Transcripts For CSPAN Homeland Security Inspector General Confirmation Hearing 20140112

But they do not have the full delegation that it wants. So are you sensing that without that full delegation and yet having participants from both sides that can speak, are you sensing that these talks are going to yield any breakthroughs . Not at the moment. We got agreement, i understand, from ambassador booth from sesation of hostilities. But the other side is still insisting that the 11 detainees be released before they sign off on anything. And we are working here in washington to pressure the government to release the detainees. The two negotiators, the kenyan and ethiopian negotiators were there yesterday. They met with the detainees. Is there any chance thats going to occur . Were hopeful. We heard early right around christmas that the president was going to release eight of them. Secretary spoke to him several times on this. We hope he is getting the message from around the world. Hes getting phone calls from within the region as well as outside the region to impress upon him how important it is to release the detainees. We think it will bring added talks to the negotiations. It will bring political views much more moderate than what were hearing. Theyre not part of the fighting party. So what would be the president s resistance to release him to be a part of this . If he knows that, why would he resist . Thats a question i cant answer for him. Hes accused the prisoners as being part of the alleged coup plot, and that there are legal procedures that they have to go through before he can make the decision to release them. And so then on our side, just to understand how this is playing out, i know weve had ups and downs. Weve had vacancies the there. Who is actually in charge of u. S. Policy relative to this conflict and trying to resolve it . We are in washington in charge of the policy. Ambassador booth has the ability of implementing that policy in terms of negotiations, but our ambassador on the ground is major for the government. Shes there 24 7. He is currently full time leading our efforts to push for the negotiation. Ambassador page has continued to have meetings with the government. Continued to push the government to release the detainees. Shes had several meetings with the detainees. So you think the arrangement we have relative to how we have arranged for our leadership to be, you think its working the way it should . Its working well, sir. And weve invested obviously millions of dollars as a country. Invested a lot of time and a lot of people. South sudan and sudan in general has had a lot of interest from the u. S. Especially what is happening there. Certainly 30 months ago. Has the state department at all questioned our efforts there . Has there been any feeling like we could end up in a place there that is good . Whats the effect on state departments there . I think i can say that we are disappointed with the way things are going in sudan. But we are committed to ensuring that sudan does not fail. Were 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. Theyve been failed by their leaders. We still we have to stand with the sudanese people to take this to a conclusion that that will lead the country back on the right track. Chairman menendez was asking a little bit about the u. N. Forces. Many of us have been to darfur and seeing the mandate the u. N. Had there and been frustrated in the past by that. Does this have a right to mandate on the ground in south sudan right now . We think they do . But we have looked at the mandate. And given the Current Situation on the ground, we need to beef up their mandate, particularly on the Peace Keeping side. They are there as a protection force. And certainly in terms of their numbers and capacity, theyre not a place to handle the Current Situation. And its our hope to fill that up rather quickly. Mr. Chairman, first, thanks for conducting this hearing. What you do to promote u. S. Interest under extremely challenging circumstances. So i thank you very much. And strongly support the frame work that you have laid out. This needs to be critically evaluated to make sure there is adequate resources to implement, we hope, some form of cessation of violence. The humanitarian issues are incredibly difficult, the Ngo Community not able to operate as they did prior to this violence. Whether the resources and aid will get to the people who really need it. They can do the release that is desperately needed. And that presented challenges that we expect the United States to play a major role in trying to sort out. And youre correct. Three years ago as the election started as insouth sudan, the United States was cheering. A new nation. The last two and a half years we have not spent enough time dealing with the institutions of the governance that can deal with the challenges of a country. And i hope we will understand that its not just acknowledging a new country, but working to make sure they have the institutions necessary to protect all the citizens from the challenges of ethnic diversity. So i want to talk about one point that their man menendez mentioned. Your response is what i expected to hear. And you said the human rights abuses must be held accountable. Ive heard this before. Weve been through bosnia, syria, now south sudan. And it seems as we start negotiating and getting documentation. And i think one of the problems that we have, those who do the ethnic cleansing do not believe the International Community will ever hold them accountable for the crimes against humanity. Unless we make this a real priority, unless we talk about it and dont put it on the side. I know we have to take care of this. We have to get the parties talking. We dont want to bring up issues that might be divisive. Were never beginning to get attention to accountability to those who commit crimes against humanity that we need. So ive been here if too many of these ethnic cleansing problems around the world. And the response for those who perpetrated it has been weak at best. So what can you tell this committee about how the United States, which has always been the leader on these issues will make sure that those who committed atrocities will be held accountable by the International Community. Thank you for the question. My answer ooem not sure will satisfy you. Its not going to satisfy me. Its hard. But having worked in africa for many years, we have examples where we succeeded. We look at the fact that charles was held accountable and serving the rest of his life in prison. Thats the example that i want to follow for us in sudan. As we look at how but this is hard. I cant say this is something we can accomplish easily. But i can say its something that were committed to making every effort to accomplish. Well, let me just point out if the United States does not make this a priority issue, it will not be a priority issue. Its up to us. I do appreciate the testimony that we are documenting and providing the legal information that will be necessary to the appropriate tribunals the information. But it seems to me that your public statements had every opportunity that you can about we will not tolerate those who perpetrated these atrocities being not being held accountable. I hope when i look at the headlines and papers and see how the negotiations are taking plaig place, that i see this them consistently throughout. If not, as sure as were here today, there will be another country where well see the same tripe of atrocities committed against people because of their ethnicity. Unless we hold accountable and make sure there can be no peace without accountability, it will happen again. Thank you. And i want to thank the distinguished senator for being in this regard. Im wholeheartedly with you in this regard. The commission is incredibly important. And i look forward to working with you, the press, this issue. Not only in soout sudan, but elsewhere. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to ask you in light of the tragedies that occurred over the last couple of years, first and foremost, what are we doing to ensure the security of our personnel . I know on the 21st of december the u. S. Military aircraft was dispatched to rescue americans fired upon. The servicemen and women i dont know that they were injured in that. So how confident are we that the personnel is secure . Do we know . Senator, thank you for that question. Let me say the security of the personnel for me for the administration is our highest priority. And we watched the security situation on the ground in juba almost on an hourly basis. We have a 24hour task force. Our staff at the embassy are down to minimal levels. Its the ambassador being supported by two staff, and the rest of them are security people. We have 74 marines and 45 forces from east Africa Response unit. To provide the support. And were looking at the security situation with the concern of the ambassador and the rest of the team. The attack on our planes. I know that we are looking into that. We do not know who shot at the planes. But thats something we are in the process of investigating. We think its important to keep the embassy open. We think its important to engage all of the parties and also having our flag flying, its also its a symbol for the people of sudan. And we dont want to abandon them. But at any moept where we determine the situation is not secure for an ambassador to remain we are prer paired to get them out of there before the extreme conditions. My second question ask whether we have the right people. There are media reports about groups who may or may not be responsible. How concerned are we about that . They have the support of the Community Based groups who allegedly may have participated in some ethical targeting. How big of a problem are these Armed Civilian groups out there conduct i conducting attacks and other operations . Thats a big problem. Our concern is they are not under control of the leaders there. Thats a problem that we have to be very conscious of. So its a real problem . It is a real problem. The last question is our national interest. Any time we deal with issues happening abroad, the fundamental question for many people is we understand its a horrible tragedy. But why should the United States care . This is not our business. I hear that from them. I believe the humanitarian issues are both your testimony and miss lundbergs testimony and i agree with all of those things. I think those in it of itself are of interest of the United States. But i want to talk about regional stability and get your input on this. The leaders are desperate to get this thing out because of the oil exports. But this somewhat put a strain on sudans economy because of the loss of the oil fields. And they created some controversial in regards to that. Talked to us a little bit about the threat this poses to sudan and the other nations in the region and the the loss of oil revenues in the field and the flow of refugees that are poring over the border into sudan, from south sudan. What is the possibility this is not resolved of the undermining and spreading to create a real problem in sudan, and then ultimately the entire region becoming unstable. And we all know where this leads to. So describe that threat of spiraling into that. The secrets can spiral into problems for all of the neighbors. Particularly the fact that we saw president bashir visit south sudan that hes clearly concerned about the impact of that situation on what is happening in sudan. Particularly on the flow of oil. We had heard that he had there had been discussions about sudan providing military support to south sudan. The press reports have indicated they do not plan to do that. Theyre going to provide experts to assist in the oil fields. We can do that in many ways. The government of uganda has indicated they have real concerns about the impact of south sudan on uganda. Kenya and uganda already has a very large refugee camp with sudanese refugees, both from the south and the the north. And we are seeing more refugees flow across the border. And they also have concerns. If these countries get involved, the conflict would spread. I want to wrap up by asking about the refugees. If the loss of the oil would create domestic pressures in sudan. But what risk are the refugees at going now in . If you could describe briefly the ramifications of having these camps and other installations crossing over. The risk of violence with other countries as well. Thats a real thing were concerned about as well. From the political standpoint, having outflows of populations into neighboring countries, the problems from the country into the neighboring countries. And thats a concern that all of the neighbors have. They know the impacts the refugees will have on their societies, on their economies. I would add its a region with significant displacement for several decades. You have africa dealing with its own serious spiralling crisis as well. 200,000 people have come from sudan from the two areas of blue nile into south sudan, just in the last two years. So these people are now pearled. Theres always greater danger once the families are displaced and once theyre moving into countries with fewer resources and some are already fragile because of pressures of dealing with so many displaced populations. Let me thank you as the Ranking Member, you have done some tremendous work over the last year. At this time theyre recognizing. I would like to thank the witnesses for sharing their insights today. 2011 i led a resolution welcoming the independence of south sudan, and urging that its leaders address some of of the long standing challenges in order to put them on a path towards longterm stability. And just three years down from the date of the referendum, as you mentioned. Secretary, deeply dispinted by the senseless violence, by the rapidly expanding political challenge in south sudan. A thorough engagement. Ambassador booth is showing and for our ability to step up to the plate quickly. And start, if you would for me, secretary, with just a quick summery as to why south sudan matters to the United States. Why this crisis matters to people of the United States. Thank you for that question. For 30 years the United States has been supporting the people of south sudan. For south sudan became an entity. Supporting the right to exist. The 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. Me email is up since this started on december 15th from americans concerned about what is happening in sudan. Ive not gotten a single email from someone saying dont spend your time working on this. And so we do hear as a nation about this country. We also have a significant population of sudanese americans who have thrived in our country. But who have an abiding interest in sudan. It goes without saying that we care. We have an interest. But we also have an interest in maintaining piece in the area and making sure theres no space that extreme it groups can take advantage of. I think if we leave it, it could become a problem. And then it becomes a bigger problem for us. I agree with you that we have both values priors. A new fragile democracy. We want to see it launched and healthy and successful. Does the United States stay the course . Do we remain engaged in a leadership role as we fight for democracy . And as the ongoing negotiations are moving the forward, there is a serious fire immediately. I hope there will be a broader focus. Including corruption chrks is one of the main challenges. What role might the United States be asked to play monitoring the cease fire. What Additional Resources might we bring to the table or be called upon to bring to the table to make sure theyre successful. And what Additional Resources, if i might ask, in both the administrative networks do we need to be deploying in order to be effective in our humanitarian relief efforts. Again, thank you for that question. Ill turn to my colleague. Weve been viewed by both sides as an honest broker. We been accused of supporting each of the other sides. And so i think we probably got it right. And were looking at how we can support the efforts to ensure that there is peace, and each side honors commitments to a cease fire. Were looking at what sources we may have available to support the effort. On the humanitarian side, as i mentioned earlier weve added 50 million in addition to what was already 318 million portfolio. If this conflict persists, if the needs continue to be this urgent, we will start running into tough choices given the rising cry cease that we have with syria, the typhoon that we just responded to. So thanks to the very important support of congress, we were able to do what we needed to do last year. As we look ahead, there will be again tough decisions and the need for the support of all of you in order for us to maintain bloebl humanitarian leadership. This is a great example of how it makes it possible for you to indeed effectively and rapidly respond. My next question has to do with the regional actor and global actor. What sort of messages are we sending to him about the role that we welcome or we hope that uganda might play in what you make of as motives and what are the challenges with uganda. And my last question is, what role does china play . The chinese have been quite active in the region and stability rather than picking sides. Uganda initially went into went into south sudan to support needed infrastructure. So they provided troops to secure the airport. And to secure the road to nimily to ensure that their citizens were able to come out safely. We do know and this has come up as an issue of the talks that the ugandans have indicated, and they said it publicly, that they support the government of south kiir. That they have an interest in the region, and they want to ensure that a democratically elected government is not overthrown by violence. It has caused an issue. It got announced very early on after the summit . That they would support stability in the region, and would be prepared to do so militarily. So this is something that were watching very closely. Their actions do not lead to greater conflict they have indicates to us that they strongly support the Peace Process. They support the negotiations. But in the meantime they will continue to provide a stabilizing force in juba. On china . On china theres a Chinese Special envoy who is in adis. Hes been working very closely with ambassador booth. They have the interest. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate working with on this issue. He had many of the same questions that i wanted to ask. With regard to uganda, they moved in quickly with troops to secure exit of their citizens and whatever else. They did it as a neighbor. The government of south sudan, they were asked to come in. The peace keeper troops in there, what countries make up those forces right now. We have recently just bangladeshis. We have some kenyans. Thank you, with regard to the oil revenue. There are some reports that i see say that production is down 20 . Others saying that it stops completely. What do we know at this point . The latest information i have is that many of the oil wells have been stopped. I dont know what the percentage is. There is some oil left in the pipeline. Most of the pumping has ceased. The only option that the pipelines go through sudan, or over land by truck on coast, thats not much of an option. It never was. And no other industry in the country to speak of really. I think the largest industry outside the oil industry is a brewery. So not much to fall back on. This is one of the first examples i have seen where the u. S. Has actually taken the prohibition that congress has placed on aid to countries that undergo a coup or new governments by virtue of a coup. If this is a coup and succeeds, this will be a cutoff of aid. Are we using that as leverage now against the Opposition Forces . We said to the opposition that we will not support their efforts to violently overthrow the government. That would include aid programs. I have to be careful. Were not talking about the programs of the people that support sudan. Right now all of our support to the government of south sudan, all of that support is not being implemented because we cant implement it. So were not doing any programs right now. I would suspect at a point if this violence continues that we would suspend that supportment. 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 nose in opposition for the Vice President s forces or whatever that aid will be cut off . You know, i dont think its a threat that works. If either of these sides cared about their people, they wouldnt be fighting. And we have told them they stand a chance of losing all support from the u. S. Government. To make a sharp distinction between the humanitarian funds that are in need from the development activities, some of which went directly to support government Capacity Building and standing up of the new institutions. Theyre put in separate categories. Some of the Development Categories to improve the lives of the people, is that a fuzz zi area . Or is there a clear distinction as to what is humanitarian and what is not . Theres always a distinction that directly assists people, such as Health Facilities or Health Programs or the Community Based reconciliation programs that weve conducted. Thats the consideration that would come into play should we need to. Can you give me some idea . Were sayingre going to cut off aid. If this succeeds, for example. If this coup does succeed, how much of our aid will still flow . Can you give me a percentage . I know theres some fuzz ziness. Thats why im wondering what will go to a u. S. If a new government comes in . Let us get back to you with that information. I think it will take additional consideration. But we will be happy to get back to you on that. Theres an inability to conduct the programs in any case just because of the confusion and the violence thats under way. Its the humanitarian programs that were continuing to push out and able to ensure that aid is getting to people. With regard to china, this is the first time china has issued a statement with regard to security concerns there. China tends to, when they invest, they invest in human capitol as well and have personnel there. Is their concern the safety of workers there . Have there been 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 areas of oil production, and all of those people have been evacuated out. And so for that reason the oil wells are not operating. Is china doing anymore than making a statement . Thats the first time theyve gone that far. But have nay done anything else . They are actively involved in the Peace Process in the addis. I understand theyve been Holding Meetings with various parties there. And they certainly have been working very closely with the ambassador. Well, thank you both. Thats a tough duty and i know you are working hard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Im sorry i missed your testimony. You may have talked more about th this. Can you talk about to what extent were cooperating the u. N. And others on the ground and how thats working and whether there are ways to improve that or how concerned are you about whats happening there . Were working very closely with the u. N. And with our key allies, including those who have been long strong partners on south sudan. The u. A. The eu of canada. We are in almost daily contact in nairobi and through our headquarters conversations. The u. N. Country team is leading the charge in terms of coordinating the overall assistance, and seeing when the opportunities arise to get aid into the compounds. The Ngo Community is very courageously still operating many of their programs. There are ngos doing protection patrols inside the compounds, for example. So theres active close coordination. As i said earlier, one of the bright spots in the middle of a lot of bad news is theres a history of the action in south sudan. Born of necessity, but it gives us the capacity to respond. As one can in tough situations. Obviously some of the stories that have come out have been in the atrocities this women and particular challenges facing women. Women and children. Can you talk about whether there are specific efforts around humanitarian assistance to address the concerns. Again, against the backdrop of a lot of security constraints and impeded access to the degree that humanitarian workers are able to reach the populations. Within the displaced communities. Some of the real effort has been to get medical supplies, food and water to these spontaneous settlements of displaced people. So the humanitarian and 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 colleagues talk about in terms of increasing mistruths, and most of all, having improved access in peace negotiations. There was a report on the news this morning, criticizing our efforts in south sudan as being, as our having not been tough enough. I dont remember the exact phrasing. But that was the gist of what it was saying. Some of the new leaders. And not expecting enough of them. And whether there are other things that we can do to help put pressure on those leaders to encourage them to resolve the situation . Thank you. I think we have to keep the pressure on. But even before this started, our ambassador had made numerous statements concerning her concerns about the situation. She has been in regular contact with the government as the political situations started to unravel, almost a year ago. She was making those statements. He indicated to me that in congressional testimony in june. And also we have continued to express the concerns, both to bashar as well as to kiir. And you talked about uganda and the role theyre playing. There are situations for good or bad that we should be i think we should thank the ethiopian and kenyan government who have been actively involved in the negotiations and working to bring both parties to the peace table. The president s visited south the and impressed upon president the importance of sending a delegation. I know that they are speaking on a regular basis with the government and pushing particularly the government to release the detainees. They have been working very closely with us looking at ways that we can support their efforts. So i think that their efforts have been extraordinarily positive. We have 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 Peace Keeping force to provide support to the u. N. In south sudan. And pretty much were asking them to rob from one crisis to contribute to another. Thank you. Senator cane has been waiting for his opportunity. And your colleagues ask all your questions, which is not a bad thing. You get to hear the answers. Just a few things. To what extent is control of the Oil Resources a motivating factor in the conflict or more of a collateral consequence of the conflict . 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. D certainly any government thapts to take over power will be looking at those Oil Resources as resources that they want want to have contribute. Weve made very, very clear that if there is a violent takeover those Oil Resources will certainly be sanctioned. And to pick up on questions that senator shaheen was asking about the delivery of humanitarian aid, i want to make sure i understand. It sounds like the challenge is with the delivery right now are mostly security challenges. Theres no other kinds of challenges that are making it hard to deliver the aid that we want to deliver. Do i understand your testimony correctly on that . I would say Security Plus logistical. Because its a very complicated logistical environment even before. Could you talk about that . Irning you testified about the security side. That would be helpful. So the nile, for example, is a virtual highway for moving supplies around. And all of the barges have been commandiered and are un available to remove to move relief supplies. There are very few roads and we are having to work against the upcoming rainy season. Typically this is the dry season, this is the period in which we need to preposition critical relief supplies around the country that are shut off during the rainy season. So theres a lot of those supplies. We are using we have funded additional flights so that the n. Can fly to the base where we have a concentration of displaced people. So that is happening. Weve augmented that. It is expensive and it doesnt let us move as much as quickly. So its security compounded by the difficult logistics. When does the rainy season start . In may. So we have until may both to position for the following year or we will be facing increased hunger around the country in addition to the consequences of this violence. I would love it if you could keep the Committee Informed about steps that we should be taking or we should be working with the administration to facilitate. Humanitarian aid. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Thank you, senator, very much. Ambassador, there have been points of atrocities by all sides of the conflict in south sudan with mass graves discovered in reports of newer civilians being murdered or belonging toe the wrong ethnic group. I was especially daddened by a report that members of the south Sudanese Army had targeted newer 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 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. Theyve 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 heres 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, were 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 well 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 longterm 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 longterm impact of climate chang change. Its specifically in areas that have chronic poverty overlayed with the continuous shocks of droughts and floods and the changes that youre identifying. Weve 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. Thats 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 its 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. Thats absolutely right. Understanding how to manage the conflict is critical for the programs. Weve 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 its 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. Theyre 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 its time for us to have that reevaluation. 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 161 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 thats universal for national security. I think thats incredibly important. Thank you again for your testimony. Im 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 ive 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 dont have to respond to that. But just in listening to the answers, im not sure that would come out in this testimony. Well move onto the second panel. Youre excused. And with thanks to the next panel, i will introduce for their patience and the input that theyll 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, ill 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 its important one moment. Im 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, its 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 thats 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. Isnt walking away from this crisis. The support to juba is very, very important and im glad it was emphasized in the testimony. I want to talk about the runup to this crisis to illustrate the weaknesses of the institutions, the political and the military institutions in south sudan, because its important that as we look ahead to how these issues are revolved, its 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 its 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 havent been forgotten. So the party was faced with a dilemma. If you dont 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 mushars 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, its 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 cant turn back on this. Its 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 were 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 youre sending in your initial questions. The u. S. Can play a major role in helping to ensure that the current process thats unfolding doesnt repeat the mistakes of past mediation efforts in sudan and south sudan. Ive 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, theres a lot of problems, so theyre 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 its really important. So i think their work gets backed, of course, by susan rice and secretary kerry and president obama himself, ambassador powell. Theyve all been making contributions in a good way, just like in past administrations weve 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. Thats what its 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 dont 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 dont start to deal with those kinds of questions, it just leads to a deepening of a cycle of violence and impunity that weve 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 dont 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 sudans 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 Statess 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. Its not a surprise that there is a crisis in government. It is important to recognize that south sudan was not afforded selfdetermination based on its capacity for selfrule. 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 governments 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 Statess 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 multilaterally, 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 multilaterally 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 ceasefire. 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 states 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. Governments 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 kiirs vision for south sudan. What might the composition of the delegation mean in terms of larger regional dynamics . You know, its you have really three parties a year. You have the government, president kiirs supporters. You have machars 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 governments going to look like for the next two years. And that means that those people now detained, and president kiir, and people from machars 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 Councils 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 theyre totally unprepared. Can you talk about this . Id like to go into greater depth of the context of the Current Situation in south sudan. And why its 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 didnt 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 were 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 thats 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 isnt another country thats 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 dont get any credit if you actually prevent something. But thats what we need to be investing in. Thats what isnt 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 dont get any credit for preventing things, its 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 im wrong, that maybe we dont 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 arent 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 theyre 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 dont even know, before 2002, 2001 in terms of how we used to manage humanitarian response in southern sudan. Its 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. Im told about this being a division of ethnicity as well. Of course, thats often the case. What is the percentage of the president s well, the dinka tribe constitutes what percentage of the country . I dont have that figure, but its 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 dont have the percentages, im sorry, but i can get them to you. Were 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 youve mentioned first of all, they dont have enough troops there, and the action by the Security Council was important. But its 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 theyre going to be aggressively protecting civilians. Which means that those compounds will not be allowed to be breached, and theyre prepared to defend them with weapons, if that takes place. They have to be aggressively patrolling. Now, they havent played that role up to now. They havent 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 havent been doing. It wasnt in their original thought. They were now theyve 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, its 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. Theyre 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 werent ready for that. So now they have to get up to speed and thats 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 dont think theres 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 theyve got the mandate. Its the numbers issue for the most part. The irony is that south sudan opposed the chapter 7 mandate. Said we dont 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 thats 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, its 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 heres 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 runup 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, hes moved in a different direction. He sees all his critics as enemies. Hes relying on intelligence people and harassers, etc. Its 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. Its not whats 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. Its very important to help keep the conflict from spreading and to not lose the gains weve already made. As well, United States assistance has been vital with the economy with the central bank of south sudan, picking up the pieces economically when this is all done will be much, much harder if we pull that support out now. So i do think that its important and imperative that Development Assistance continue. That the modalities be examined. That the strategies be updated as the situation changes. But that we keep the commitment to the people of south sudan and not harm them further. And one last point. The building leverage is critical. Thats what weve got to be looking for all the time. The aid doesnt i agree. The aid doesnt make a big difference to these guys. But it does make a big difference to the people of south sudan and to the building of institutions in the long run. Pulling that away now would really undermine the longterm stability of the place. Our leverage i think should focus on individual culpability. The targeting sanctions, prosecution of people who are found to be committing or planning atrocities and patterns of atrocities. The additional leverage comes if we work much more closely and transpare transparently. Collectively pressure the parties when there are key point moments that there needs to be a push. Again, i just view a very high level white house to state