community than just in the united states. >> did you mention who's the primary -- or where is the primary place that they get the arms from? who's selling them the arms? >> they seem to have mainly come from the former soviet union area. but i think most of them come in through the grayer bla or black market. i don't have specific countries
that i can attach to specific arms platforms because, obviously, the government goes to some lengths to keep that information to itself. but clearly, it has access still to arms -- >> which is why i wonder about the effectiveness of an arms embargo, but anyway. >> well, that's why if an arms embargo is voted, it has to be something that is done by the security council so that it will have the impermature of that body and the weight of the international community behind it. >> so, mr. chair, before i yield, i just wanted to bring attention to someone who's in the audience who was a former intern with me, david akuth who was part of the lost boys and lost girls that has been living very successfully in the united states and is leading an effort with other lost boys and lost girls -- i should say lost men and lost women, because they're
all grown. but we actually plan to next week introduce legislation calling for a program that would be run by urks s, by the state department, to allow some of the former lost boys and lost girls to return to south sudan. those individuals who have come here, who have gotten their education, who have been successful and want to go back and give back to their country. obviously, no one would suggest that they go back right now, but given the length of time it takes to do legislation, we certainly would hope if a program like that was instituted -- it was one suggested many years ago by one of your former colleagues -- that it is something that we might consider. so, i just want to mention that, and i'll save my other questions for the next witness. >> mr. donovan? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, ambassador, for your service to our country. many of the things you spoke
about are troubling. two things i'd like you to address is, one, the recruitment of children to fight in these battles, and the other is the u.n.'s mission in south sudan's instability to protect the workers that are going there on humanitarian missions. and the last thing, if you have a moment, is you spoke about the path of peaceful engagement. i was just curious about how you think we get there. >> thank you, congressman. on child soldiers, i think the number was already read out, about 16,000 supposedly have been recruited during the course of this conflict since december 2013. child soldiers had been a problem in south sudan before this current conflict. it's something that we had actually engaged very robustly with the ministry of defense prior to december 2013 on, and which we were making actually
some real progress in getting child soldiers out of the spla and even addressing those who were in many of the militias throughout the country. >> what ages are we speaking about, if you know? >> i've heard of children as young as 10, 12 being involved. it could be even younger in some cases. but this is, you know, something that we have been constantly engaging them on. now, during the height of the conflict, they were recruiting both sides, opposition and government, and they were utilizing militias. and many of these militias are sort of traditional youth organizations that go on traditional cattle raids, and there's sort of no distinction there in terms of age of majority, if you will. and so, they ended up being i think swept into the fighting. so that's part of the problem. but clearly, as we look, and i talked about a security sector
end state. clearly, we want to see a security sector end state that the government would support. they would have no place at all for child soldiers. and we will continue to engage on that. the state department last week, i think, issued a very direct statement condemning the use of child soldiers in south sudan and the continued practice of that there. on the problems protecting humanitarian workers, i'd like to just give a little bit of context. the u.n. mission in south sudan on december 14th, 2013, the day after the trouble started in juba, they had camps in juba and in other towns, their own bases that became the sanctuary of tens of thousands of south sudanese who were fleeing ethnically based killing.
and this was sort of a new move, if you will, for the u.n. to actually let people on to their bases in such numbers. but we think it was the right thing to do at the time and that it saved thousands of lives to have that happen. but what has resulted is the u.n. is now saddled with somewhere between 150,000 or so people that are actually now in, if you will, their own facilities, their own camps, that they have to provide static protection to. and in many instances, they don't control much of a perimeter around where their camps were. and so, it takes a fair number of troops to be able to provide that static protection. so this means that there are fewer troops available for moving out into the city, into the countryside, but we have had numerous successes. for example, back in april of
this year, ambassador phee worked diligently with the government in juba, the regional governor in unity state and the u.n. mission to put in a forward base in lear, which is in unity state, so it was a hotspot for humanitarian needs. and the humanitarian community was demanding protection there. and so, the u.n. did go and establish a forward base there, and that enabled humanitarians to access an area that they had not been able to get to for almost two years of the conflict. so, we've had successes like that in some specific cases. but the ability of the u.n. to be able to move about the country as well as in juba has been erestricted by the government. unmis has had two helicopters shot down by government forces over the years, one before the conflict, one since.
and when they need to fly, they need government permission to fly to make sure it's safe. and the government does not always give that. so, again, i would go back to the problem is partly unmis, but it's also the government which has not allowed unmis to do all that it could do to facilitate humanitarian assistance delivery, and that function, humanitarian assistance delivery and supporting that is one of the four key functions the security council has given to them, so they clearly understand that as part of their mandate. >> if you could spend a moment, as my time has expired, about your vision of how we get to this path of peaceful engagement. >> first step i would say is getting juba secured so there is space for a political engagement. now, why would those that are sitting in juba now who feel that they can implement the agreement where they are, why would they go forward on that?
i think the answer to that is that they have to ensure that these people that have been driven out over the past two months and others that felt already excluded from the peace process, if they're not given a peaceful path forward, a political path forward, is going to result in more widespread fighting throughout the country, and can this government afford that? is that what it wants its legacy to be, is a south sudan that goes down with more and more fighting a ining in more and mo of the country? so, there's going to have to be pressure on the leaders, for sure, but frankly, it's the only way forward that is going to lead to peace, is to have this open up some political space and have this discussion with others. >> thank you very much, sir. >> thank you. >> mr. meadows? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, let me come back
to a question that my colleague, ms. bass, asked you, because your response was a little troubling with regards to arms and where they're coming from and where they are not coming from. are you suggesting in your testimony that we don't know? because you said it was a gray market, but we have unbelievable intelligen intelligence, even in that region. so, are you suggesting that we don't know or that you can't say? >> well, congressman, what we do know i would have to address in a different setting than this. >> all right. that's fair enough. i just wanted to make sure we clarified, because here's my concern, ambassador. i have followed sudan and south sudan before there was a south sudan. and it has been a passion for my family from a humanitarian
standpoint. the stories, the true stories that have been told will break anyone's heart on what so much has not only been done but has not been done. and so, i appreciate you being the special envoy, your work there in a very complex and difficult situation. but what i've also come to find out is that from both sides, those who would be supportive of sudan and those who would be supportive of south sudan in a particular position, they believe that the united states has failed to live up to the promises that we have made and that we make threats that we don't follow through on. and even some of your testimony here today would seem to underscore that, that when we
talk about arms embargo or sanctions, does it not have a chilling effect if we ask for sanctions and they don't get passed by the u.n., that there's no consequences, that life is going to be like it always has been? >> well, first of all on the threats, and in particular, the example that i gave of the two generals. even then, while we were trying to get them on the list, we were using that as leverage to get them to stop the fighting. and they were both told directly that we were going to sanction them, we were proceeding in new york to do so, and the only way they could get out of this would be if they stopped the fighting. well, while the sanctions committee did not approve adding them to the list, it also did have the beneficial effect of the fighting dying down in the
same time frame. so, cause or effect. you know, i can't prove it, but -- >> but the results speak for themselves. he here's the concern i have. if we make too many idle threats that are not backed up by action, what ultimately happens is the threats become irrelevant. and ambassador, do you believe that our country, indeed the state department, is using all its leverage points to accomplish the task at hand on dealing with the issue in south sudan? are we using every leverage point that we have? >> congressman, i think we are using all the leverage points that we have. some take some time to develop. sanctions cannot be imposed, even bilaterally, under u.s. law without a rather extensive
package that could hold up in a court of law. >> right. >> so, oftentimes when you find you need to move against someone, you find that the actual evidentiary requirements are not there. this is, as you mentioned the idea of idle threats, this is one reason why we don't just take names up to the security council, if we don't think we can get them through. it's also why we, as we've often done with the arms embargo, we will say we will move on this and we will put the full weight of the united states behind trying to achieve this if you don't do "x" or "y." >> well, the reason i ask is because it sounds like you walked back a little bit secretary kerry's comments here tod today. and i guess, why would you walk those back? >> well, i'm certainly not trying to walk back what the secretary said, but our humanitarian -- >> that's what it sounded like. but you go ahead and clarify. that's why i'm asking. >> humanitarian assistance is something that we provide on the basis of need. it's not something we provide on the basis of political -- >> but it is something that we
must prioritize. and so, if some groups are using it inappropriately, there is more need than there is ability, even for a very prosperous nation like the united states. and so, do they understand that there is a priority for humanitarian relief? >> that is something that i think -- >> well, if they don't understand it, please let them understand it based on this hearing. >> i think it came across from what the secretary said. it certainly is something that i've made very directly to them, that they are not the only place in the world that needs humanitarian assistance, that there are many -- >> and this comes from someone who is, my kids collected money in tennis cans to give to them to support. so i mean, it's not out of a noncompassionate heart. let me ask you one other question. i think there's a new law about ngos. and 80% of those ngos having to be south sudanese citizens in
order -- is that correct? are my notes correct on that? >> yes. >> so, tell me about the implications. if that's indeed correct, would that not have a chilling effect on some of the work that the ngos have done and could do in the future? >> this ngo law is something that's been in the making for a long time, something that i've engaged on several occasions directly with president kiir on. yes, there is a provision that says the percentage of workers of ngos needing to be south sudanese. this is something that many countries do to try to ensure that aid workers or aid organizations are also hiring local staff. there are a number of problems with the bill that we've pointed out. a lot of them have to do, frankly, with things like excessive registration requirements and also very vague
references to sort of what is allowed and what is not allowed that allows the government to interpret whether an ngo is doing the right thing or not. >> all right, so, let me ask and be specific, then. this new law, do you see it having the potential of providing less humanitarian relief to some of the most needy in the country, the potential? >> we certainly see this law as having a potential impact on the ability of ngos, both international and local, to operate. >> so, does the president -- their president not see that? >> well, i'm sure that they do see that. >> but they think that we're just going to go ahead and just go along and fund it and create a jobs program? >> well, i wouldn't see this as a jobs program. i think most ngos probably do hire more than 80% of their staff being local. i don't think that's -- >> so why the need for the law, then? >> well, that's a good question, and these are some of the issues that we've raised repeatedly
over three years when this has been under consideration. >> well, if you could -- >> it is a problematic law and we've made that very clear -- >> okay, if you could, as the special envoy, take to their very highest government officials a sincere concern from members of congress on this new law that potentially the humanitarian relief that needs to get to needy families and citizens could be stopped because of the unintended consequences of a new law and that we would ask them to reconsider. and with that, i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. meadows. mr. rooney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, you know, you paint a very bleak picture in what we've talked about here today and the testimony you've given. i mean, we talk about a
government that has lost control of its military from time to time, an opposition that's gone, a government that's raided humanitarian and food aid from this country of which i sit on the committee which helps appropriate that money, which is why it's concerning to me. but as a catholic, it's also concerning to me that, you know, that this would happen in this day in age, that we as americans won't be able to do anything about it. and the other thing it seems like you've said that we have leverage to use is this arms embargo. and we keep threatening to use it, but we never really get there. and then i just notice that maybe it might be a political thing to say, if we use an arms embargo, then we're admitting some kind of failure as a government. i hope that's not the case. i hope that it's a sincere ploy or a sincere intention of this government to use an arms embargo, because guess what, what can it hurt if we actually do it? if this guy controls the government, there is no oppositi opposition.
he's used the term overmilitary risation. you used that term. if that's true and the only thing that we can control is how much militarization that's in that country, then what can it hurt if the united states does take the lead to say enough is enough? we've got diplomatic envoys being shot at, we've got all kinds of crimes that we've talked about against its own citizenry, we've got humanitarian aid and food being seized upon, we've got the opposition has fled, we've got a government that's lost control of its own military, and we keep threatening to use this arms embargo as if it's something that, well, you know, maybe, maybe if we say this one more time, we'll put this security force in there of 4,000 people, which i've got to be quite honest with you, i don't think they're going to do anything. i think that this is just going to keep going on and on and we're going to be right back here again at the next hearing talking about how this has
failed but we might use an arms embargo again. i just want to know, what will it hurt if we do it? i mean, is it an admission by the administration that we failed in south sudan? is that the problem? >> well, congressman, as i've said, it's a major tool, and to be effective, it has to be done multilaterally, not -- >> why? just do it. just use the united states as the leader of the free world and do it and other people will follow. who cares if it's unilateral? that doesn't make any sense! we build coalitions all the time and people follow us because we're the number one country in the world. we're the sole superpower. >> right. and because it is such an important tool, we have used it effectively, and we think we're using it effectively now to leverage a way forward for south sudan to get it back to a path of peace and political dialogue.
>> do you believe that? do you believe that we're going to create this space in juba, like you say, and there's going to be elections and a political process and a constitution and all that? do you really believe that, unless we do something affirmative? >> well, the something firmive we're trying to do is trying to get this force on the ground and get juba to be demilitarized. and this is the leverage we're using to try to get there. now, the south sudanese may well not cooperate with this, and in which case we're prepared to move forward with that, as well as potentially other sanctions, so -- >> okay. i hope you do. >> the frustration level, we hear it -- >> hey, you're on the front lines, so i appreciate your service. i'm not -- i just don't believe that any of this stuff is going to work anymore, and i don't think that the security force is going to work. i think that we need to move forward with an arms embargo now and stop as much bloodshed and killing as we can and protect the food and the humanitarian aid that mr. meadows talked
about getting in there by however means we need to figure out how to do that. because i think that's the only thing that's left to do is to help the people that are starving and being oppressed. but you know, trying to talk about elections and that kind of stuff, i don't buy it. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. rooney. mr. cicilline. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ambassador. mr. ambassador, what is your best assessment of the anticipated timeline for the regional protection forces, both troops and deployment? and how long do you expect that negotiations with the government will continue on the composition of the rpf? how long will that delay the deployment? and have any countries outside of the immediate subregion, besides rwanda, indicated that they might consider providing troops to the rpf? >> okay, on the timeline.
what i have been told by the military leaders in the region is that they are prepared to deploy the troops very quickly, within a matter of weeks, after there is permission from the government to go in. they've made it clear they're not fighting their way in to juba. the u.n. does not send missions to fight their way into countries. but if the government in juba accepts this force and provides land for it to be biovuaced on, what i've been told is they're prepared to move the troops very quickly. moving the equipment will take a little bit longer, and that's something that they've indicated that this the might need some help with. >> maybe i wasn't clear with my question. i recognize that the troops are prepared to -- i guess my question is what's the length of time the government is likely to engage in negotiations? that's really the unknown.
>> well -- >> piece, i think. >> there's also questions about how fast countries can actually mobilize their troops. >> right. >> but in terms of that, this is what the secretary-general's report, which should come out and will be discussed next week in the council, will be about -- is the government really moving forward to accept this force? and the message that was given by the security council visit that secretary kerry gave with regional leaders, including to the south sudanese who met in nairobi on the 22nd of august, was a clear message that we expect this force is going to be deployed, it's going to be deployed as envisioned by egad, which is with the troops from those three countries who are committed to this mission of actually the ensuring freedom of movement around juba, protecting the critical infrastructure, including the airport, and preventing violent actions, so protecting civilians in a more robust, not a static, manner. those troop-contributing countries have agreed to that
mission. so, we don't want to enter into a negotiation with south sudan on who the troop contributors will be, what arms they will need, how many of them can deploy. that is foreseen -- and what their mission will be. that's all in the resolution. and so, that's where we get to this idea of using the threat of the moving on an arms embargo and potentially other sanctions, if, indeed, the government tries to delay this. so far, their actions have been on the one day to say, yes, the next day to say maybe, the next day to say no and then to say, well, probably yes again. so, this isn't something that we are not going to have patience with to drag on. >> so that leads to my second question, mr. ambassador, and that is, what influence does the united states have with the government of south sudan to encourage them to develop a more inclusive, transparent and accountable approach to governance? and what other things might we do to accelerate that process?
>> when i was here in april and we were actually looking at trying to help a transitional government to succeed, one of the pillars of the peace agreement that i mentioned was this idea of the economic reform, and particularly strengthening the transparency of public financial management. and that's something that we believe needs to happen in south sudan. the clubtocrasy of the past must end. as i mentioned, we are continuing to look and utilize information to utilize sanctions that are available, particularly travel sanctions, for corrupt practices, to send the signal that being in charge in south sudan, it's not about just enriching yourself. trying to change a little bit of the mentality of those who might
lead the country going forward. so, a very important component. how do we get them to do it? again, i think our main leverage is, you know, what is it they want from us? at that point, they were clearly looking for support for their budget, for their economy, and they've recently come out again and said to the international community, we need $300 million from you this year. that's not going to be forthcoming, unless these types of reforms occur. >> and my final question, mr. ambassador. as the director of the african center for strategic studies has suggested that it may be time to put south sudan on life support by establishing executive mandate for the u.n. and the au to administer the country until institutions exist to manage politics nonvaliant and to break up patriots networks underlying the conflict. this were to be considered, how
do you think it would be executed given the sensitivity of the current government to foreign intervention and apparent rhett sans of some of the security council toward u.n. actions perceived to threaten south sudan's sovereignty? it seems like that would be a very difficult initiative to move forward, but i'd love your assessment of it. >> i've seen that proposal. we've looked at that idea. frankly, the u.n. cannot impose this on a member state. the african union i think certainly has absolutely no appetite for putting one of its member countries under an international trusteeship or guardianship, whatever you want to dress it up and call it. that is something that i don't see that we would have any support for. it's impractical, and i don't see how the south sudanese would ever accept it.
the visceral reaction they've had, even to the role of jmec in overseeing implementation of the agreement as an extra sovereign force, the reaction that they've had were the initial reaction to the regional protection force was, you know, not one more foreign soldier. we will fight them. this is a matter of sovereignty. i think we get the idea of how that would be received in south sudan. >> thank you. i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. before we go it our next panel, i would like to just ask. you know, i make it a point to always meet with the bishops, the faith community, the protestants, whatever the denominations might be, and even country. greg simkins and i met with archbishop marino akudu loro-a very good exchange on the reconciliation aspects of what the church can provide and also the humanitarian assistance. are we fully utilizing the faith community in south sudan? secondly, there's a foreign
policy article, september 6th, very disturbing. i was briefed on it when i was in south sudan about the gunning of -- the bullets that were sent in to two of our vehicles as they passed by salva kiir's compound by his troops. thank god nobody was hurt, but the state department says we don't believe our troops or personnel were specifically targeted, but the article's author, kallum lynch, points out that 50 to 100 rounds were pumped into the two vehicles. the armored suvs held laminated cards with the american flag on it and also the diplomatic plate number 11. are we investigating this? do we believe it was by design or by mistake? even by mistake is bad enough, but if it was by design. and finally on the sanctions. we've had sanctions for two years, ofac sanctions, the office of foreign assets
control. they are well laid out, child soldiering sanctions against persons contributing to the conflict in south sudan. there are only six people on it, and i wonder if you're looking at that to expand it and make it more robust in terms of those who meet the criteria laid out, so well laid out two years ago in this sanctions regime. >> well, mr. chairman, on your question about engaging with the faith-based community, yes, we do engage with them, both within south sudan and also the vatican. we've been in touch with them on numerous occasions and comparing notes on south sudan, and they have also engaged i think one of the senior cardinals who recently went there as an emissary for the pope. and a number of the religious leaders spoke out during the visit of the u.n. security council perm reps this past weekend in favor of the regional
protection force being deployed and moving forward on a political process. so, i think the faith-based community is finding its voice. we've also through usaid given it a $6 million grant to the south sudan council of churches to work on community-based reconciliation efforts. so we are engaging the faith-based community, i think. i think in the many meetings that i've had with religious leaders in south sudan, after the outbreak of fighting in december of 2013, they showed a lot of frustration, and the leaders seemed to have turned a deaf ear to them. and i think they are beginning now to, as i say, find their voice in unison, and it may become harder going forward. on the july 7th firing on two u.s. vehicles that contained several u.s. diplomats.
this occurred, as i mentioned, very shortly after a similar looking vehicles that were driven by the opposition forces, who had come into town on some mission, and they were going back to mashar's compound area, and they were driving in this -- it's always ain intense area right by the president's compound -- and they tried to stop that vehicle. the opposition people refused to get out of the vehicles and they sped off, and the soldiers fired at those vehicles. the opposition security officials in the vehicles fired back and killed i believe five government soldiers right in that very vicinity. so, it was a very tense environment. there were a lot more soldiers out on the street after that incident. and our cars came along, and they were -- it wasn't a formal
checkpoint. it was a lot of soldiers on the streets sort of waving them down. it was very dark, and our vehicles have tinted glass. so, even though for the brief time that they stopped and tried to show identification, it is not at all clear that these soldiers would have been able to see it or, frankly, even understand the license plates. you're dealing with, don't forget, with an army that's primarily illiterate. and so, when our vehicles, according to standard operating procedures, when they tried to open the doors of our cars, also sped off. the soldiers opened fire, just as they had when it had happened with opposition vehicles. and again, shortly, again, in the same area shortly after that incident, the country rep for unesco, an egyptian national, was driving in the area and encountered a similar problem, and because he was not in an armored vehicle, he was seriously wounded.
so again, to say that this was targeting americans, i'm not -- we did not deduce that from the circumstances, and the regional security officer working with diplomatic security back here in washington conducted an internal investigation of the events. and the review of that report is still ongoing. and we were very thankful, of course, that our people had the resources, that we had the fully armored vehicles there for them to ride around juba. it's why our security protocols call for them to be riding in armored vehicles in most parts of town and particularly after dark. and in response to that incident, the embassy's emergency action committee met the next morning and changed the curfew to a dawn to dusk. so, took appropriate actions to try to mitigate that. in terms of sanctions, let me
just say, yes, we share the frustration. i mentioned some of the difficulties of actually putting together packages that meet all the legal criteria, but we certainly will look at taking actions against those who continue to impede the peace process, are hindering humanitarian delivery and the like. >> yes, i just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that there are several people here from gabon, who are expressing their concern about the elections that took place. i just want you to know that we see you. we read your posters. i know you were asked to put them down, but we did see what they said. and we also are concerned. and i just want to acknowledge that your presence has not gone unnoticed. >> and i fully concur with the ranking member. thank you for being here. i would like to now yield to mr. meadows. >> ambassador, let me come back
with very, very quick points. i mentioned the ngos, and technology's a great thing, so i got some information that would suggest that even within the last few hours or few days that there has been potentially the shutdown of 40 ngos and the threat, if not the reality, of seizing their assets. are you aware of that report? >> we've received reports over the past several hours of harassment of a number of ngo civil society organizations -- >> so, you're saying that report could be accurate? you're getting the same -- >> it could be. we have to look into that and try to verify it. >> so would you get back to this committee right away on whether that is accurate or not? and i guess the second follow-up question to that is, if it is accurate, will you be resolute in your condemnation of saying that we will not tolerate that
behavior if our humanitarian aid is going to continue? >> i can assure you, congressman, that we will be very direct and very strong in a condemnation of any harassment of -- >> but it's seizing of assets and it's more than just harassment. so, that's my concern. so, will you commit to get back to this committee within the next seven business days to let us know what is happening on that? >> let me say, we'll get back to you as soon as we can confirm what's actually going on. >> what's a reasonable time? if seven days is not reasonable, what's reasonable time? >> again -- >> 14 days? >> not on the ground. 14 days? give us 14 days, yes, please. >> all right, 14 days. we'll do that. and the last thing is this, is you talked about a political environment which is open and inclusive. and yet, we're hearing reports that potentially someone took a letter to the u.n. security council and might have been
murdered after that. would you care to comment on what's happening since the u.n. security council's visit? >> well, some of this harassment of civil society that -- >> well, murder is more than harassment. >> -- that we've been hearing about as been subsequent to the visit by the security council. but it's something that has gone on in the past as well. we have long been engaged -- >> so, how much of that are we going to tolerate? >> -- suppressed movement and freedom of movement for the ngos and the like. >> how much of that are we going to tolerate? >> well, it's a matter of what can we actually do to affect that behavior? >> well, i'll yield back. we have many leverage points. thank you, mr. chairman, for your flexibility. >> thank you, ambassador booth, for your leadership and for spending your time today with us at the subcommittee. thank you. i'd like to now invite to the witness table ambassador princeton lineman, senior adviser to the president of the
united states institute for peace. he served as u.s. special envoy for sudan and south sudan from march 2011 to march of 2013. as special envoy, he led u.s. policy in helping in the implementation of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. ambassador lyman's career included deputy assistance secretary of state for african affairs, u.s. ambassador to both nigeria and south africa, and assistant secretary of state for international organizations. he also is a member of the african advisory committee to u.s. trade representative who began his career at usaid and served as its director in ethiopia. we will then hear from mr. brian adeba, a journalist by training, previously an associate of the security governance group think tank that focused on security sector reform in fragile countries. over the last few years, his research interests have focused on interlinkages of media
conflict human rights and security. he supervised the coverage of the conflict zones in door for, blue nile and eastern sudan for the boston-based education development centers radio project in nairobi, kenya. prior to this, he served as project and public communications coordinator at the think tank, the center for governance innovation in waterloo, canada. again, he is representing the enough project. ambassador, please proceed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me begin thanking you personally for all the support you and the committee provided when i was special envoy and you and congresswoman bass and the members of the committee continuing to focus attention on these set of issues. it's very important and it's very much appreciated. i'm not going to go over the background to the situation.
i want to address some of the key questions that you've raised and have been raised in the previous exchange. let me start with the peace plan itself, around which the various activities are organized. the egad peace plan, which was signed in 2015, on paper is a very comprehensive agreement, but it has a fatal flaw to it, and that is it rests very largely on the willingness and ability and commitment of the very antagonists who brought the country into civil war to carry out a fundamental political transformation. it is not in their interests to do so. and what we've seen over the last year or so is that instead of carrying that forward, they fell back into conflict, and now
mashar has been driven out of the country. without a strong international oversight and administrative oversight of this program, it was not likely to succeed. the second problem that we now face is that it would be a mistake to assume that with the auk session of dangi to the presidency, we have a government of unity. he does not demand the loyalty of all of the various forces that were fighting this government, and to assume that it's capable of carrying out a comprehensive and being inclusive would be wrong. it's not. now we have the humanitarian crisis which people have addr s addressed. it's an outrageous situation that the international community and the united states alone spending over $1 billion a year, that over 50 aid workers have been killed trying to carry out a humanitarian program, that
they've been attacked. and again, most recently in the terrain hotel. and both sides have impeded this activity that the international community seems to care more for the people of south sudan than the leaders on both sides. that's an outrageous situation. and what it does is really call into question whether the government has the -- can claim to the rights and responsibility of sovereignty, which goes with the claim of sovereignty. recently, kale holmquist, as congressman cicilline mentioned, and myself, did an op ed saying that there should be an international oversight administration of south sudan. without that, we do not see how this peace plan could go forward. ambassador booth described the
role of jmac under the peace plan and the role of festis mahai. the fact is that mechanism has no real authority over the parties. festis moo ma hi himself has said on several reports that almost no progress has been made on implementing the peace process. now, the proposal we made, of course it would be extraordinarily difficult to do, and ambassador booth indicated that. but here's the fundamental question and the fundamental challenge. the peace process is in the hands of egad and the african union, primarily. and if they are not prepared to amend the current peace process and create a true oversight authority, which they will back up, back up politically, back up by enforcing an arms embargo, by
taking other measures, then that peace plan won't work. now, if they're prepared to do that, then no one needs trusteeship or anything else. but the problem is that egad is badly divided. they are not in agreement. they have threatened an arms embargo many times but never followed through. and for the u.n. security council, we have an adage that guides your practicality. when the africans are divided, the security council is divided. you're not going to get sanctions through russia and china unless the africans are united and say this is what we want. and the africans are divided. the ega sdnk divided. so, even if the u.n. security council wanted to pass an arms embargo, those surrounding countries would have to implement it, make sure that arms weren't sneaking through, weren't being violated. so, the primary attention
effort, seems to me, for the africa union and for egad to decide exactly if they are in control of this process how to strengthen it. now, let me just come to this question of the 4,000 troops that are being added. as you pointed out, it's a question of putting these under unmiss and whether they will act differently. it's very difficult to contemplate a u.n. peacekeeping force confronting in an armed way the forces of the host government. i don't think very many u.n. peacekeeping forces are prepared for that. i'm not sure the security council is even prepared for it. so, the question is, is this force really going to have the mandate to confront not just outliers, but an attack like the terrain hotel complex and go up against government forces?
that is a very difficult thing to do, and it has to be backed solidly by the troop-contributing countries and by egad and by the u.n. and if they're not prepared for that, then this force may secure the airport, but they won't be able to protect civilians. now, the other question is the political context. putting more forces into juba without changing the nature of the peace process and the way it's enforced seems to me is going to have a continuation of the situation we now have. so, i think it is critical that the u.s., the international community, the united nations call upon africa union and egad to strengthen that process so there is a real oversight and enforcement of the peace process with sanctions and punishment for those who get in the way of
it. otherwise, we won't get the transformation we need. and i think that's the great dilemma that we now face in south sudan. thank you very much. >> ambassador lyman, thank you so very much, and again, thank you for your prior service as special envoy. mr. adeba. >> chairman smith, ranking member bass, members of the subcommittee, i want to thank you for your continued focus on south sudan and for inviting me to testify. impunity is entrenched in the system of rule in south sudan. the horrific terrain hotel incident is an example of that impunity. the country's leaders commit horrific crimes and treat state resources like their personal property. the country's money is captured by a few and used to wage war. with financial leverage on these leaders and your continued leadership and support, it is possible to counter this system
and the perverse inclinations of its leaders. it is possible to disrupt access to the process of corruption that fund war and to shift the incentives of south sudan's leaders toward peace. congress can do the following four things to have an immediate impact. first, congress can make sure -- politicians and leaders in south sudan who portray violence, loot public coffers to help with the process of ill-gotten wealth.
it is not the change that is needed in south sudan, so when we look at this, this is a call to action. third, you can push for stronger enforcement of existing sanctions and asset freezes in the united states and internationally on the south sudanese political elite. fourth, you can pass the global human rights accountability act. this act authorizes the u.s. president, like those in south sudan who misappropriate state assets. i believe these four steps can strike directly.
[ inaudible ] the anticorruption commission, the national audit chamber and the public accounts committee in the national legislative assembly. i found that all three were severely undercut, intentionally. top-level politicians deprive them of the money they need to function. conflicting laws prevent
prosecutions of officials that have been investigated and cronyism undermines the effort to fight the corrupt. the mechanisms and institutions that could promote accountability do not have what they need to be effective. but there are several things congress can do to help south sudanese people address their institutional and systemic challenges. first, continue to support the people in south sudan who fight for transparency and accountability. listen to them, stand with them and help their raise their voices. second, ensure there is strict budget oversight for assistance to south sudan. those who command or commit atrocities and seek personal enrichment should not be able to misappropriate public funds, especially those given by americans who support the south sudanese people. third, support and strengthen the institutions in south sudan that can build an open and
accountable government. these institutions could work much more effectively than they do today, but they need political, technical and financial support. also they need the space to operate without undue political interference. an institution that meets these things is the hybrid court for south sudan established in the august 2015 peace agreement to ensure accountability for war crime. next week on september 12th, the century on the initiative of the enough project will publicly present the results of a two-year investigation into corruption in south sudan. they have documented the connection between high-level, grand corruption and violence in south sudan, and we encourage you as policymakers to take immediate action on the findings we release. your support is critical. the stakes are very high in south sudan.
if south sudanese leaders face no prize, no deterrent for their crimes from anyone, south sudan will disintegrate. with your help, that can be prevented. thank you very much for your efforts on south sudan and for your tireless commitment to the south sudanese people. >> mr. adeba, thank you very much for your personal work, your trip which really uncovered, and you got to see those three institutions in particular. thank you for relaying it to us. so, without objection, your full statement, both of your full statements, will be made a part of the record. and unfortunately, we do have a series of votes, well over an hour we expect of voting. so we will conclude here, but i want you to know how deeply appreciative we all are on the subcommittee for your leadership, for your guidance, and we will stay in touch going forward. in a week i look forward, or so, to that new report, which the
committee will digest, and i'm sure utilize as we have in the past with enough projects. and ambassador lyman, thank you, because you did extraordinary service under very difficult situations. so, thank you for that . >> i would have liked to have asked questions. i will submit a few for the records, if you could get back to us in a timely fashion that would be greatly appreciated.
anton antoninscalia. live coverage here on c-span3. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on road to the white house. >> i will be a president for democrats, reps and independents. >> we are going to win with education, we are going to win with the second amendment. we're going to win. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first presidential debate live from new york. then on tuesday october 4th, vice presidential candidates governor pence and kaine debate. on sunday october 9th, washington university in st. louis hosts the second presidential debate. leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump, taking place at the university of nevada, las vegas on october
19th. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch live or any time on demand at c-span.org. >> an information systems analyst with the rand corporation talks about the world of black markets of cyber criminals. she discusses their components and players, growth and increasing sophistication of cyber criminal activities, challenge also to law enforcement and what individuals and businesses can do to protect themselves. >> we live in a digital age. our world is becoming more
hyperconnected, on demand, smart and public. some of our most sensitive personal, financial and health information resides online with companies and entities who are increasingly victims of cyber attacks. by now we're all familiar with the news stories. data breaches have become commonplace, from retail to banking to healthcare to the government, no sector is immune. and these entities are often victims of cyber attacks, which are increasingly linked to markets where participants can buy and sell the tools to carry out cyber crime attacks as well as buy and sell the takes of stolen data from those attacks. and that stolen data often appears within days on these black market sites. we conducted a study at rand to understand the character and the
landscape of these black markets. so today i'm going to give you a lay of the land, a map, if you will, of what these markets look like now, how we got to where we are and where we're going into the future. a bit on our methodology. rand is big on methodology. we interviewed experts with involvement in these black markets from a variety of angles, academics, security researchers, reporters, security vendors and law enforcement personnel, about a quarter of which agreed to speak to us only on condition of anonymity. we also researched the literature, the reports out there, and because i'm a hands-on keyboard kind of a person, i like to touch the data that i'm examining, i also went into some of these forums. if you're interested at the end, i have screen shots of my
backups and i would be more than happy to show you a couple of them. one thing that became clear as we started to do this research was that although there are people, each of these people is an expert in their domain, it was only one piece of the markets. there was no comprehensive understanding. there are people who knew a lot about the markets where things are bought and told on twitter, or folks who were extremely knowledgeable about what chinese hackers were doing, others who knew a lot about zero day vulnerabilities or the sale of botnets, but no one had a comprehensive overview, and that's what we tried to accomplish, understanding these are black markets and things are going to try to be hidden from us. to make sure we're on the same page in terminology, when we say cyber crime markets we mean the collection of skilled and unskilled suppliers, vendors, potential buyers and intermediaries for goods or services to facilitate
digitallily-based crimes. digitally-based crimes are things like stealing financial information, stealing e commerce accounts, theft of intellectual property as well as takedowns of sites. spoiler alert. what we found is that these markets for cyber crime tools and stolen data were rapidly growing, maturing and continuously innovating, full of increasingly sophisticated people, products and methods for communicating and conducting business transactions, resilient to takedowns by law enforcement, and constantly adapting to security vendors and security personnel. it is truly a cat and mouse game, and easily for almost anyone to get involved in, at least at the most basic level. this is a pretty sobering fact of the world that we live in. how did we get here? well, we can think about the
growth of these markets like the growth of a small city. so going back in time, 10 to 15 years ago cyber crime or hacking was -- consisted of an ad hoc network of individuals largely motivated by ego and notoriety. they wanted to show off to their friends. they wanted to have a resume boosts, they wanted to prove to themselves and their friends they could do this kind of thing. this is the age of the lone wolf hacker. as time went on, as more digital native and technologically savvy individuals entered the world, as more connected computing components got connected, more people recognized the opportunity that there was by hacking for financial profit, especially criminal enterprises recognized the low risk and potential for high reward by
getting into this cyber crime game. as such, motivation shifted from ego and notoriety to making money and financial gain. today we can liken these markets to a thriving metropolis where there are sophisticated hierarchies, methods for conducting business transactions, specialized roles, and often cyber crime is solely connected with sophisticated traditional crime organizations? let me pause here and just note that we're talking about cyber crime and cyber criminals. this is only one type of cyber threat actors. there are many different times of cyber threat actors. we generally break it into four groups, cyber criminals, state-sponsored or advanced persistent threats, cyber terrorists that we can debate
whether or not they exist, and hackivists. if anyone has watched the abc show "shark tank" and you know in wonderful, all he cares about is making money. all cyber criminals care about is making money. my impression could be better, i know. we are just talking about people who care about making money. there are different cyber threat actors out there. we have broken them into participants, business conduits, products and pricing, and i will go through each of these. in addition to looking at these four different components, we wanted to compare these markets to traditional markets, to look at the economics of them and to see how mature these cyber crime black markets were. so we came up with five different elements of maturity and i'll tick through them now. as i go through the components
keep them in the back of your mind. first is sophistication where the markets change and adapt to current needs. next is resilience where external events don't affect the markets or if they do the markets bounce back. resilience or external events can be manmade or non-manmade event. a manmade event might be, for example, the arrest of the alleged creator of silk road, which is a black market website where there is illicit drugs and illicit information bought and sold. a non-manmade event might be a tsunami in an area of the world where a lot of hackers operate out. accessibility where there's low barrier to entry and easy for anyone to get involved, this is true at the most basic level of these markets. reliability, where people and products are what they say they are and do what they say they do. this is actually quite surprising for us.
there truly is honor among thieves. you will get what you pay for and you will kind of be dealing with who you think you're going to be dealing with. you might get a little extra feature along with what you pay for, but for the most part you're going to get what you pay for. and then finally, specialization, where there are distinct and customized roles, places for communicating and conducting business transactions as well as ways to communicate. all right. so now on to these four different components. we'll start with participants and we will stick with this theme of cyber crime markets being like a burgeoning -- or a thriving metropolis. so participants, it is very much like any other corporate organization. there are hierarchies. not eerch knows each other, but they're all kind of connected in some way and there's hierarchies. up at the top generally are administrators of for ums as well as subject matter experts. these are folks that might be
skilled in one particular thing like writing exploit kits or making crypto, setting up infrastructure or vetting participants. in the middle realm are the vendors, buyers, intermediaries, kind of the general membership. if you or i were to participate in these markets, this is where we would find ourselves. now, ultimately there needs to be a cash out. it doesn't do us any good if we're holding on to a bunch of stolen data if we can't make money, and this is where mules, virtual money mule services come into play. these are folks that essentially turn the stolen data into cash or into money that can be used for financial gain. reputation matters a great deal in these markets. one gets reputation by proving one's self to others, getting vetted by members or -- members
who are good standing in the community. it is really like if you go to e-bay or amazon or paypal or any of these e commerce accounts where you rate the buyer and the buyer rates you and there's a number of stars or thumbs up, you get rated or reviewed. the same thing is in these markets where you want to have the highest number of stars or ratings. and if you don't have that people won't buy and sell from you, so you want to have a good reputation. but these are black markets and there are people called rippers who don't provide the goods and services that they say they will. because a forum administrator wants everyone to come to their site and buy from their vendors, if someone gets reported as a vendor they are often reported and removed and kicked out quite quickly. there's a disincentive to be a ripper although they do exist. would have been common ripper scheme is to provide or say that you'll provide, say, 100 credit
cards and you will give away ten for free, and then if someone pays them money they will get the money from someone and then the last 90 are duds, either closed out by the bank and the bank accounts have been emptied by someone else or they've been sold to someone else. if that kind of ripper gets found out they'll get kicked off. so this is a world economy and different groups tend to focus on different areas. so, for example, there are reports of hackers in vietnam who focus on e-commerce accounts. it is believed that a majority of eastern european hackers tend to focus on attacking financial institutions. many believe that those in china who are hackers are focused on the theft of intellectual property. one of the interesting things that we heard from one of the experts that we spoke to was
that groups that would traditionally never work together are working together now. so a couple of examples, vietnamese and nigerians were working together on a e-commerce fraud. it is not just the nigerians scam, there are else. of course, these aren't the only things these groups go after and there are other groups that go after other things as well. are you wondering what about the u.s. participants? well, ten years ago the majority of participants were from russia, fast forward to about 2013 which is the latest statistic we have, and russians were no longer in the top third of participants. number one was ukraine, number two was china and number three was 19% of market participants was the u.s. now, i know we're in olympics year so there's a lot of u.s.
pride, maybe we'll go for the gold and go for number one soon here. our second component are business conduits. how do people communicate, how do they conduct their business? well, there's multiple access tiers and different channels for communicating. things like online stores, something akin to an e bay or an amazon, bulletin board web style forms where you can post information and post queries, e-mails, instant message to allow for private one-on-one communication or open chat channels, some are easily to find. you can easily google for them. others are hidden on the deep web or the dark nets and either you have to figure out the access, figure out the site to go to, or you actually have to get vetted in so you have to be a member in good standing with good reputation to get access to some of these sites or these
channels. any computer literate person can get involved in these markets. there are tools and resources available to teach you how to become an illicit hacker and a cyber criminal. so we saw google goods on how to buy and sell credit carts cards. i watched a youtube video on how to use exploit kits. i didn't see but i'm waiting for a yelp on which sites are the best to go to. so while english is the universal language of our commerce, it is not necessarily the universal language of this commerce. most of the sites tend to be in russian or ukrainean. that said there are certainly other language-specific websites, or websites in all different languages. all of that said, the majority of phishing are done in a
particular language because they know that particular language. something interesting about a lot of the sites being in russian or ukrainean, a piece of advice i got from a researcher i spoke to this about was if i wanted to go in some of the sites to be really careful about how i communicated, because being a non-native russian speaker they can tell it right away and basically kick you off or not want to do any business with you, not that i was doing any business, but if i wanted to communicate. an interesting thing that he brought up was google translate is a really, really poor for translating into russian, but there are a couple of other translation sites that might be a little better. so there's some hints of how to better communicate with cyber criminals on these different sites. i can tell you when we're not fe filming what those translation sites were. so now the third component are products which are goods and services, which facilitate the
entire life cycle of an attack. let me pause here. i gave this talk once and someone came up to me afterwards and said, you know, lilly, all of your stick figures were men. i wanted to make sure to represent the lady hackers in the rooms. so goods and services, they facilitate the full life cycle of an attack, everything from initial access tools, things like your exploit kit to get on to a victim box, pay loads and parts of the feature of the pay loads that might be a piece of m malware or something to make it change shape so it won't be caught by anti-virus systems. services to enable the attack or facilitate the attack happening. support tools, for example setting up infrastructure or breaking crypto or caption. and then, of course, consideration for what to do with the goods, the cyber laundering, if you will, once you receive the goods at home.
now, any computer literate person can get involved in these markets, but that's actually a lie. any computer illiterate person can get involved. all you need is an internet connection and cash to pay someone. you can hire a hacker to do whatever you would want. we are seeing trends with more creative offerings of more capabilities, so there's more use of things going over vpns being harder to find, trends to use more of the dark nets tour, which is one of the dark nets is very popular, as well as a shift towards other types of dark nets. vendors can guarantee their product life span or value. so, for example, they can guarantee a particular piece of malware is good for ten hours before detection from an anti-virus entity, or anti-virus system. or they can guarantee the amount of account balance of a credit
card. they can also track what you're doing with their product. so remember how i said products will do what they say they do and people are what they say they are and then some? this is kind of that example, where vendors might, for example, sell you the capability to have a bot net that infects 1,000 ma sheens. if you steal data or do something, they can steal that data too. if you figure out a way to infect 10,000 machines, they can also detect that as well and either demand more money or they'll ask you to kind of taylor it back or pull it back to the original 1,000 machines. generally it is used if vendors prefer to go below the noise and so they prefer someone to be infecting lessor what -- only what they paid for rather than getting more money. pricing ranges wildly depending on hardness of target, freshness
of data, if it's do-it-yourself or as a service. a few examples, hacking into e-mail accounts ranges from $16 to a couple hundred dollars. credit cards can go for pennies or up to a couple hundred dollars, and that really ranges on freshness of data. that's a big -- that's a big component. so, for example, after a target got breached the data that went on to the black markets, some credit cards were worth about $145 was one i saw, but now that the data has been stale and likely those cards have been shut down or they're no longer valid or they've been used by other folks, they're on sales for pennies on the dollar. another difference for credit cards could be a european versus a u.s. or non-u.s. versus a u.s. credit card. less so now, but especially in the past when non-u.s. cards were chip and pin whereas u.s.
credit cards were signature and pin. chip and pen cards are worth a lot more because they're thought to be more secure. then the ex poit kits range, again, if you are renting by the week, the month, the year or buying outright. in terms of payment, typically anonymous crypto occurrences or digit digital currencies like bit coin are preferred for making transactions. that's an overview of what the markets look like. where are we going in the future and what does this mean? well, there are more digital natives and tech nothingically savvy individuals in the world. in the words of one of the folks we spoke to, when it comes to hacking it is like little league. everyone starts out early and spends a lot of time doing it. on the one hand, this is good if you're a hacker and you decide to be a white hat hacker and do good. on the other hand, it means that
there could be more digitally savvy, technologically save folks who are cyber criminals. with instance dulin pumps enabl blue tooth, fridges, front door locks controlled with a smart phone from anywhere in the world and vehicles that are essentially computers on a set of wheels, more of the world has a digital component. interestingly, by the year 2020 the number of connected devices will out number the number of connected people by a ratio of six-to-one. that means that there will be six devices communicating and connecting with each other for every one person connecting or communicating with a device. actually, that statistic i have been using for a couple of years, and it is crazy we're in the middle of 2016. so 2020 is not that far away. so with more of the world with a digital component, we can expect
that there are more attack paths or the attack landscape for cyber criminals to go after expands greatly. therefore, enabling more crime to have a digital component. this means that there will be more successes as well as challenges for law enforcement, and when this happens we tend to hear about it. there tend to be media stories about how, for example, the owner of silk road got taken down and arrested or some other kind of operation, which is exciting for us to read about but it also means that participants in the markets learn how law enforcement are conducting their investigations, and so they adapt their tactics and their techniques. similarly, people who were previously unaware of these black markets and all of the wonderful things that it could afford them are now aware and they might want to jump in and participate. so really what we're seeing is
that the ability to attack is out pacing the ability to defend. well, where do we go from here? if we think about what we can do kind of in our world as it is, as individuals we can certainly redouble our online security efforts. things like making sure that when we're entering our personal or financial information it is on a site that we are reasonably sure is secure. we can be more aware of spear fishing or phishing cam pans, the use of avoiding pass word reuse is really big. interesting nup enough the combination of a user name and pass word is worth more on the black markets because that pass word -- it is often thought pass word reeds is so common, you may not care about your instagram pass word but maybe that or a
version of that with a one on the end of it is what you use for your financial institution which could reap great rewards. we can also patch immediately. what i mean by that is upgrading or updating your systems or your computers. so, for example, if you are on your computer and you get an alert from microsoft that patches or updates are available, that means they found some sort of vulnerability that malicious actors could use to get on to your system and they have a patch for it so that that's no longer an open hole. companies certainly can do more. things like employ safer and stronger storage of pass words and user credentials, enable multi-factora thentive indication everywhere. if you are not familiar with multi-factor authentication, that means you have several ways
to authenticate service. when i log into g mail i get a pass word and then i get a number texted to my cellphone, and then i use that number as well as my pass word to authenticate myself. companies should encrypto data. enact for all devices and tighten access controls. interestingly enough, we did a follow-on research after this study. so this study was looking at kind of the landscape of the attackers. we then looked at what do defenders do and how the defenders view the cyber security landscape. for that we interviewed chief information security officers at a number of international companies, and we found they cared more than -- about their reputation than anything else. they cared more than any attack had occurred rather than what the actual data was that was taken.
we also found that they were not -- there was no comprehensive understanding of how to conduct a risk assessment, and there were other issues where we really felt that the defenders were in dilemma, that's what we named our report. but i think all of these things are kind of no duds in the security world, things we probably already know and shouldn't necessarily be surprising, especially if you are an information security professional. how can we shift the paradigm? perhaps something that would be really good is if we build in security from the start. all companies, organizations, governments should, rather than slapping on a band-aid or bolting on security after an incident has occurred, really think about baking it in from the start. this might mean a complete rehaul of infrastructure and designing the infrastructure from the ground up. it also means to place liability
with responsible parties. right now vendors are not held liable for bad code, and this becomes a big deal, especially with the internet of things, all of those new connected devices. where a crash with that is no longer a crash on your computer or a crash of code, but a crash of a car or something that has a physical component. companies and organization also and governments could consider moving away from a defensive-only reaction area position. there's certainly a lot of discussion about hacking back and the legalities of that, but that's something to consider even more. and then we really should consider that -- or assume that we're going to be breached. it is -- the saying is that it is not a matter of if but a matter of when. it is not possible to be 100% secure. the best we can do is make it difficult for an attacker in terms of time, resources, personnel and effort that they
have to put into it. and then perhaps one can use the black markets to their advantage. from a government perspective, harness these products to protect their own highly sensitive tools. and then thinking about how we actually take down these black markets, one of the main reasons why they're so successful is due to confidence. participants are confident that they won't get detected, that there's low attribution. participants are confident they're going to be able to carry out the attacks and use the tools in a way they know they're going to work, and they're confident they're going to be able to make money and essentially get away with it. if there's a way to reduce the confidence, that can significantly tarnish the reputation and make a dent in these black markets. with that i would love to open it up for questions or
discussion. be more than happy to show you my screen shots. over to you. >> we'll start back here. >> say, for example, i don't have tv and i want to watch the dodgers game, and so i'm streaming the dodgers game. am i the mark or the cyber criminal in that set up? >> i suppose i mean multiple pop ups come up, it looks like a really shady site, but you close down the pop ups as quickly as you can in order to watch the dodgers game because kershaw is pitching and it is really crucial you watch that. what's the type of malware that might be coming at me from those sites, and is closing the pop ups enough to protect myself? >> the types of things that can -- so no.
i think you -- there's still a chance of getting infected no matter how quickly you close down a pop up. the type of stuff that could be running, it actually could be kind of benign malware in which someone just wants to use your computing resources or they could be trying to take over different processes on your system. >> lilly, we have a question here. >> the market seems to be recognizing that there's a certain left of theft that's tolerated. if you make 100 million in sales and there's 5% theft, there's a level with which merchants are happy because cutting back means only 90 million in sales which is actually a loss to them. secondly, going on what he said, if you look at the music world people are downloading the music, which means the price of cds go up. tlfrp are you a fool for buying
a cd or do they expect you to be downloading the cd? by the way, the market seems to be accepting a learn level of theft and building that into their processes and revenue stream. how do you justify -- how does the companies justify what they're doing and how do they really crack down under that scenario? >> that's absolutely true, that companies seem to be okay with the level of fraud or level of theft. unfortunately, it is not necessarily clear that that trickles down to us as the consumer. so take target -- or take, i don't know, any data breach. it might go on to the bank that has to deal with the kind of fraud, but then there are higher transaction fees that us as the consumer gets.
we actually just finished a study examining consumer attitudes towards data breaches and towards the companies who they received notifications from, and this is exactly what we found. consumers are forgetful that breaches happen. they are forgiving of companies, and they really don't see a lot of inconvenience to themselves. so consumer, we as consumers don't seem to be up in arms that data breaches are happening. companies are putting the pain on consumers without us really noticing it a lot. so there isn't a lot of incentive or a lot of -- yeah, i guess incentive for us to make, for the world to make big changes. so just a couple of statistics because they're in my head, consumers actually after a breach occurred, after they were notified of a breach, they found that 77% of consumers were highly satisfied with how companies responded.
only 11% reported they stopped doing business with the company. we found that in the past year, a quarter of americans had received a data breach notification. so that's about 64 million americans received a breach notification in the last year. over half of those had received more than two notifications. so we're getting notified of being breached more and more, and this is all before notices of opm breach, by the way. discount opm out of that. consumers just kind of continue to do business as normal and forgive the companies. >> that's officer -- >> opm is office of personnel management, right. >> so you talked about how efficient these markets are becoming, how advanced they are, and especially one key word is how resilient they are, even though there's a lot of efforts to try to shut them down by law enforcement. so what can business, especially
government and critical infrastructure, learn from building systems from these markets and these actors? what takeaways can we learned in order to build more resilient systems in the private and government sectors? >> there are two aspects of resilience here. governments and critical infrastructure organizations should definitely be more resilient in the sense we should have backup systems, we should have redundant servers. there should be the normal kind of security things like encryption, and things like that will help to prevent ransomware attacks, and we can talk about that in a second. what i mean by resilience of these markets is that even if an individual site or individual tool developer gets taken down or arrested, they're not necessarily resilient but the
market is in the sense that there's this market share available once something has been taken down for everyone else to take over. so it is not necessarily a lesson -- i mean the lesson, the analogy would be once a big company gets taken down or a piece of critical infrastructure gets taken down that there would be other companies to take over that market share or other -- i guess companies to take over that critical infrastructure rather than actually going back up. actually, in 2013 the biggest exploit kit developer was arrested, and he had, i don't know, like 60% of the market share, something huge. this was a black hole exploit kit. he got arrested, and all of a sudden it is not as though exploit kits were not available but, you know, the hundreds of others of exploit kits jumped on that market share and made themselves available. so it is simply that the market was resilient, that anyone could get an exploit kit if they really wanted. an unsatisfying answer.
i apologize. >> we have a question. >> okay. >> hi. so when you go into black cat or you attend that kind, you walk into the vendor room, and in the vendor room you have -- everybody is like, we have zero day, which in hacker speak is a day too late, as we know, because it has already happened. that's, you know, the pre-day. when you ask all of these companies who are building these boxes and these defenses and all of that, you say, well, this is great, you've got everything that's already out there but what are you doing to create anything new? do you have your programmers working on, you know, what would be the variations or developing your own? in the military we call it a red cell event, where do you have anyone acting as a terrorist or a bad guy so you can build new technologies and actually get ahead of zero day? negative one day would be a good