tv Civil Unrest in South Sudan CSPAN January 13, 2014 12:37am-2:51am EST
[shouting] [inaudible] is genuinely -- at the leader of the north campaign in scotland cannot get a debate with the leader of the campaign in scotland and that the leader of the yes campaign in scotland demanded today for summary -- [inaudible] does the prime minister agree with me and politics, in shipbuilding, empty vessels make the most noise? [shouting] [laughter] [shouting] >> there is more. [laughter] without -- [inaudible] could i tell them that the last person --
[shouting] was to have as the representative is a tory -- [laughter] even one with a fine hairstyle this. >> i well remember when he came to question time not within into those the but with a model of the vessel that he wanted build so near to his constituency and i'm proud that this government is building that vessel as indeed another one like it but i also accept, humbly accept, that one, i'm sure there are many people in scotland would like to talk about this issue. might appeal doesn't stretch to every single part, but the key point he is making is absolutely right. the reason the yes campaign and the no campaign can't seem to get a debate is because those who want to break up the united
kingdom, they know they're losing the argument so they want to change the question. it's the oldest trick in the book and we can all see i >> you have been watching prime minister's questions. you can watch any time on www.c- span.org, where you can find videos of past prime minister's questions and other programs. returnambers of commerce tomorrow. a short-term resolution to keep the government funded past wednesday and the spending bill to keep the government funded through 2014. continuee gavels into
work on a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits that expired. they will vote on the confirmation of robert wilkins. on c-span 2. >> nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to address the united nations and the first to address the nation in a joint appearance with the president. >> to my young friends, life can be great but not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to your life to see it with the colors god gave us, to enjoy life to the fullest and to make it count. say yes to your life, and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan as our original series returns. monday night live at 9:00
eastern. also on c-span radio and www.c- span.org. >> now testimony on the conflict in south sudan from state department and usaid officials. the fighting started between the current army and rebels linked to a former vice president. they are recommending all americans leave. the hearing last two hours 15 minutes. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. all of us are deeply troubled by the situation in south sudan.
the reason for this being the first hearing of this committee for the new year is the hope our attention can send a message to all parties in the sudan that the cease-fire, a continuing cease-fire, a political reconciliation is critical for u.s. long-term assistance, and canoing so, hopefully we save lives. we have many questions on the direction in which this young nation is heading and the greater implications of the conflict, and i hope our panel will provide us with the per , whichs on the ground underscores the importance of congress moving quickly with our embassy operating at severely reduced capacity as a result of the violence. looking back, the united states government and members of this committee were hopeful when we
strongly supported south sudan's independence in 2011. with theades of war sudanese government the people voted for self-determination and the chance to complete a prosperous democratic society. now that is in jeopardy. people have been killed. more than 194,000 have and displays. humanitarian conditions will certainly deteriorate. i think we can all agree it is acessary that to avoid downward spiral into further chaos all armed elements must cease hostilities completely. repeated violence will only jeopardize further u.s. assistance. having said that, there is some reason for hope and optimism. other african leaders
for arranging negotiations in thedeal, and i commend president and former vice president for sending delegations to talk. at the end of the day there is only one option. let me reiterate secretary's remarks that all parties must make efforts to seek a solution. today's panelists are here to understand the crisis. we hope to gain insight into the nature of the rebellion. are they cohesive? are they fragmented? how much control does he have over rebel forces? i would hope our panel could provide answers. danger of the violence spiraling out of control? what are the grievances and must be addressed? what are the humanitarian needs? what can the united dates to to play a role for the short-term
and long-term reconciliation? and what will that look like. >> think you for being here with us today. as it is an understatement to say south sudan is at a critical juncture today. security.beefed up there were real expectations about the future of south sudan. i think we understand it was the ,ovement that united a country and now that it is achieved, and duere dissipating, to the lack of good leadership it is dissipating. it could make it more difficult
to overcome. we have a long history, and people expect us to be that the uganda,kstop, and why ethiopia, and kenya are playing important roles, and south sudan is aportant to china, this place where people expect us to make a difference, so in thation to the conflict is ongoing and causing murders in the kinds of things we hate to see taking place in any country, we also realize the morass and is going to take an incredible effort over a longer time. thepreciate hearing
administration's point of view today. i know they share the urgency, and i look forward to hearing asr comments as to where we a nation should go from here relative to south sudan. inc. you. -- thank you. >> let me introduce our panelists. the assistant secretary of state for african affairs. we appreciate her work and nancy lindberg. full statements will be included in the record without objection. we ask you to keep it around five minutes so we can enter in a dialogue. madame secretary, i will call on you first. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member,
foreign relations committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. subject is one in which you and other members are deeply concerned about and that you care about sudan. i regret that ambassador whose is unable to testify today as we ise him -- ambassador booth unable to testify. three years ago today, and it is really important that this is the anniversary of south sudan's independence. on january 9 the people of south sudan voted for independence from the republic of sudan. they weredes of war, peacefully voting for separation and a new future. there totor kerry was
witness that historic moment. the united states played a critical role at getting the nation on the map. today the world showed this country, one of the most fragile democracies, is in danger of shattering. the united nations reported 1000 people have died. 240,000 people have fled their homes. political rivalries have taken on at the dimensions -- ethnic dimensions. atrocities are committed. men, women, and children are caught in the crossfire. this is not the future for which the people of sudan voted for. a political struggle escalated into broader violence. , and a fewg began things became crystal clear.
neither the united states nor the international community will contemplate the armed overthrow of a democratically elected government. violence must stop. those responsible for perpetrating human rights abuses must we held accountable, and this crisis will not be held on the battlefield. we have made that point over and over again. the roots of this conflict are much deeper. i resolution can only come through a broader reconciliation. they must commit humanitarian access for the women and children who are the real victims of this violence. the united states has engaged in an effort to help bring an end
to the fighting. with other high-ranking officials. as well as the heads of state, foreign ministers in neighboring countries and around the world. we have galvanized support to an hostility and open a broader dialogue between the side with s for accountability. we have sought the release of political detainees. parties theghting situationsecurity remains critical, particularly for the civilians who have sought protection in the u.n. compounds. this must be addressed. we propose the security council unanimously adopted a resolution .
in turn, we are actively encouraging member states to provide police units, including transfers from the region. as my colleague will discuss, we $50 million in humanitarian assistance. the president's special envoy to sudan and south sudan, who could not be here today to testify because he is in ethiopia. the ambassador has been in the region since december 22. he has been working around the clock. he has met repeatedly with officials. he has had lengthy discussions. he has secured the first official visit with political detainees and sat down with religious leaders to help find a solution. this is an all-out effort on our speciald given our
history with south sudan we are working with neighbors through organization for development. a special summit was held 12 days after the conflict again. the ethiopian minister and kenyan general are the negotiating who are leading this effort. are alsoan's neighbors providing for the refugees. these negotiations offer the best hope for south sudan and the nation. an agreement to end hostilities will provide time and space for an agreement to began. thereides must recognize can be no military solutions. rebels been clear to the we will not recognize the
violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. at the same time we make clear to the government they must open political space to allow for greater inclusion. the united states strongly believes the political prisoners theythe released, and each -- must be released, and each day the conflict continues and more civilians are killed, injured, and forced to flee. the humanitarian situation grows dire, and those on the sidelines are pulled into the conflict. let me conclude by saying i am concerned that the crisis has potential to escalate even further. while we do not know the scale of atrocities committed the us far, there is clear evidence there are targeted killings taking place. countless civilians, women and children have become victims of
violence. each violent act threatens to return south sudan to the cycle of violence and instruction south sudanese of all ethnic cities and backgrounds -- and backgroundsand voted to end. in addition to calling for an , dialogue ande the release of prisoners, the theed dates is exploring possibility of pressures against individuals on both sides who interfere with peace and reconciliation and south sudan and those responsible for committing serious human rights abuses. giving menk you for the opportunity to speak today. let me thank you for your commitment to the people of sudan and your efforts in the region. >> thank you. member,man, ranking
members of the foreign relations committee, thank you for holding toearing and inviting me testify, and thank you for your ongoing support around the world, which continues to save millions of lives. has been avernment strong supporter of people of sudan for decades, through the civil war, and through the independence of 2011, and we are deeply alarmed by the horrific violence that now threatens this theggle, especially today, third anniversary of independence in which 99% of the people voted to form the world youngest nation. the outbreak of hostilities has a rep did to heavy fighting across seven of south sudan's 10 state. the fighting is the result of grievances in a that hasew state
institutions not able to deliver justice or services to its people, and coupled with this unresolved power struggle, it has united tensions along ethnic lines, and we're now seeing a renewed cycle of killing. this new fighting creates urgent new steps of humanitarian needs. it also complicates our ability to meet the specific needs that already existed across south sudan, one of the poorest nations on earth. an estimated 40% of the 4.4 million people were already in need of humanitarian assistance before the recent violence. this is the result of two decades of civil war, communal violence, recurring floods and drought, plus influx of over 2000 refugees into south sudan from blue nile states since 2011, so the lack of roads, the
pervasive underdevelopment that already made south sudan one of the most logistically difficult environment further complicates our work today. seasonal rates that routinely cut off access to entire regions for months at a time, so our challenge is twofold. both respond to hostility driven as find a way to continue our work that ekes to assist more than half the population in need. the united states remains deeply committed to the people of su dan and a few more words on the rapidly changing situation and the humanitarian response. the violence has already thanred the lives of more 1000 people, and as of today we see more than 270,000 people driven from their homes. of those, 60,000 have been forced to seek reduction in the
eight peacekeeping missions located in major towns around the country, and almost earning 9000 have sought refuge in uganda, ethiopia, and kenya. this just a few hours away is a strategic gateway to south sudan's capital. it is caught in a desperate tug- of-war between the fighting factions. it has borne the brunt of fighting and looting. we are hearing graphic reports of unburied oddities along the roads. more than 84,000 people have fled to make a treacherous journey across the white nile river to seek shelter in a neighboring county, where -- relief agencies found people living in the hot sun with very short supplies of food and medical assistance, and parents are making difficult choices of whether to separate from their children so they can make safe
trips out of the area. there were numerous sites, including a newly discovered place of 30,000 displaced south sudanese. people continue to flee the shifting lines of control in the ongoing violence, so our humanitarian response is immensely affected by the chaotic conditions. river, typically a major supply conduit, has been off limits because barges have been commandeered for hostile purposes. stockrently have ample files of key supplies that have previously in positioned around the countries as part of our normal response effort you it is the security response conditions movementimpeding the of those supplies and him
peeling supply chains. u.s. aid set up a response team in nairobi as well as one in washington shortly after the violence began, and since then, we have been working closely with u.n. and humanitarian partners to support the urgent, new programs, as well as to seek to plan for the upcoming rainy season. the good news is that in the middle of this crisis, there is deep expertise. announced anwe additional 50 million in addition to our ongoing humanitarian commitment of 300 2014, andr 2013 and the new funding will help us support family means vacation -- family reunification and have additional capacity. we have prioritized additional support for flights that enable the u.n. to regularly reach seven of the compounds now with urgent food and supplies.
we just received confirmation that three u.n. flight reached the area that previously we weren't able to reach. thatoday, the one reports relief agencies have reached in the bases and the new settlements with urgent relief. immediate, unconditional, and full access for humanitarian assistance the route south sudan is of urgent and utmost importance. workers, both international and south sudanese, are currently working at great personal risk, and they must have safe passage to reach those in need. not onlyo make sure we reach those whose lives have been upended by new violence but also to begin to resupply in advance of the april rains or risk an even greater crisis with rising hunger through the country. pressing for humanitarian access is a key in urgent part of the
ongoing negotiations for keys. the south sudanese leaders have the ability to ease the suffering of their people. remainsed states steadfast in its decades-long commitment to the people of sudan, and we thank you for your ongoing support and commitment and attention to this new crisis. thank you. >> well, thank you. let me start off with you, secretary. what evidence is there to suggest that there are underlying, and i am going to talk about that following this first question, but what evidence suggests that the events that triggered the crisis were a coup attempt by the former vice president? >> senator, thank you for that question. we look at the situation, that has been an ongoing situation in
south sudan for almost one year. there were internal dynamics spla that started with his being put out, voted out of his vice presidential heardon, and what we have through many sources, all public, was that there was a fight that occurred at the party onvention that took lace december 15 and that that led to the ongoing conflict. we have not seen any evidence that this was a coup attempt, but it certainly was the result of a huge political risk -- riff between him and the president. view then how do you decision to take part in an armed rebellion against the
government of south sudan? >> it is an armed rebellion against the government of south sudan, and it started as a result of the political riff. should resolve this through political talks, through negotiations, and not through war. what happened on december 15 was, we understand, and attack lefts home, and then he and it happened after that. >> are we advocates of expanding the peace process? we are also kissed on the of the moment and wanting to create a cease-fire and save lives, but the long- term prospect seems to me to, in byt, fundamentally be
expanding the peace process and creating a more inclusive process. otherwise, a quick and what some might describe quick and dirty resolution of power-sharing between the powers that exist is not going to bring the long-term stability that we seek. are we advocates of expanding the peace process and creating a more inclusive, broad range set of participants? >> absolutely, sir. we do not believe this is going to stop with the cessation of hostilities, that what must follow the end of the conflict is a very, very organized political dialogue that will lay out the grievances of the various parties so that those grievances can be taken into account and plans can be made for the next election. we think it is absolutely important that the 11 detainees
who are being held be released so they can participate in that political dialogue and bring to the table issues that they have. they are not part of the conflict, but they do have political grievances, and it is important that those grievances be addressed by the current government. are we collecting evidence of atrocities? >> absolutely. areecause i hope not only we vigorously collecting evidence of atrocities but that we send a very clear message that we will find ways to punish those who commit atrocities. >> yes, sir. we have set a message to all sides. i hinted at that message in my remarks today, but they have both heard it from the ambassador, and they are hearing it from others in the region. we were pleased to hear that the peace and security commission has also look at establishing a
commission of inquiry, and others in the region are, as well. we are trying to bolster the rights monitoring capabilities so that we can, again, collect the information we need, but at the same time, we want to prevent it atrocities, so part of our efforts to get the u.n. forces built up was to get enough troops on the ground so they could provide protection for the population. >> well, that is my next question. who are peacekeepers providing protection to the tens of thousands of sudanese in the camps is incredibly important. what, if anything, are we doing to assist on the efforts to protect these people, the vast majority of whom are women and children? >> we went immediately to the
security council and supported efforts of the security council to increase the contingent by 5500, and we have been working around the clock on the phone with leaders in the region as well as outside of the region to contribute to those numbers. nepal has provided additional troops. bangladesh has provided additional troops. gahna --commitment from ghana. >> what do you assess is the ability to meet the mission at this point? >> it is challenging, sir, and this is why -- >> i know it is challenging, and i don't mean to press you, but quantified for me. >> they do not have enough troops on the ground to do this. >> that is what i thought. >> and this is why we want to help them build up the troop
numbers. >> one is the 50 million, but looking at the nature of this crisis, how long do you think it is going to take you, and what are you doing to work with others to join in assistance, and you mentioned the flights arriving. what about these reports of child soldiers firing up on flight? our children being used in this regard? >> the 50 million is in addition to what was already a large pipeline of humanitarian assistance, and we have employed all of our flexibility to enable existing partners to redirect portions of the existing programs to meet these new needs. the world food program, for example, has been able to redirect some of their food, and we have something called a rapid response fund, which we have had since 2011, which is built to respond to the many different crises that have erupted in south sudan, including floods and droughts, so for right now, we have a good pipeline to help
us deal with the existing crisis. we have also worked closely to work with our other donor allies, and there is a new action plan that the u.n. has put out that has already gotten significant resource from the u.k., from norway and a few of the other donors who have long been key supporters of south sudan, so we have a solid partnership with others who are stepping forward with resources, as well. on the flights, the reports that we have received about the firing of one of the flights was that it was potentially an error of communications. there have been no further incidents of flight getting into most of the compounds. the big problem has been into
informationgot about two flights going in there, and we hope that will allow us to regularly get supplies into that compound. >> children being used as soldiers? >> we are hearing reports of child soldiers, but we do not have confirmation of how many, and that is one of the questions of great concern in this rising violence. >> senators. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here and for your work for our country. the talks taking place this week, do we have the right people at the table? >> you mean on these -- >> from the opposing sides? >> the government has sent a very strong delegation, and we were very pleased with that. on the other side, he has requested that the 11 detainees
be a part of this delegation. on thea delegation ground, but his full delegation is not there, so i do think it a good team there. they are able to speak with authority for both sides, but the one side does not have the full delegation that it wants. so are you sensing without that full delegation and having participants from both sides that can speak, are you sensing that these talks are going to yield any breakthroughs? >> not at the moment. we got agreement, i understand, from the ambassador for a cessation of hostilities, but the musharraf site is still wanting that the 11 detainees be released before they sign off on anything, and we are working jupa --in the areas as
well as here. the canyon and other negotiators were in juba, and they met with the president and also met with the detainees. >> is there any chance that is going to occur? >> we are hopeful. we heard early right around christmas that the president was going to release eight of them. that did not happen. we are still pressing him. spoke with him several times on this, and we are hopeful that he will get the message that he is getting from around the world, because he is getting phone calls both from within the region as well as outside of the region to press upon him how important it is for him to release the detainees. we think they will bring an added voice to the negotiations.
some political thatthink political views are much more moderate than we have been hearing. >> what would be the president's resistance to going ahead and releasing them to be a part of this, if he knows that? why would he resist releasing them? >> that is a question. i cannot answer for him, but he has accused the prisoners of plot, and of the coup then there are legal procedures that they have to go through before he can make the decision to release them. >> and so then on our psychologist to see how this is all playing out, we have a special envoy. we have had ups and downs and
vacancies there, and then we also have an ambassador from south sudan. who is actually in charge, if you will, for u.s. policy relative to this conflict and trying to resolve it? >> ambassador booth, the special envoy, has the responsibility of implementing that policy in terms of the negotiations, but our ambassador on the ground is the person who is the major person, because she is there 24/7. the ambassador comes in and out. he is currently full time in one area, leading our efforts to push for the negotiation. juba hassador in to get them to release the detainees.
position of being there to keep our flag flying is an important role. >> so you think the arrangement we have relative to how we have arranged for our leadership there to be, we think it is working the way it should? >> it is working well, sir. invested,have obviously, billions of dollars as a country and have invested a lot of time. a lot of people have, and south sudan and the sudan has had a lot of interest from the u.s. with what is happening there, in regard to the bigger expectations that people had 30 months ago, has the state department at all questions our efforts there? has there been any den munition
munitioon of the efforts there? >> i think we can say that we're disappointed with the way things are going in sudan, but we are that sudan does not fail. we are committed to staying with the process to get them to the peace negotiation table and committed to sudan having a future for their people. they are disappointed. failed by their leaders, and so we feel we have to stand with the sudanese people to take this to a conclusion that will leave the country back on the right track. was asking menendez about the forces, and many of us have been two door four, seeing the mandate that the u.n. had
there, and being frustrated in the past by that. the right mandate on the ground in south sudan right now? >> we think they do, but we have looked at that mandate, and it is certainly, given the current situation on the ground, i think we need to make sure we beef up their mandate, particularly on the peacekeeping side. they are there as a protection force, and certainly in terms of they numbers and capacity, are not in a place now to handle the current situation, and it is our hope that we can build that up rather quickly. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and thank you both. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> thank you for conducting this hearing, and i want to thank both of our witnesses for what you're doing to promote u.s. interests under extremely challenging circumstances, so i thank you very much and strongly support the framework that you
have laid out. number one, we need to protect the population against continued violence. the u.n. peacekeeping force there needs to be critically evaluated to make sure there is ,dequate resources to implement we hope, some form of a cessation of violence. arehumanitarian issues incredibly difficult, with the ngo community not able to operate as they did prior to this violence. challengesignificant as to whether the resources and aid will get to the people who really needed it, particularly when there is ethnic clashes as to whether we can distribute the relief that is desperately needed, and that presents challenges, which we expect the united states to play a major role in trying to sort out, and you are correct that three years
ago as the elections started for independence in south sudan, the united states and the international community was cheering a new nation. the last two point five years, we have not spent enough time dealing with the institutions of good governance that can deal with the challenges of a country, and i hope that we will not justd that it is acknowledging a new country but working to make sure that they have the institutions necessary to protect all the citizens from the challenges of ethnic verse of the. talk about one point that chairman menendez mentioned, and your response was what i expected to hear, and in your written statement you say, and you said verbally that you want to hold responsible for perpetrating human rights abuses must be held accountable. , and weeard this before
have been through or one that, wozniak, syria, -- we have been bosnia, syria. that this becomes an afterthought rather than a primary thought, and, quite frankly, i think one of the problems that we have is that those who perpetrate this do not believe the international community will hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity, and unless we make this a real priority, and unless we talk about it and do not put it on the side -- we have to take care of stopping the violence. we do not want to bring up issues that will be devices. we are never going to get the type of attention to accountability for those who against humanity
that we need. here 14 many of these crimes against humanity cases. so what can you tell the the unitedthat states, which is always been a leader on these issues, that those who have committed atrocities will be held accountable by the international community? >> thank you for that question, and my answer, i am not sure, will satisfy you, because it is not going to satisfy me. worked in, but having africa for many years, and we have some examples where we have succeeded. if you look at liberia and the fact that charles taylor was held accountable and is serving the rest of his life in prison, that is the example that i want
as welow for us in sudan look at how to be successful in holding people accountable, but it is hard. i cannot say that this is something that we will be able to accomplish easily, but i can say that it is something that we are committed to making every effort to accomplish. -- well, let me just point out that if the united states does not make this the priority issue, it will not be a priority issue. it is up to us. you are responsible for putting together the agenda on these international meetings, and i do appreciate the fact and your testimony that we are documenting, and providing the legal information that will be necessary in order to be able to present to the appropriate -- it seems to me that
your public statements at every opportunity about we will not tolerate those who perpetrated , not being held accountable he, that is two negatives, that we are going to make sure that they are held accountable, and i just hope that when i look at the headlines in the papers and see how these negotiations are taking place that i see this team consistently throughout, because if not, as sure as we are here today, there will be the next country where we are going to see the same type of atrocities committed against people because of their ethnicity, and that cannot be tolerated by the international community, and unless we hold thatntable and make sure there can be no peace without accountability, it will happen again. thank you, mr. chairman.
thank theant to for beinghed senator a long-time advocate in this regard. i am wholeheartedly with you in this regard. work on the helsinki commission is incredibly important, and i look forward to work with you to press this issue, not only in south sudan, but elsewhere as well. senator rubio. forhank you, mr. chairman, holding this hearing and to the ranking members as well. in light of the tragedies that have occurred, first and foremost, what are we doing to assure the security of our personnel? a u.s. military aircraft was rescue americans, and it was aborted, and four servicemen and women, i do not know the details, were injured in that, so a multi-pronged question, how confident are we
that our personnel there is secure, and secondarily, do we know, and do we have plans in to hold people accountable who fired on our personnel? thank you for the question, and let me say that that is our highest priority. we look at the security situation on the ground almost on a hourly basis. we have a 24-hour task force. as you know, our staff at the embassy are down to minimal levels. right now, it is the ambassador being supported by two staff, and the rest of them are security people, and we have nine offices, seven marines, and 45 forces from the africa response unit to provide that support, and, again, on almost
an hourly basis, we are looking at the security situation with the concern of the ambassador and the rest of the team, their security in mind. knowttack on our planes, i they are looking into that. shot at those who planes, but that is something that we are in the process of investigating. we want to keep our embassy open. we think it is important to keep our embassy open. we think it is important for us to have a diplomatic presence on the ground to continue to engage all of the parties, but it is also having our flag flying. it is a symbol for the people of sudan, and we do not want to abandon them, but at any moment where we determine that the situation is not secure for our ambassador to remain, we are
prepared to get them out of their before the situation is at getint where we have to them out in extreme conditions. >> my second question has to deal with, kind of a follow-up to the question that senator worker asked, there have been reports of armed civilian groups that may or may not be responsive to some of the people at the table in these conversations. how concerned are we about that? because there have been concerns about these community-based groups that are armed that may in some ethnicd targeting, how big of a problem could that goes in terms of reaching a resolution -- or how big of a problem are these armed civilian groups that are out there, conducting attacks and other operations? is a big problem, because our concern is they are not under the command and the leadersny of there, so that is a problem i
think we have to be very, very conscious of. -- so it is a real problem? >> it is a real problem. >> and the last question goes to our national interest, because anytime we deal with issues abroad, the fundamental question is we understand it is a tragedy and a terrible thing, but why should the united states care, i mean, this is not our business, and i hear that from some, and obviously the humanitarian issues that you have outlined today in your testimony, and in her testimony, and in senator cardin's questions, it is of interest to the united states, but beyond that, i want to talk about regional security and get your input on this. ironic to see now the leaders of sudan and south sudan desperate to get this figured out because of the oil exports, but this somewhat with a strain on sudan's economy because of the loss of the oil fields, and it
is my understanding that inside it has created some internal controversy with regard to that. talk to us a little bit about the threat this poses to sudan and two other nations in the region and the loss of oil in those fields if they are undermined, and also the flow of refugees but i imagine are over the border. what is the possibility if this is not resolved of this undermining and spreading to creating real problems within sudan and then ultimately the whole region becoming unstable, and we all know what instability means for real bad actors, so describe a little bit about that, about spiraling into that. >> the situation in south sudan can really spiral into problems for all of its neighbors, but i think particularly the fact that we saw president bush year -- week, visit last
particularly on the flow of oil, and we had heard that he had that there had been discussions about sudan providing military support to south sudan. the press reports that have come out have indicated that they do not plan to do that. they will provide experts to assist in the oil fields, and we can interpret that in many, many different ways. hasgovernment of uganda indicated that they have real concerns about the impact of the situation in south sudan on uganda. large,lready has a very and uganda, a very large refugee sudanese refugees, both from the south and the north, and as you heard from my
colleague, we are seeing more refugees flow across the border. also has someink, concerns, and what i am concerned about is if these countries get involved in the conflict in any way that this conflict could spread. >> yes, and to wrap up by asking about the refugees, because if the loss of the oil revenues would create extraordinary pressures within sudan, thereby creating the potential for a arelem there, but what risk these refugees at? if you could just describe briefly the ramifications of having these camps or other installations crossing over into other countries, but particularly sudan, and the risk it poses to these other countries, as well. that is a real thing we are concerned about. that would clearly be in our national interest. >> if i could turn to my colleague to talk to the refugee
situations and the impact, but from the political standpoint, having outflows of populations into neighboring countries, it takes the problems from the country into the neighboring countries, and i think that is a of southhat all sudan's neighbors have. having the neighbors of sudan during the conflict of more than 30 years, they know the impact that refugees will have on their societies, on their economies. would just add that it is a region that has had significant displacement for several decades, and you have got a neighboring country that is dealing with its own serious, spiraling crisis as well. 200,000 people have come from into's from the two areas south sudan just in the last two years, so those people are now
doubly-- doubling -- emperiled. once they are moving into countries where they have fewer resources, and some of them are because of the pressures of dealing with so many displaced populations. >> thank you. as i call upon senator kunz, that me thank you, as the chair of the africa subcommittee, and someenator, you have done tremendous work over the last year on the issues facing the african continent, and we are thrilled with the work that you do on behalf of the full committee, and at this time, we will recognize you. >> thank you very much, chairman menendez, and thank you for your chairmanship. i lead a resolution welcoming the independence of south dan and urging that its leaders
address some of the long- standing unresolved internal challenges in order to put them on a path towards long-term and just three years resolution,e of the as you mentioned, madam secretary, there is this challenge in south sudan. you and themmend ministration for your prompt response and your leadership and for the leadership the ambassador is showing and for our ability to step up to the plate quickly. secretary, a quick summary as to why south sudan matters to the united state, why this crisis matters to the people of the united states. >> thank you for that question. for 30 years, the united states has been supporting the people of south sudan, even before south sudan the cayman entity, supporting their right to exist,
their right to freedom of religion, and their fight against the government of sudan. we birthed this nation. and there are americans from all walks of life. upe-mail has been burning since this started on december 15, from americans who are concerned about what is happening in sudan. i have not gotten a single e- mail from somebody saying, don't spend your time working on this, so we do care as a nation about this country. we also have a significant population of sudanese americans , who have thrived in our country, who have an abiding interest in the success of sudan, so i think it goes without saying that we care. we have an interest, but we also have an interest in maintaining peace in the region and making
sure that there is no ungoverned groups canextremist take advantage of, and while that has not been an issue thus far in south sudan, i think if we leave it, it could become a problem, and then it becomes a bigger problem for us. >> i appreciate your putting it that way. i'd agree with you that we have values priorities, a new, fragile democracy, and we want to see it not just birth to but launched and healthy and successful, but it has read and -- regional implications, and it leadership ramifications. do we remain engaged in a leadership role as we fight for the mob in many ways in one of the most important continents, and as the ongoing negotiations are moving forward, my sense from your testimony is that there is a cease-fire focus immediately, and i am hoping
that once there is a full team from both sides, there will be a broader focus on a broader range of issues, including corruptions, which was one of the challenges. what role might the united states be asked to play in monitoring the cease-fire? mightdditional resources we bring to the table or be called on to bring to the table to make sure it is successful, and what additional resources, i might ask both of you and the assistant, that we need to be deploying in warning -- in order to be effective in our relief efforts? >> again, thank you for that question, and i will turn to my colleague. we have been viewed by both sides as an honest broker. we have been accused of both sides of supporting each of the other sides, so i think we probably got it right, and we are looking at how we can the efforts to ensure that there is peace and that
each side honors commitments to a cease-fire, so we are looking at what resources we may have in our south sudan account to support that effort. >> on the humanitarian side, as i mentioned earlier, we have added another $50 million, in addition to what was already a $318 million portfolio. if this conflict persists, if the needs continue to be this urgent, we will start running into some tough choices, given the rising crises that we have globally with syria, central africa republic, the typhoon we so thanks tod to, the very important support of congress, we were able to do what we needed to do last year, and as we look ahead, there will
be, again, tough decisions and the need for the support of all of you in order to for maintain global humanitarian leadership. , it makes it possible to rapidly respond. they have played a fairly active role. what sort of messages are we about the role we help uganda might play? and my last question would be, what role is china playing? the chinese have been quite ratherin this region than picking sides, and how might we more effectively support long-term stability?
>> uganda initially went into to support needed infrastructure, so they provided troops to secure the airport and , to ensurehe road that their citizens were able to come out safely. updo know, and this has come as an issue at the talks that s have said ugly that they support the government, that they have an interest in the region, and they want to ensure that a democratically elected government is not overthrown by violence. has, as i mentioned, caused
an issue, because they are part , bute negotiating party the negotiating party announced very early on after their state that they would support stability in the region and would be prepared to do so militarily, so this is something that we are watching very, very closely. we have cautioned our ugandan friends that they have to be careful and need to be conscious of their actions in that their actions do not lead to greater conflict. they have indicated to us that they strongly support the peace process. they support negotiations, but in the meantime, they will provide a stabilizing force. >> and as to china and china's potential? >> on china, there is a chinese
special envoy that has been working very closely with the and china seems to be playing a very positive role in supporting the peace process. they have interests. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman menendez. >> thank you. senator. >> i appreciate working with senators wounds on these issues. -- with the senator on this issue. with uganda, they moved in quickly with troops to secure the exit of their citizen. was that always under the u.n. auspices, or was that simply them moving in troops? >> it was not under the u.n. auspices. neighbor, and a at the request of the government of south sudan. they were asked to come in. >> the peacekeeping troops, what countries make up those forces right now? recently those
from bangladesh. we have some kenyans. nigerians, and we are expecting ghanaians. i can get back with you with a list of who is participating. >> thank you. to the oil revenue, there are some reports that say production is down 20%, others that say production has stopped completely. what do we know at this point? information we have is that many of the oil wells have been stopped. i do not know what the percentage is. there is some oil (the pipeline, but most of the pumping has ceased. >> the only option, the pipelines go through sudan
proper or overland by truck to the coast. that is not much of an option, and no other industry in the country to speak of, i think the largest industry outside of the oil industry is a brewery. this is one of the situations where the u.s. has taken the prohibition that congress has placed on aid to countries that undergo a who or nobler and by have said, who and basically, and tell me if i am wrong, we have said if this is a coup, and if it succeeds, there will be a cutoff of aid. is that our policy? are we using that as leverage
now against those opposition forces? thee have said to opposition we will not support their efforts to violently overthrow this government, and i think that would include aid programs, but when i say aid programs, i have to be very careful, because we are not talking about the programs that support the people of sudan. toht now, all of our support the government of south sudan, being that support is not implemented, because he cannot implement it, so we are not doing any programs right now, but i would suspect that at a point, if this violence continues, that we would suspend those programs, if they were to be implemented now, what percentage of them are in the humanitarian area that would not be affected by our restrictions, and is it a real
threat to those in opposition, the vice president's forces or whatever, that aid will be cut off? >> you know, i do not think it an impact, that has because they would not be fighting, and we have told them that they stand a chance of losing all support from the u.s. government, and the fighting has continued, but, again, on the humanitarian side, if i may turn to -- let's >> look. just to make a sharp distinction between the humanitarian funds that go directly to support people in in acute need of the development activities him and some of which went to support government capacity building and the standing up of the new institutions, they are put in very separate categories. some of those, i mean, development categories to improve the lot of people, is that a fuzzy area, or is there a
clear distinction as to what is unitarian and what is not? >> well, there is always a consideration about the types of programs under the development portfolio that assists people, such as health facilities or health programs. some of the community-based reconciliation programs that we have conducted, so that is exactly the kind of consideration that would come into play, should we need to. idea --ou give me some if we are saying we are going to cut off a if this coup succeeds, for example, if this coup does succeed, how much of our aid will still flow? can you give me any percentage? i know there is some fuzziness, but i am wondering what will still go from the u.s. to a new government if one comes in? >> let us get back to you with that information, because to be more precise, i think it would take additional consideration,
but we will definitely be happy to get back to you on that. there is an inability to conduct some of the programs right now in any case because of the confusion and the violence that is underway. it is the humanitarian programs that we are continuing to push out and to ensure that aid is getting to people. >> following up on another one of the senator's questions, with regard to china, this is one of the first time i can see that china has issued even a statement with regard to security concerns there. china tends to when they invest, they invest human capital, as well. they have personnel there. is there a concern for the safety of workers there? casualties among those who are in the country, foreign workers? >> i have not heard that there have been any casualties that the chinese have suffered, but many of them are working in the
production, and all of those people have been evacuated out, so for that reason, those are not operating. >> is china doing any more than simply making a statement? i mean, that is the first time they have gone that far, but have they done anything else? >> they are actively involved in the peace process. i understand that they have been holding meetings with the various parties there, and they certainly have been working very, very closely with the ambassador. >> thank you both. this is tough duty, and i know you are working very hard at this, so thank you. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here. i am sorry i missed your testimony, and you may have already talked more about this, as you talk about the additional
humanitarian aid and the redirection of that, can you talk about to what extent we are cooperating with the u.n. and other rooms on the ground there and how that is working, and -- that,ere ways to improve or how concerned are you about wet is happening there? >> are working very closely with the u.n., with our ngo partners, and with our key allies, including those who have been strong partners on south sudan, the u.k., the eu, canada. we are in almost daily contact cityat the level of the and in nairobi and at our headquarters conversations. the u.n. country team is leading the charge, in terms of coordinating the overall assistance, seeing how to when the opportunities arise to get a into the compounds.
the ngo community is very courageously still operating many of their programs. there are ngo's that are doing protection patrols inside some of the compounds, for example, so there is active" in nation, as i did say earlier. in a lote bright spots of bad news is that there is a long history of very strong humanitarian action in south sudan, war and of necessity, but it gives us the capacity to respond rapidly and as effectively as one can in tough situations. >> obviously, some of the stories that have come out has been about the atrocities against women and the particular challenges facing children, women and children. can you talk about whether there are specific efforts around the humanitarian assistance to address some of those concerns? >> yes. of a, against a backdrop
lot of security constraints and impeded access, to the degree that humanitarian workers are able to reach some of these populations, there has been an effort, like these protection patrols, so you have the aid workers actually in with the displaced communities. effort has been to get medical supplies, food these spontaneous settlements of displaced people, including 30,000 people who were and discovered yesterday, so the humanitarian and the protection needs are hand-in- hand, and one of the most important things that we can do is improve the security situation overall, which my colleague spoke about in terms of increasing troops and most of all having in truth access and peace negotiations. in the newsa report this morning criticizing our
as our in south sudan having not been tough enough. exactot remember the phrasing, but that was the gist of what it was saying on some of the new leaders and not expecting enough of them. can you respond to that? whether there are other things that we can't do the active help put pressure on those leaders to encourage them to resolve the situation? >> thank you. i think we have to keep the pressure on, and we have been tough with them. at every level, from the start of this, but even before this started, our ambassador made numerous statements concerning her concerns about the situation. she has been in regular contact with the government as the political situation started to unravel, almost one year ago.
she was making those statements. one of my colleagues indicated to me in congressional testimony in june that he expressed concerns about this publicly, and also we have continued to express those concerns both to musharraf as well as the other. and you talked about uganda and the role that they have played. playerse other regional that are influencing the situation either for good or bad that we should be concerned about? i think we should thank the ethiopian government and the kenyan government, who have been actively involved in the negotiations, working to bring both parties to the peace table. the president visited south
and they impressed upon the president the importance of sending a delegation. i know that they are speaking on a regular basis with the government and pushing particularly the government to release the detainees. they have been working very closely with us, looking at ways that we can support their efforts, so i think their efforts have been extraordinarily positive. also talked to many countries in the region concerning contributing additional troops for the u.n., and all of them are looking at ways that they might either move troops from another peacekeeping force to provide support to the un's in south sudan, and pretty to rob are asking them
from one crisis to contribute to another. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. is been patiently waiting for his opportunity. wait, youratiently colleagues ask all of your questions, which is not a bad thing, because you get to hear answers to the questions you wanted to ask. to what extent is control of the oil resources a motivating factor, or is it more of a collateral consequence? >> i think it is probably both. i know that the fighting in the north, the rebel forces clearly want to maintain or gain control of the oil resources, and the government is certainly fighting tooth and nail to retain those resources, and certainly any that wants to take
over power will be looking at those oil resources as resources that they would want to contribute to the efforts, and we have made it very, very clear that if there is a violent takeover, those oil resources will certainly be sanctioned. minister, to pick up on questions that the senator was asking about the delivery of humanitarian aid, some of your written testimony dealt with that, and i just want to make sure i understand. it sounds like the challenges with the delivery of humanitarian aid right now are mostly security challenges. there is not other kinds of challenges that are making it hard to deliver the humanitarian aid that we want to deliver. do i understand your testimony correctly on that? >> i would say security plus logistical, because it is a fairly complicated logistical environment even before. >> can you talk a little bit
about that? that would be helpful. nile, for example, is a virtual highway for moving supplies there are very few roads. we need to reposition supplies around the country that can be used -- and that to shut off during the rainy season. a lot of the logistical supplies. we have funded additional flights so the u.n. can fly to the spaces. reached, withy augmented. let us to-- it is not move as much quicker. >> when does the rainy season began?
>> in may. we have until may. to position for the following year or we will be facing an increased hunger around the country in addition to the consequences of the violence. couldould love it if you keep the committee informed about the steps we should be taking or working with the administration to promote and facilitate the delivery the of humanitarian aid. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman very much. there have been reports of atrocities by all sides of the conflict in south sudan at least several mass graves discovered and reported. and were civilians being murdered or belonging to the wrong ethnic group. was disturbed by a december human right reports that the
south sudanese army had targeted nor civilians on the basis of their ethnicity. given the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance that the united states has provided to the sudanese since 2005, this crates disturbing questions. vided to south sudanese forces since 2005. this creates disturbing questions. the united states has suspended security assistance and training in december. under what circumstances will the security be allowed to resume? will there be consideration now paid to the fact that we need assurances? that our resistance in training will not be used to commit human rights violations. >> thank you for that question. we have been really saddened by the events that have turned this
fight into a battle that is ethnic in nature. and particularly that is happening inside of the military. we have asked the u.n. about the information on mass graves. they've not been able to confirm those. . we hope to get them out in the field so we can collect that evidence and be prepared to deal with the evidence in terms of holding people accountable. but without seeing the evidence of the mass graves, we do know that there have been extraordinary killings, both in the north and up and around juba. and this is something that has you all worried. >> this raises serious questions
an how we will imp plemt programs that provide training with the sudanese military after the actions have been made public. >> so here's my question to you. in january of 2012, president obama added south sudan to the list of countries eligible to buy weapons for the united states during fiscal year 2012 the state department reported that it had authorized commercial sales of $9 million worth of u.s. made military equipment to south sudan. including military electronics and missed related technology. more than $3 million of equipment was shipped. in contrast, the european union maintained an arms embargo. will the state department suspend or limit the sales to south sudan, given the risk of u.s. weapons being used to commit atrocities? >> at the moment, we're not implementing any of those
programs. let me get back to you with a full answer to that. my inclination is to say that that will likely be the case. but i prefer to get back to you with more details. >> the administration in general is in the process of loosening the regulations that government exports. most could be done without a license or legal requirement that the state department review the sales to make sure they will not fuel armed conflict or harm human rights. the press has reported at one point the administration was seriously considering loosening patrols on guns and ammunition, since they were not critical to maintaining a military foreign intelligence advantage of the united states. can you give us your opinion, madame ambassador, whether or
not we do need a careful review of armed exports in general to assess the potential for them to be used to commit human rights violation that is critical to protecting civilians, not only in south sudan, but in other countries in the world. >> i can speak on south sudan. i will certainly take your question back. my view is in south sudan we are suspending the implementation of the programs and we'll be looking closely at any support we provide them in the future. >> for my part, i think the union is closer to where we should be on these issues. i think the united states has to step back. because the long term implication of anything that we do can be profound. if we start selling nuclear power plants to countries that have long-term instability issues, or we sell arms to countries that we know have much
higher probability than not of being turned around and used for purposes other than those which were originally intended. then we have the responsibility to reevaluate whether or not it makes any sense going forward. and finally the overwhelmi inii majority depend on rain. temperature has increased. rain has decreased in the last several decades with negative consequences for agriculture and food and security. we know that that then creates a threat multiplier inside the countries like sudan. can you talk about that in your opinion, as to what we can do as a country to help to reduce the long-term impact of climate chang
change. >> it's specifically in areas that have chronic poverty overlayed with the continuous shocks of droughts and floods and the changes that you're identifying. we've made progress in kenya and ethiopia and somalia. and we are moving the forward in south sudan. we are seeing the disruption of all of that. that's the case when you have conflict that roles back conflict and gains. hopefully we can resume that and enable greater management of risk and greater adaptation to these changes so we get ahead of the kind of natural disaster cycles. >> you get into a very bad negative feedback loop where it's a very very thing that caused the problem. the smaller and smaller natural
resources and that makes it more difficult to solve the problem, the original cause of the problem. >> that's absolutely right. understanding how to manage the conflict is critical for the programs. we've done a lot of the work in the community level throughout south sudan. we are not getting widespread reports of violence among communities. so far it's armed actors, and we would love to brief you on the resilience programs. >> the only problem we know, the absence of resources related to climate change further exacerbate the ethnic con flicks. they're fighting over less and less, which makes it easier to list the ethnic brethren and again, i would urge that human rights be a factor that is much higher in priority. i think it's time for us to have
that re-evaluation. >> let me thank you. you bring some very critical issues. some of the questions that have been raised about who in our continuation of assistances, why this committee voted 16-1 in a bipartisan basis to create a language to deal with the circumstances. my hope as this bill moves the forward that the appropriations committee will look at the language, and if not, they will have an opportunity to consider the language on the the floor. the state department cannot be in a position of picking and choosing by having a standard that's universal for national security. i think that's incredibly important. >> thank you again for your testimony. i'm just listening to a lot of questions here. and in the opening question you mentioned that bashar did not undertake a coup, in your
opinion. that forces went to his home. he left and then this began. then on the continued basis, talking about no aid if there was a coup at any time or a volatile, a violent take over. i hope, and i've seen juganda i reporting thousands of troops may help the regime. i hope all the players and ourselves are are putting enough pressure on kiir to solve this. as i listen to the questions and answering, it feels like most of the pressure is on the other side. and i just hope the pressure is being applied in a very balanced way. and you don't have to respond to that. but just in listening to the answers, i'm not sure that would come out in this testimony. >> we'll move onto the second
panel. you're excused. and with thanks to the next panel, i will introduce for their patience and the input that they'll have before the committee now, ambassador who served from 2011 to 2013 and previously served as the u.s. senior adviser, a human rights activist and cofounder of the enough project to end genocide and crimes against humanity and kate, who has served as the assistant administrator for africa and mission director. let me -- evidently you all know each other very well. handshakes and kisses are being shared. so let me again thank you for your patience, but your testimony is incredibly important.
we ask you to summarize your statements in five minutes so we can have the dialogue with you. your full statements will be included in the record without objection. ambassador lineman, i'll start with you. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman and all the members of the committee here, this is a tragic situation.here. this is a tragic situation, and it's important -- >> one moment. >> i'm sorry. >> if we could ask those who are leaving to do so quietly and exit the -- so we can hear these witnesses. ambassador? >> i was asked to talk about the context and origins of this crisis, but let me make, if i can, two comments about some of the issues raised earlier. i think the importance of strengthening the u.n. peace keeping operation, as was discussed here, it's absolutely vital that the people who have
sought protection under the u.n. be protected, and that structure there needs a great deal of help. it will take more than the u.n. resolution, a lot of work, and i hope the u.s. can provide logistic and other support to get the troops there. the mandate is there, but it needs to be activated. there has to be a much more aggressive role in protecting civilians, and eventually monitoring the cease fire. so i appreciate the attention that's been given to that. the second thing is i want to point out that the work of the special envoy don booth and the work of ambassador susan page in juba. they are on the ground working this issue all the time. but their presence there in both places sends the message that the u.s. isn't walking away from this crisis.
the support to juba is very, very important and i'm glad it was emphasized in the testimony. i want to talk about the run-up to this crisis to illustrate the weaknesses of the institutions, the political and the military institutions in south sudan, because it's important that as we look ahead to how these issues are revolved, it's not simply a reconciliation between two men or even return to the status quo, because the underlying issues, the underlying weaknesses are going to take something much more and it's going to take a much more active role by the international community in solving these problems than we had before. let me just describe two trends, two developments that led to this crcrisis. one, going back a year and a half or more is the uneasiness or worry within the ruling party
about the way the country was being governed. there was not attention to the party by president kiir, not even to the president. it was more on the basis of a st. paul group of advisers. and even more disturbing, relying more and more on intelligence and security people to harass opponents. journalists assassinated. others being pushed out of the country. became a major concern in our relations with south sudan. so there was a real concern about that governance. and then the second challenge came from mushar, challenging he was going to challenge for the presidency. he is a very international figure. he split in the '90s, fought against it. there was a major massacre. these things haven't been forgotten. so the party was faced with a dilemma. if you don't give him a path to the presidency, there could be a
crisis and a split. if you do give him a path to the presidency, other people will be very upset. instead of having a party capable of doing it, president kiir went the other direction. he froze and eventually dissolved all the party mechanism. he treated the elements from both of these crises as just direct challenges to him and as and as inciting unrest. not because these people now mostly in detention were support ing mushar's presidency. but the way these issues were not being addressed. instead, by december, president kiir dissolved many of the policy institutions and it was very clear there was no resolution taking place.
then we had all the unraveling. i emphasize this because when we look ahead, it's not enough to say well, we just reconcile. there needs to be a process that gets at the basic structures of governance in south sudan. enough protection for democracy and human rights. for how parties are supposed to operate, etc. the constitutional process in south sudan has not moved forward. and that gives us a vehicle for dealing with a lot of participation from civil society, the churches, etc. in a new constitution for south sudan, there would be proceed the next elections and maybe bring new leadership to the country. there should be an advisory committee from the u.n., the u.s., africa union, etc.
the same goes for the economy. there is an oil driven economy. there has to be a much more dynamic relationship between the international community and south sudan over the management of the economy and how people can be helped. otherwise going back to the old institutions will not be sufficient. we have invested the united states heavily in this process. between sudan and south sudan, since 2005, the united states has spent i estimate around $12 billion in peace keeping, in darfur, in humanitarian activities and the birthing of south sudan. we can't turn back on this. it's going to take a lot of time
and effort. if we recognize the fundamental weaknesses in these institutions, we and our partners can start to address this. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. pendergast? >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member corker. this has been crucial to development of u.s. policy to sudan for years, now even decades. i think having this hearing sends a really important signal to the people of south sudan that we care and we're watching very closely, so i thank you for that. i want to move right to the solutions on page 4 of my testimony. i want to propose four ways that the administration and congress supporting the broader peace process that many of you have talked about. first way that the u.s. can help, i think, is to help expand this peace process, beyond just a deal between the guys with the biggest guns. this goes into the heart of what
you're sending in your initial questions. the u.s. can play a major role in helping to ensure that the current process that's unfolding doesn't repeat the mistakes of past mediation efforts in sudan and south sudan. i've tried to document some of them in the written testimony earlier. this will require i think a team of diplomats that can be accompanying our current special envoy. let me just say that sudan -- itself, not south sudan, sudan itself has no peace process to speak of. darfur with the mountains, blue nile, eastern sudan, all these places, particularly the first three, there are huge conflicts with thousands and thousands of deaths over the course of the last year alone, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people over the course of the last year alone. nothing is happening on that front. so we need a team, a cell i think of people to work with our special enjoy, to be able to help deepen these processes.
particularly in the south, i want to associate myself very strongly with what ambassador lyman said. there are a number of layers. but then you have to bring in others. you have to get involved with the governance reforms that has to be part of this process. there are reasons why the war erupted so quickly, whether it was a coup or not, and spread to all the different regions of the country. well, there's a lot of problems, so they're not being addressed through the regular channels, so they need to be reformed. the intercommunal reconciliation efforts have sort of petered out and need to be revived. the constitutional process that princeton talked about. and support for army reform and ddr. we can talk more about that if you want the q&a because i think it's really important. so i think their work gets backed, of course, by susan rice and secretary kerry and
president obama himself, ambassador powell. they've all been making contributions in a good way, just like in past administrations we've seen that from secretary powell and others and secretary rice in the cpa negotiation. and that needs to continue. congress can be helped from ensuring that these resources are available from the diplomatic efforts, for building the kind of team to be able to undertake protracted negotiation. that's what it's going to require for the peace to have a chance in south sudan and in sudan. second way the u.s. can help is i think to reinvent the troika. it involved the three countries, the u.s., britain, and norway. it went back to the late '90s. played a crucial role in the mediation process leading up to the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. i think the troika can play an even more important role in the new peace efforts in south sudan and in the ongoing effort to try to build a peace process in
sudan. and so, if they added another member, and that is china, bringing china into the tent in a more formal way would increase the emphasis on the parties. we need the leverage. and engaging even india would also be potentially productive. so i think a high level white house effort should be undertaken with beijing to find common ground on what our two countries can support together in south sudan and a lot of work has already been done. i don't want to say anything negative about that. but a very high level specific effort to try to figure out how the u.s. and china can work together. i think they can do that in the context of what can be a revived troika. i think for its part, the congress can help by engaging directly with some officials from china. in exploring the ways that the u.s. and china can work together for peace in the sudans. third way the u.s. can help is to collect evidence of atrocities and to sanction the perpetrators.
this goes to the heart of what senator cardin was talking about earlier. and i think we all know what that means, but there are two ways you can do it. you can collect the evidence and use that evidence immediately to impose targeted sanctions against individuals who are found to be perpetrating, suspected of perpetrating mass atroci atrocities. and you can turn over the bodies and work for the creation of bodies or the existing bodies like the icc. but the creation of bodies like a mixed court in south sudan that can work to begin to end the cycle of impunity and begin to prosecute those that are committing these kinds of atrocities, as i think everyone in this committee and panel thinks, if we don't start to deal with those kinds of questions, it just leads to a deepening of a cycle of violence and impunity that we've seen, not only in south sudan, but as was mentioned already in a number of other places in africa and around the world. for its part, i think congress could ask for regular briefings
from the administration. formal briefings on the evidence of atrocities and how specifically the u.s. is responding on these two areas. targeted sanctions and prosecutions. what are we doing? the fourth way the u.s. can help is to help negotiate humanitarian access. i think the u.s. has been admirable, going all the way back to when kate was running things. admirable in the way we have responded to the humanitarian crisis. we have a long history of negotiated access agreements in south sudan that we can build on. i think we don't want to wait a long time before we get those negotiated access agreements to get to people, particularly there are people all over south sudan, but i want to highlight one group of people that are extremely at risk, and those are those refugees from sudan, from the nuba mountains who are in south sudan and have no resources to call upon. and their home area is in sudan are the subject of intensive
bombings in south sudan in the mountains today. so to be able to negotiate the access up to those areas and ensure that the parties uphold those agreements is terribly important. in conclusion, track record of this commerce is moving clearly with regard to south sudan. i know i speak for my fellow panelists and so many others in expressing our deep appreciation for your continuing advocacy on behalf of the people of sudan and south sudan. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. to improve the lives of the people of south sudan has been undone. as others have indicated today, the violence could devolve further.
i would like to offer a few observations on the current crisis and then make several recommendations. let me be clear from the outset, upon south sudan's independence in 2011, the united states pledged its commitment to continue to stand by its people. we should remain resolute in this commitment, not flinching in the face of recent developments. the united states's unique influence and a deep reservoir of good will in south sudan that gives it an indispensable role in overcoming the current crisis. my first observation is that this crisis was neither inevitable nor ethnically motivated. it is a political crisis, precipitated by the failure of president kiir and machar to settle their political violences without resort to violence. they can stop it. the first priority is inducing them to do so. secondly, institutional development takes decades. political transitions are inherently messy.
it's not a surprise that there is a crisis in government. it is important to recognize that south sudan was not afforded self-determination based on its capacity for self-rule. south sudan must develop its political institutions indigenously and from the ground up. it is unreasonable to expect these institutions to develop and take root in two and a half years. sadly, the government's record since independence is one of deliberate undermining and erosion of t erosion. this is the root of the current crisis and the fundamental issue that must be addressed if and when the fighting ends. thirdly, the united states's deep relationships with the protagonist and unparalleled degree of influence and the speedometer to use that influence to broker a return to nonviolent political competition. this is not a time for incremental approaches.
the united states must continue to deploy the full weight of its diplomatic capabilities on the parties directly and multi-laterally, including through the u.n. security council. the united states should move to invoke the president's authority to institution travel bans and asset freezes on senior leadership on both sides as well as prepare to extend those sanctions multi-laterally through a resolution in the u.n. security council if the following actions are not imminently forthcoming. one, a secession of fighting without further stalling or delay. the united states must foreclose a military option for either side, including by discouraging regional actors such as uganda and sudan from directly or indirectly participating in the conflict. two, a release of the 11 political detainees arrested following the outbreak of fighting in juba. they have been targeted on the basis of their public dissent with president kiir and their participation is vital to reaching a political arrangement. three, the impartial delivery of
urgently needed humanitarian aid, including providing humanitarian actors full unimpeded access to all those in need, not just in the protected enclaves of spaces and most especially to civilians caught in active conflict zones. four, full cooperation with human rights monitoring, including with a formal u.n. inquisition. neither kiir courageous leadership is required to rise above personal ambitions and animosities to achieve a cease-fire. escaping cycles of violence is hard but it can be done. if an interim political settlement is reached, the south sudanese leadership will need to dedicate itself to three critical tasks to demonstrate accountability to its people. building coalitions to support key institutional reforms in citizens' security, justice, and
jobs, expanding space for independent voices so a national dialogue is possible, and tangibly demonstrating the state's responsiveness to its citizens, particularly by drafting and adopting a permanent constitution, fostering national and local reconciliation and conducting fair and peaceful elections. prioritizing road networks and radio communications is a must to achieve any of these tasks. the united states is the largest bilateral donor to south sudan and it should remain so. significant areas of the country, in fact, are peaceful. in government, community, and church leaders in these areas are to be commended and supported in their efforts to stem the conflict spread, including through the continuation of development partnerships. an abrupt stop to development assistance will only worsen the national crisis, not alleviate it. u.s. aid has been providing development assistance to south sudan continuously since 1998. eventually through the newly independent government. the games from these programs
should not be jettisoned hastily or unnecessarily. doing so will only make the task of stabilization reconstruction that much harder if and when a political settlement is reached, further harming the people of south sudan. let me conclude on a practical note. the u.s. government's ability to respond effectively to this crisis, whether through diplomacy, humanitarian assistance or development will be significantly handicapped without the presence of americans with deep knowledge of relationships with south sudan. i understand all too well the tradeoffs between security and impact. it is imperative that u.s. government staff be allowed to return to south sudan as quickly as possible. thank you again for this opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> well, thank you all for your testimony. some very important insights there. let me ask you, ambassador lyman, you refer to machar and
other spln leaders and their grievances. was there popular support for those views, the views that they were espousing on the south sudanese? >> i doubt it. those were kind of inside what we would call here inside the beltway kind of arguments over authorities in power, etc. but one area that was getting quite a bit of popular attention was the harassment of human rights workers, of journalists, etc. that was raising a great deal of concern inside south sudan. the challenge from machar did, of course, reverberate through because of the history. and i think people recognize that that challenge was going to be a major one to be managed by the government. >> now, the composition of the
government delegation is interesting to me, particularly since nile was once part of a faction that opposed garang and kiir's vision for south sudan. what might the composition of the delegation mean in terms of larger regional dynamics? >> you know, it's -- you have really three parties a year. you have the government, president kiir's supporters. you have machar's supporters. and you have this group of detainees who are not either. that is, they are looking for a broader party role, a broader use of the party mechanisms and authorities. and to make them part of the negotiati negotiations, you have to enlarge those negotiations to allow for views other than just the two contending parties.
but you need to do that to give them a role, because there are two things that have to happen. after a cease fire, you have to have an understanding as to what the government's going to look like for the next two years. and that means that those people now detained, and president kiir, and people from machar's side, have to agree on the structure of a government over the next two years. meanwhile, you have this -- what i think a broad constitutional process that delves into the longer term issues of democracy, human rights, and governance. so this is a complicated negotiation that has to take place. and it needs to involve people who represent several different points of view, both from within the ruling party and outside. >> and that observation brings me to mr. pendergast. after the security council's approval of additional
peacekeeping troops for south sudan last month, you commented that the political and diplomatic elements of international responses to most african conflicts have been slow and ineffective. which have put more pressure on peacekeeping missions than they have the wherewithal to fully adept, to which they're totally unprepared. can you talk about this? i'd like to go into greater depth of the context of the current situation in south sudan. and why it's important for the peacekeeping missions to be accompanied by very rigorous diplomatic engagement from members of the international community, particularly the united states. >> thanks, senator. yeah. you look at the three biggest missions today on the african continent, south sudan, darfur, and eastern congo, american taxpayers on the hook for almost 30% of -- or well over $3 billion a year in supporting
peacekeeping missions there. but in all three of those cases, you could argue the corresponding political investment was not equal to the investment in the deployment of military force. in south sudan, everyone has discussed that there has -- there was probably not enough international efforts undertaken to try to prevent the conflict between -- and i agree totally with my fellow panelists, this political dispute, which goes back, of course, decades between the two factions that are now battling. the lack of an international engagement, a deep engagement, a transparent engagement to try to prevent conflict i think is something we need to look at. in congress, we didn't have much of a political process for years
until finally the u.n. appointed mary robinson and the u.s. appointed senator feingold, the former members of this committee. and now we're starting to see the construction of a credible, serious peace process. and b, the deployment of real force that helps change the game on the ground in eastern congo. and in darfur, we have this endless peacekeeping mission that -- made absolutely no progress in dealing with the political roots, the political drivers of violence throughout sudan. so i think that's where we really are missing -- we invested a great deal. sort of the old military adage. if all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. we just keep throwing these peacekeeping forces into these situations without investing the preventative diplomacy. now princeton was the special envoy for the united states. and when he was in office, until
march 2013, he was actively engaging with the parties in south sudan and helping to prevent a deterioration. but there was a long gap between his -- the end of his term and the beginning of the next one, and there isn't another country that's really engaged like we are in that kind of preventative diplomacy. no headlines. nobody cares that people are out there doing that stuff. and you don't get any credit if you actually prevent something. but that's what we need to be investing in. that's what isn't happening in south sudan because we vn invested the resources in helping to build that real serious political process.haven invested the resources in helping to build that real serious political process. that will allow for the resolution of these horrible, deadly conflicts. >> i smile when you say you don't get any credit for preventing things, it's so true. but yet it is probably the most successful element of what we do. final question, ms. knopf.
you made an interesting observation, that for us to be successful in south sudan, you have to have parties that have a history, have an understanding, have an engagement. so i would assume based upon that comment, maybe i'm wrong, that maybe we don't have all the parties that would bring us to the successful conclusion. are there some missing parties or types of resources we should be bringing that aren't there right now? >> the critical issue at the moment is the drawdown of the u.s. embassy and u.s. aide staff. without having diplomats on the ground, resident there, talking to parties across all sides of this crisis and getting out beyond juba and the capital as well, that becomes very, very difficult to adjust to.
secondly, for aid programs to be effective, we need to have both development experts and the humanitarian professionals, most especially at this moment in time, to be as close to the situations that they're trying to ameliorate as possible, and to be in constant contact with local partners with the south sudanese who are at risk and in need of assistance. daily and hourly coordination with the other elements of the national humanitarian response front. doing this offshore from nairobi at the moment where the disaster assistance response team is based, it takes us back to -- i don't even know, before 2002, 2001 in terms of how we used to manage humanitarian response in southern sudan. it's woefully inadequate and will impact our ability to be effect initiative the long run. we have deep, deep expertise, as was said in the u.s. government and in the international community and with americans in implementing partners such as
ngos and other international organizations. they need to be there in order to respond. >> senator? >> sorry i missed the testimony. i'm told about this being a division of ethnicity as well. of course, that's often the case. what is the percentage of the president's -- well, the dinka tribe constitutes what percentage of the country? >> i don't have that figure, but it's the largest group. there are a lot of subgroups. and that too is a factor. the second largest group is largely supporting machar. but i don't have the percentages, i'm sorry, but i can get them to you. >> we're just consulting. 30, 35% is dinka.
65 tribes and ethnic groups in south sudan. >> 65. >> i was asking the other panel, some of the other questions there, the u.n. peacekeeping forces that are there now, how effective are they at preventing bloodshed, or what can we do to help that group? is it just a number of numbers or mission? what can we do at this point? >> well, let me comment on that. both of the things you've mentioned -- first of all, they don't have enough troops there, and the action by the security council was important. but it's very hard to get countries to contribute and find air support and equipment. and that just has to take a lot of intensive effort by us and others to make sure they get
there. but second, it has to be made very clear that they're going to be aggressively protecting civilians. which means that those compounds will not be allowed to be breached, and they're prepared to defend them with weapons, if that takes place. they have to be aggressively patrolling. now, they haven't played that role up to now. they haven't seen that as their mission. but i think that has to become part of it, and they have to look ahead to how they will monitor a cease fire. and how they will be out there aggressively doing so and reporting violations to the security council. so these are things they haven't been doing. it wasn't in their original thought. they were now they've got a new desperately important protection role.
and they need more people and they need a very aggressive mandate. >> any differences there or comments? >> totally agree. the 32nd footnote -- and again, it's a wider phenomenon. we send peacekeeping forces, missions to do a laundry list of things, and when the stuff hits the fan, we want them to protect civilians. they're not prepared to do that. you have to organize, as you know, and deploy provision and have the expertise to undertake civilian protection mission. these guys weren't ready for that. so now they have to get up to speed and that's going to taking a while. >> i guess my two cents on this would be, they have what they need to go out and do these things, to defend and patrol and to monitor ceasefires. but the world turned upside down
in just under four weeks in south sudan. this is not what they were initially there to do. while the potential for conflict, of course, has been there and is not a surprise, the fact that it has fallen apart so quickly and so dramatically, it takes a moment, i think, for everybody to adjust and to understand and retool for the new challenges and the new realities. so i don't think -- there's lots that one can say about the performance, but they were there to do a state mission. now they have to do a very different mission. >> so they've got the mandate. it's the numbers issue for the most part. >> the irony is that south sudan opposed the chapter 7 mandate. said we don't have any internal security problems. unfortunately, security council saw otherwise. >> thank you.
with regard to u.s. assistance, state building or humanitarian, does that represent leverage that's effective at all? ambassador thomas grayfield seemed to know -- the restrictions we have here in congress, in terms of aid and assistance after a coup. does that represent the leverage that we can use? is it effective at all? or just on the margins? >> no, i think it was a very important statement by the united states. that we would not recognize a military takeover. president kiir, for all his faults, is a dramatically elected president. and you have to build on that. just saying anybody can come in and take over is going to undermine a lot of things. so i think it was important. whether the aid levels matter to people like machar, it's hard to
say. i think secretary greenfield suggested that probably in itself is not. but international recognition is important. so i think making that statement is important. but then the burden falls on president kiir to play his role much more effectively. and here's another irony. president kiir was proud of the fact and mired for the fact that he was the one that created the unity of all these different groups in the run-up to independence. he brought in all these factions, etc. he created a broad based government. he invited machar to be vice president. it was one of his accomplishments. it was one of the reasons he was so supported. unfortunately, he's moved in a different direction. he sees all his critics as enemies. he's relying on intelligence people and harassers, etc. it's unfortunate, because his
original contribution is being lost. >> thank you. >> if i can just add, my personal knowledge of the two main parties here is the threat to cut off our assistance, our development assistance. it's not what's going to motivate them to come to the table and get the ceasefire done, arrive at an interim political assessment. it will hurt the people of south sudan. we know how to do it in the midst of conflict. we have many modalities for how to provide assistance, either with the cooperation of the government or working through other avenues, local and international partners and sub national levels of government. there are stable areas of the country. we should not stop development assistance in the stable areas of the country. it's very important to help keep the conflict from spreading and to not lose the gains we've already made. as well, united states assistance has been vital with the economy with the central