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 AssistanceResponse 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 house in beijing engagement in south sudan to be a critical thing to do right now in order to show that united front internationally to the parties that were really going to be pushing for peace, and those that undermine peace are going to have some kind of particular sanction. Is it your assessment that china is willing to step up to the plate in that regard . Not as publicly as us. But their interests are much deeper in terms of National Security than ours are, and so lets figure out and i think that the good news is that our interests in terms of what the end game is line up very clearly with china. So lets take advantage of that moment. It doesnt happen off globally and figure out how we can more deeply work with them. Thank you. Thank you. One last question on that issue that mr. Pendergast mentioned about looking for leverage and targeting sanctions of those human rights violations, since youve been intimately involved until very krecently. Do you view that as among others a good leverage point . I think its going to be extremely important in another way. I think personally in the process over the next few years of writing a new constitution and laying a new foundation, that that creates the basis for eliminating from future power a lot of people who are responsible, so whether its in the process of prosecution or some other kind of commission, a lot of people who are very guilty of the kind of terrible violations should not be part of a new government after 2015. Outc thaink that is one of the with the thanks of the committee for your invaluable testimony, i expect that the african subcommittee as was the full committee will lend continuing attention to the challenges in south sudan, and the leaders on all sides need to recognize that reality which is not a single hearing at a sink or moment. The attention the committee will be focused on them continuously. The record will be open until the close of business tomorrow, and with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. A Labor Department released its monthly jobs figures an Associated Press story reads in part, u. S. Employers added a scant 74,000 jobs in december, the fewest in three years. The Labor Department said the Unemployment Rate fell from 7 in november to 6. 7 , the lowest level since october 2008. The drop occurred partly because more americans stopped looking for jobs. The government counts people as unemployed only if theyre actively searching for work. That from the ap. House Speaker John Boehner released a statement this morning on those numbers saying todays disappointing report shows once again that the president s policies are failing to Many Americans, many of whom have simply stopped looking for work. Also releasing a statement, Senate Majority leader harry reid. He wrote the unemployment numbers were also the topic of the joint Economic Committee hearing this morning. The commission of the peer of labor statistics testified and here is part of her testimony. Thank you, commissioner but as you know the Unemployment Rate that fell dramatically. Do you see this as, which he described as an encouraging sign of a sustainable recovery . This is a one this is one month number. Dont want to get hung up on one particular number, but most of the change in the Unemployment Rate, twothirds of it probably was due to fall in Labor Force Participation which is people simply giving up on the market, the workforce . The interesting thing is when you look at lowes it looked like most of the flows into nonparticipation were from employment rather than from unemployment. But generally speaking, its not as robust a time if the fall in unemployment have become from creation of jobs. Do you think that drop, is that a troubling indicator . A concerning indicator . Well, i guess it depends on the question you are asking. Its certainly not a sign of strength. Heres a look at our primetime schedule on the cspan networks. A House Financial Services subcommittee on thursday explored how the Federal Reserve attempts to Statement Economy is impacting other countries. Witnesses on a panel of economists told the subcommittee on Monetary Policy that the fed must move carefully as it winds down its quantitative easing program, tapering to quickly could cause major Financial Disruptions in developing nations. [inaudible conversations] committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for the purpose of an Opening Statement and i wont take all those five minutes, but i will simply open to say this is a continuing part of our series of hearings examining the fed at the 100th anniversary of the fed, of the F