[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
AFRICA'S NEWEST NATION: THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHERN SUDAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-90
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-903 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala, bishop, Diocese of Tambura-Yambio... 14
Mr. John Eibner, chief executive officer, Christian Solidarity
International--USA............................................. 23
Ms. Dana Lyons Wilkins, campaigner, Global Witness............... 29
The Honorable Roger Winter (former Special Representative on
Sudan, U.S. Department of State)............................... 36
The Honorable Princeton Lyman, Special Envoy for Sudan, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 45
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Frank Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virgnia: Letter to President Obama submitted
for the record................................................. 11
Mr. Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala: Prepared statement.................. 17
Mr. John Eibner: Prepared statement.............................. 25
Ms. Dana Lyons Wilkins: Prepared statement....................... 31
The Honorable Roger Winter: Prepared statement................... 39
The Honorable Princeton Lyman: Prepared statement................ 49
Ms. Rajakumari Jandhyala, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau
for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development: Prepared
statement...................................................... 70
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 90
Hearing minutes.................................................. 91
AFRICA'S NEWEST NATION: THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHERN SUDAN
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are holding today's hearing
for the purpose of focusing on the creation and showing our
solidarity with the creation of the new nation on the African
continent, but also of assessing its myriad of challenges in
transitioning successfully to independence.
Recent brutal attacks by the Khartoum government on
disputed areas in the North-South border area have raised
alarms about renewed violence in this country that already has
suffered far too much. For decades, the Government of Sudan in
Khartoum has waged war, genocide against the people of Southern
Sudan and facilitated the enslavement of its people. Even as we
meet today, the regime of President Omar al-Bashir is seizing
territory, causing the displacement of more than 100,000 people
and killing countless other Black Sudanese.
Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa, has
been ravaged by civil war intermittently for 4 decades. The
first Sudanese civil war occurred during the period of 1955 to
1972 and the second ran from 1983 to 2005. More than 2 million
people have died in Southern Sudan over the past 2 decades
alone due to war related causes and famine, and millions have
been displaced from their homes.
Since 1989, the United States has maintained multiple
sanctions against the Government of Sudan because of human
rights concerns in Southern Sudan, as well as the western
region of Darfur and Sudan's support for international
terrorism.
I have had face-to-face meetings with General Bashir in
Khartoum pushing for lasting peace and an end to the abuses of
his government. Unfortunately in that meeting he was far more
interested in discussing the end of U.S. sanctions than he was
in discussing how to end the suffering that his government and
the rebel groups it sponsors have inflicted on countless
innocent lives.
Beginning in 1995, human rights organizations have raised
the issue of kidnapping of African Southerners by Arab elements
from the North in conjunction with the second civil war between
the North and the South.
I would note parenthetically that right here in this room,
in 1996, I actually held the first hearing on chattel slavery
in Sudan, with the focus also on Mauritania, but we did focus
primarily on Sudan. And we heard from men and women and mothers
who had had their children kidnapped and sold into slavery. It
is now estimated that between 11,000 and 35,000 Sudanese are
being held against their will and subjected to vicious
exploitation and violent abuse in the North.
The Khartoum government claims that slavery is the product
of intertribal warfare, which is not under its control.
However, credible sources indicate that the Government of Sudan
was involved in arming and otherwise backing numerous militia
groups involved in kidnapping and enslaving these Southerners.
Regardless of who initiated their enslavement, their freedom
must be secured as part of the South's declaration of
independence.
One Sudanese slave, Simon Deng, escaped and is now living
in freedom in the United States. Deng said that every night
while he was in captivity he would go to sleep thinking maybe
tomorrow someone will come to my rescue. He now goes to sleep
thinking of those fellow slaves left behind, knowing that they
are thinking and dreaming the same thought, living on that same
hope that tomorrow someone will come to rescue them.
These people enslaved in the North must not be forgotten in
the celebration and the inauguration of a new country. The
United States and the rest of the international community must
not let their suffering continue.
On January 9th, South Sudan, as we all know, held a
peaceful and transparent referendum on Southern secession as
called for in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. According
to the South Sudan Referendum Commission, 98.8 percent voted
for secession. In early February, Sudanese President Bashir
officially accepted the result of the referendum. The United
States, the African Union, the European Union, the U.N., and
others endorsed the result as well. On July 9, 2011, the
Republic of South Sudan will officially declare its
independence.
Unfortunately, a mutual military buildup, occasional
clashes and unresolved issues from the CPA led to a tense
atmosphere in the Abyei region. On May 19th, according to the
U.N. report, a Sudanese Armed Forces Joint Integrated Unit
convoys, accompanied by U.N. peacekeeping forces, was attacked
by the SPLA outside of Abyei. The Northern military unit was
being moved to a newly agreed upon position. The Sudan People's
Liberation Army denied deliberately attacking the Northern
military unit as retaliation for an earlier SAF attack on an
SPLA Joint Integrated Unit, but that May 19th attack took place
in an area controlled by the Southern Sudan police force.
As usual, the Khartoum government has vastly overreacted.
Northern military forces invaded Abyei, displacing as many as
100,000 people and began moving Arabs into the area. This ethic
cleansing of the Abyei area will have a far reaching impact on
the resolution of this dispute. The indiscriminate bombings in
Southern Kordofan, attacks in the Nuba Mountain area and
reported door-to-door murders of non-Arab Africans is creating
a scene as horrific as any during the civil wars.
We are nearly on the eve of independence for South Sudan,
yet many issues remain unresolved. There is the undefined
border, citizenship questions regarding Southerners living in
the North, governance issues for the post-independence nation,
equitable sharing of oil revenues, the question of liberation
and repatriation of Sudanese still held in bondage and, of
course, the continuing Northern military attacks.
The United States, one of the guarantors of the CPA, has a
great deal at stake in South Sudan's successful transition to
independence. Since 2004, the U.S. has spent $9.8 billion in
humanitarian and other assistance. But that monetary investment
is far outweighed by the moral commitment to see this
transition through to a successful conclusion. Now we must do
all that we can to help this new nation come into being in
peace and help its government to safeguard the life, liberty
and fundamental human rights of its people.
I would like to now yield to my friend and colleague, Mr.
Payne, for his opening comments.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this important hearing. This is a very critical moment
in the history of Sudan. Many of us have been dealing with
Sudan for many, many years. And I see my colleague, Mr. Wolf,
who has been on the battlefield for this issue for so many
years. And I want to also express my deep appreciation to the
witnesses who certainly are among the most knowledgeable people
on Sudan. Ambassador Lyman, the Honorable Roger Winter, former
Special Representative on Sudan, USAID Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Ms. Rajakumari Jandhyala, have all been deeply
engaged in the intense international struggle to bring justice
and peace to the people of Sudan. I would also like to thank
the private panel witnesses whose engagement is vital in
bringing peace and development to the people of Sudan and the
individuals who for many, many years NGOs have made a
tremendous goal in working toward a solution to the problems in
Sudan. And we appreciate all the work that they have done over
the years. I would like to thank all of you for your commitment
and selfless determination to make peace in Sudan a reality.
I spoke to President Salva Kiir yesterday. He told me that
he is committed to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Later,
I will mention some other issues we discussed. But he is
determined to withhold any retaliation because he wants to see
a peaceful transition and the new independent state go into
being without disruption.
Today Sudan is at a crossroads. In less than 23 days, on
July 9, 2011, the world will witness the birth of a new nation,
the Republic of South Sudan. With independence day rapidly
approaching, a myriad of issues remain unresolved. Yet, let us
not forget that the referendum that facilitated this secession
is a sign of tremendous progress, the peaceful nature of the
referendum in which a stunning 98.8 percent of South Sudanese
voted for independence was a testament of the great hope and
excitement that lies in the hearts of the people of South
Sudan.
Unfortunately, recent violence in Abyei and Southern
Kordofan also remind us of the important work that remains to
be done to ensure a peaceful transition to statehood.
My first visit to Sudan was in 1993, when the SPLA
controlled a town near the Ugandan border. That was the
frontline at that time. I saw the suffering of citizens
firsthand. Since then, I have visited liberated areas over a
dozen times, but never to Khartoum. I refuse to go to Khartoum
because I refuse to recognize an illegitimate government and I
will never step my foot into that city.
With deep sadness, though, I remember visiting Abyei in May
2008 just after the town had been attacked and burned to the
ground by Bashir's forces and pro-government militia. And we
have some photos that we took. And this was 3 years ago. And
the same thing happened several days ago. The people of Abyei
have suffered and suffered. And the suffering should end. It is
wrong. It is absolutely wrong. These pictures from that sad day
depict the physical and human devastation caused by the
bombing. The atrocity displaced more than 40,000 people. And
upon return, I introduced a resolution to highlight this
heinous act of violence. We must remember the human cost of
such acts of aggression.
The people of Abyei have suffered severely after prolonged
civil war. For many of the displaced, the right to return home
is increasingly becoming more and more difficult. We do not
want to see Abyei turn into another longstanding dispute like
Kashmir.
Compounding this is the recent fighting in Southern
Kordofan, the latest flash point in this conflict. Humanitarian
organizations on the ground have reported that just 2 days ago,
northern forces detonated as many as 52 bombs, leaving as many
as 7,000 people without access to food, water and shelter.
There are disturbing reports of Northern forces going door to
door to find and kill SPLM supporters, as well as denying and
manipulating humanitarian assistance and aid.
The new violence is by no means an isolated or localized
incident. Bashir has done this before; many, many times.
Remember Darfur. The people of Darfur are still suffering and
many remain in displaced camps on the border of Darfur in Chad.
South Sudan's President, Salva Kiir, has shown considerable
restraint thus far because he does not want to go to war and
seeks a peaceful resolution to the crisis. As I mentioned, I
spoke to President Salva Kiir yesterday. He confirmed the level
of violence and aggression by the Bashir regime in Southern
Kordofan and Abyei.
The U.S. must support the people of Southern Sudan by
providing support in the security sector so that they can
better defend themselves. In 2008, President Bush approved a
request by the South for an air defense system. To this day,
this pledge has not been fulfilled. The South purchased tanks,
but the Obama administration has not allowed the tanks to be
delivered from Kenya to South Sudan.
We cannot stand by idly as Bashir continues his aggression,
brings in his weapons, brings in his planes, brings in his
tanks, and the U.S. Government said that the South Sudanese
cannot have a few tanks to try to protect themselves. It is
wrong.
Ambassador Lyman, I look forward to hearing the latest
update on Abyei and Southern Kordofan. The outstanding issues
seriously endanger the viability of peaceful relations between
the North and the South. We must use all available diplomatic
and political tools, including possible sanctions and other
accountability measures, to ensure progress in the remaining
CPA negotiations.
Despite recent fighting, the U.N. has continued to provide
vital aid in the region. In order to ensure an effective
peacekeeping mission after July 9th, the new UNMIS mission must
include a Chapter 7 mandate to adequately protect civilians.
Looking past July 9th, the governor of South Sudan will need
our support in order to meet the demands of the people.
South Sudan continues to have some of the worst human
development indicators in the world. In a country ravaged by
decades of war, the challenges are daunting. The U.S. and
international community must help the Government of South Sudan
provide its people with health care, education and prosperity
in order to ensure peace. South Sudan will need to build
infrastructure and to provide employment opportunities.
In an emerging country where oil deposits account for
roughly 98 percent of the region's revenues, we must also work
to ensure the new developing economy will be diversified and
include sustainable land use, agricultural development and
conservation, thus ensuring stability and shared benefits for
the South Sudanese people. Let us not forget that peace will
depend not only on troops, but on development.
The United States Government, backed by the steadfast
support of the American people, have long been a critical
partner in the Sudan peace process. We must reinforce our past
investments in diplomacy and development to ensure that the
current progress evolves into stability and continued growth.
In less than 23 days, South Sudan will become the newest
nation in the world. Like any newborn, the country will be
fragile and weak and they will need our continued support for
decades to come. We must remain engaged and commit our support
to democracy, rule of law, justice, and peace for the people of
South Sudan.
Thank you very much, And I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I would like to now yield
to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this hearing. Mr. Chairman, my home State of Nebraska has the
largest number of Southern Sudanese refugees in the United
States. And the independence of Southern Sudan was closely
followed back home and it is a true testament to the character
of Nebraskans that they supported their neighbors before,
during, and after that referendum. I have been particularly
impressed by the civic engagement of local youth in particular
as I hear frequently from students wanting to better understand
Sudanese history and circumstances and how they could actually
help themselves.
I met recently with a young Nebraskan, 24 years old, who
returned to Southern Sudan to bring needed access to clean
water to his former community. I learned of a local Omaha
church's work to bring portable hospital equipment and medical
supplies to underserved areas of Southern Sudan as well. The
Southern Sudan diaspora is strong in Nebraska and refugees, as
well as their neighbors and new friends, want to help ensure a
stable and successful independent state in whatever capacity
they can.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, the story of Southern Sudan's
independence could all be good news as well, neighbor helping
neighbor, the great humanitarian capacity of the human spirit,
the extraordinary event of people realizing their highest
democratic ideals. But sadly, it is not that easy.
The grave conflict in Abyei and the resulting refugee
spillover will finally receive much needed attention in this
hearing. Knowing that Abyei would be the hotspot of any
conflict, we have been watching this area very closely. And I
know Ambassador Lyman has been working with painstaking care to
broker peace.
I look forward to learning more about a new temporary DA,
Demilitarization Agreement, between the North and the South as
the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, according to media
reports, just said hours ago that it was readying for more
fighting. Furthermore, in the last several days my office has
received numerous alarmed reports from advocacy groups of
imminent chemical warfare bombing, executions and ethnic
attacks in the Nuba Mountains. Southern Sudan's Vice President
has reported to the U.N. Security Council that ethnic cleansing
was underway in the South Kordofan state, especially against
Southern sympathizers in the Nuba Mountains.
While this area is just north of what will be the North-
South border, I am intensely concerned that the scope of
violent oppressive action against those with ties to the South
is very real. While the extent to which these attacks have been
perpetrated by the Sudanese Armed Forces or militia groups does
remain unclear, the violence is a violation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement and warrants immediate
investigation.
I am also concerned about the potential areas of conflict
that are outside the current scope of international attention
in the Upper Nile. Concerns have been expressed that certain
breakaway groups, including the Nuer, haven't fully been
absorbed into the emerging southern culture. Nascent conflicts
in other lesser known areas could also threaten potential
stability. The potential sources of ethnic conflict, including
any imbalance of government power in Southern Sudan's dozens of
ethnic groups, does loom.
Sudan, of course, has many sad experiences with this. A
major source of North-South conflict stems from colonial time
when Northern groups were given preference in government
positions over Southerners.
I am keenly interested in hearing from our witnesses, in
particular Ambassador Lyman, about the steps that the
Government of South Sudan is taking to create a government
inclusive of ethnic minorities, also women, to mitigate the
risk of conflict that has historically marred too many post
colonial independent African states.
And importantly as we discuss the future of a healthy and
vibrant Southern Sudanese state, we must also be clear that we
want a future, stable and viable North. However, China's
relationship with Northern Sudan is of particular concern. Just
today China announced it would be welcoming President Omar al-
Bashir with an official state visit later this month to deepen
``their deep and profound friendship,'' according to China's
foreign ministry spokesman.
Sudan is China's third largest trading partner in Africa,
and China has been its largest arms supplier, as well as a
major oil investor. Will China's unrestrained, mercantilistic
agenda deepen this geopolitical conflict? It is an important
question.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing
that is of personal importance to many of my constituents, many
of whom have suffered and sacrificed so much to have their
chance to realize their democratic hopes manifested in an
independent Southern state. I look forward to relaying the
proceedings of this hearing to them.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. The chair recognizes
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Payne. Thank you for holding this hearing on the situation in
Sudan. As the anticipated July 9 date of the South Sudan
independence quickly approaches, I hope that we work toward a
meaningful way forward in an important and conflict torn
region.
I have watched with growing concern as the deteriorating
security situation has come to a head with recent violence in
oil producing border regions. Where there have been reports of
aggression attributed to both sides, it is clear that the
North's Sudanese Armed Forces invasion of Abyei violated the
terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and has inflamed
further security and humanitarian crises and warrants measured
reevaluation of our policy toward Khartoum.
The Sudanese people have endured many years of ethno-
religious violence, state-sponsored oppression and genocide
that has resulted in the loss of as many as 2.5 million lives
with millions of others displaced. With recent crises in Abyei
and South Kordofan, these numbers continue to rise.
It must remain a U.S. priority to support viable security
agreements that advance implementation of the CPA. We look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the status of
our diplomatic and development efforts to these ends. We also
hope to hear more about the work of the international community
to complement our interests in Sudan.
With the mandate for the U.N. mission in Sudan set to
expire next month and the Sudanese Government maintaining that
it will not allow an extension, I am particularly interested in
hearing what role you think a U.N. mission could and should
play in either the North or the South. I am also interested in
hearing what role you think the African Union should have in
any negotiations and peacekeeping.
While improvements are certainly needed, UNMIS and other
peacekeeping missions address some of our most challenging
security situations and directly impact U.S. national
interests.
In closing, I would like to thank the panelists for their
testimonies and presence here today. I hope that your answers
and opinions will help us realize avenues toward stability and
peace between the North and the South.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all
you do on behalf of human rights throughout the world.
The future of South Sudan is of great importance to me
because of the Sudanese presence in the Syracuse area. Syracuse
has been home to over 500 of the Lost Boys of Sudan. In fact,
my district office has a graduate student interning with us by
the name of Pierre Anthony, who is one of those Lost Boys.
I am also pleased and very honored to have with us today in
the hearing room a very prominent member of the Sudanese
diaspora and a constituent of mine, Father Darius Makuja.
Father is a professor of medieval theology at Le Moyne College
in Syracuse. He holds master's and doctoral degrees in
historical theology from St. Louis University. He has published
work on the situation in Sudan, including an article in the
journal Encounter entitled, ``Religious Fundamentalism and
Political Hegemony: A Case of Islamic Fundamentalism and
Conflict in Sudan.''
Father Makuja is originally from Torit, near the Ugandan
border. He is an important advocate for the South Sudanese in
America, not only in assisting them but also in helping call
attention to the challenges the South Sudan faces and will
continue to face in the aftermath of obtaining its
independence.
In a referendum in January 2011, the Southern Sudanese
people overwhelmingly voted in favor of independence from the
North. South Sudan is due to gain its independence on July 9th.
Tragically, bloodshed along the ill-defined border between the
North and the South Sudan over the last 3 weeks has raised
fears that the two longstanding rivals will return to open
conflict. A number of sensitive issues between the North and
the South remain unsettled, how to share oil revenues, where to
draw the common border, and how to split the national debt.
Moreover, Khartoum government forces seized the disputed
region of Abyei, tanks and troops, on May 21st, causing tens of
thousands of people to flee and drawing an international
outcry. Despite the United States, the United Nations and
Southern Sudanese officials calling on the North to withdraw,
the North seems to be further entrenching itself. And it
remains to be seen whether an agreement cannot only be reached,
but also be abided by.
The security situation remains grave with intense fighting,
sporadic artillery fire, and a continuing military buildup
along the contested border between the North and the South.
For several years, the United States has engaged in
humanitarian development and peacekeeping work in Sudan and has
participated in efforts to resolve the civil war between the
North and the South. The United States of America has a stake
in seeing that the Republic of South Sudan becomes a
successful, a stable, and a secure state.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Buerkle. The chair
recognizes Congresswoman Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you once again, Chairman Smith.
For the past several years, the world has watched as
conditions in Sudan have continued to deteriorate. Despite the
hopeful passing of the peace referendum decision in January,
the road to independence for South Sudan has not been easy.
Recent government assaults on innocent civilians have increased
the humanitarian and refugee crisis throughout Sudan and the
region and destabilized the delicate balance of peace. My
deepest condolences go out to the people of Sudan that have
been affected by the recent violence. To those who were
displaced, have lost family members or were wounded during the
attack, my thoughts are with you.
In addition to the violence of the Sudanese Armed Forces,
the Sudanese Government continues to delay the implementation
of aspects of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and has taken
steps to impede its progress. We must do all we can to ensure
the peaceful transition of governments and the equitable
division of resources to guarantee the safety and well-being of
all Sudanese people.
A good demonstration of democracy is a willingness to
embrace change for the overall betterment of a country and the
human rights of its citizens. I believe we must assist in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by urging
both sides to end the violence and cease all military actions.
We must continue providing U.S. assistance to promote stable
governance in South Sudan, strengthening multilateral
international engagement, and preventing terrorists from having
a safe haven in Sudan.
I support President Obama's statement yesterday insisting
that both sides must be held accountable to their international
obligations and agreements. The United States must remain
active and expand our diplomatic engagement in Sudan, along
with our United Nations partners. We must have the opportunity
to play a key role in advancing a healthy democracy, economic
growth, and a peaceful and prosperous future for the Sudanese
people in the region.
I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today
and learning more about the current conditions in Sudan, as
well as how the U.S. can promote the peaceful independence of
the Republic of South Sudan. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. I would like to
now recognize Congressman Frank Wolf, who is chair of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies on the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I want to thank you
for your actions on this issue and so many others, but being
the first out of the box to deal with this. And I also want to
publicly thank Congressman Payne for his faithfulness over the
years on this issue in good times as well as bad times.
I remember reading Samantha Power's book, ``A Problem from
Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.'' Her frustration at the
lack of U.S. action in the face of human suffering was palpable
and understandable. She examined cable traffic and State
Department press guidance, which eliminated any doubts that the
horrors taking place in countries like Rwanda were not unknown
to policymakers like U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
knew what was taking place in Rwanda, and former Secretary of
State Warren Christopher, who also knew what was taking place.
Bill Clinton had the good sense of going to Rwanda and
apologizing for the lack of action by his administration.
Have we learned nothing yet? Are we ready to see another
Rwanda? Today in Sudan we see unfolding before us what can only
be described as a recurring nightmare in that country, a
genocidal government hell-bent on maintaining its grip on
power, treating civilian populations as mere collateral damage.
And in the face of these murderous policies in Abyei and
Southern Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains, the White House can
hardly muster more than a Friday night 7:45 press statement by
the Press Secretary and not by the President of the United
States to come out and in the Rose Garden and say what should
be said. Press statements released at 7:35 Friday in this town
communicate to me volumes about the priority, or the lack
thereof, of the matter at hand.
Last week, with news reports of a rapidly deteriorating
situation in Sudan, I wrote President Obama urging him to act
swiftly to dispatch former Secretary of State Colin Powell to
Sudan to attempt to secure a peaceful resolution of the crisis
and salvage the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in the weeks
remaining before South Sudan can become an independent nation.
Don Payne was there at the signing. Secretary Powell was
there at the signing. Roger Winter was there at the signing.
Secretary Powell, given the opportunity and given the sticks,
may very well be able to deal with this, and yet the response
from the White House is zero, zero, zero.
I submit a copy of that letter for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Wolf. Not only is engagement at the highest levels
needed, but the engagement must include sticks. We have seen
time and time again that dangling carrots before an indicted
war criminal, Bashir, will never yield the desired results.
My sense of urgency is even greater today. This week, I had
the opportunity to meet a young man who was an intern in my
office. He has been living in Sudan for the last 2 years
engaged in humanitarian and development work. He is back in the
States briefly but remains in close contact with folks in
Sudan, including in areas that are presently cut off from the
rest of the world. What I heard from these sources is bone
chilling. Door to door targeted killings of the SPLM
supporters, mass graves, Antonov bombers indiscriminately
shelling civilian populations; in short, an unfolding tragedy
of the highest order right before our eyes, and the
administration knows it.
And when we look at this and Samantha writes her next book,
the cables will show what we now know and what no one is doing
anything about.
The committee has before it today several distinguished
witnesses, including my friend Roger Winter. These panelists
will undoubtedly urge the administration to consider a variety
of policy options to stem the killing and avert a mass
humanitarian crisis. I pray they will be given every
consideration.
And the thought that China is welcoming Bashir--I did not
know it until Congressman Fortenberry said it--is incredible.
What more do you need to know? China has been aiding them with
regard to the Antonov, with regard to the Soviet Hind
helicopters, with the AK-47s, and supporting the genocide in
Darfur, the number one supporter of the genocide in Darfur that
many people are so concerned about, the Chinese Government. And
keep in mind, Hu Jintao, the President of China, was the
architect of the policies to really bring about the destruction
of Tibet. And you had the 2009 Nobel Prize winner, President
Obama, holding a steak dinner for Hu Jintao when the 2010 Nobel
Prize winner was in jail and his wife was under house arrest,
and now we find that they are welcoming Bashir. What more do we
need to know? Lives hang in the balance.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having these hearings.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Wolf, thank you very much for your
statement and for your leadership on human rights. Let me just
note that originally Special Envoy Princeton Lyman was
scheduled to testify first. He was called to the White House.
So we have reversed the order and we will invite what was Panel
2 to become Panel 1. I would like to--if they could make their
way to the witness table--just recognize Bishop Andudu Adam
Elnail, whose diocese actually represents the Nuba Mountains,
among other areas, and Bishop Abraham Nhial Yel, whose--these
are both Episcopal bishops whose diocese includes Abyei. If
they wouldn't mind standing. I know they are here. And thank
you for your tremendous leadership.
I would like to now introduce our very distinguished and
knowledgeable panel, beginning with Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro
Kussala, who is originally from Southern Sudan. When he was
just 9 years old, his mother was killed in a Northern
government military raid on his village. His family fled Sudan
and eventually settled in neighboring DRC. Bishop Hiiboro's
family eventually returned to Sudan and he became a priest in
1994. After serving refugees in the Central African Republic,
he returned to Sudan where he has been an outspoken and totally
courageous advocate in demanding protection for his people. We
welcome the bishop to our panel, and thank him for being here.
We will then hear from Dr. John Eibner, Christian
Solidarity International. He is the CEO for CSI in the United
States. He has traveled to Sudan over 100 times since 1992,
often working in frontline situations to document slavery and
other gross human rights abuses. Dr. Eibner played a leading
role during the last civil war to raise awareness of these
human rights issues among the public and policymakers. Dr.
Eibner also served as CSI's main representative at the United
Nations in Geneva and has written extensively on human rights
issues for a range of well-known publications. I would note
parenthetically that both Chairman Wolf and I have traveled to
many human rights abusing countries around the world with CSI,
including China in the past. So we welcome you, Dr. Eibner.
Then we have Ms. Dana Wilkins, who is a campaigner for
Global Witness, an NGO that works to prevent natural resources
from fueling conflict and corruption. Ms. Wilkins recently
returned from Southern Sudan where she did extensive advocacy
and information exchange with government officials, local civil
society, and members of the donor community. Ms. Wilkins has
been working to ensure that there is transparency and
accountability in Southern Sudan's oil sector after
independence to help prevent a return to war and also to
provide equity and fairness to the people from those reserves.
Then we will hear from Ambassador Roger Winter, who first
went to Sudan in 1981 to do humanitarian work for a nonprofit
group, which we all know and respect on this committee, the
U.S. Committee for Refugees. Ambassador Winter continued his
work until early 2001, when he became Director of the U.S.
Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID. While at the
office in that role and subsequently as Assistant Administrator
at USAID, Ambassador Winter participated on the U.S. team--led
the team--to what then became the 2005 Comprehensive Peace
Agreement. Ambassador Winter has served as the U.S. Special
Representative on Sudan from 2005 to 2006, when he retired.
I would just note that all of our witnesses have very
extensive biographies, which will be made a part of the record.
But to allow maximum time for your testimony and questions,
they will be made a part of the record. So, Bishop, if you
could begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDUARDO HIIBORO KUSSALA, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF
TAMBURA-YAMBIO
Bishop Hiiboro. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for calling this
important and timely hearing concerning the Sudan and for
giving me the opportunity to testify before this committee on
behalf of the people of South Sudan. I also would like to thank
the ranking member, Mr. Payne, and all the members of the
subcommittee for their longstanding commitment to the welfare
of my people.
With the committee's permission, I would like to enter my
full written testimony for the record, and I will summarize it.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered. And that goes for
all of our distinguished witnesses.
Bishop Hiiboro. My name is Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala.
I am the bishop of the Catholic Diocese Tambura-Yambio in
southwestern Sudan. And I am very grateful to have come from my
native Sudan to share with you the gratitude, the hopes and the
concerns of the new nation. The Sudanese church in her
prophetic role has accompanied the Sudanese people in times of
peace and war. The church has been building peace, providing
basic services and serving millions of Sudanese people across
the generations.
As international aid actors come and go, it is an
indigenous church sharing the hopes, the suffering of the
people, giving voice to those often who are not heard. I have
come here definitely to thank you, the American people, and
express to you the hopes of the people of South Sudan. We thank
you for the efforts you did in order to get for us, with our
own collaboration and yours, the referendum successfully done.
Our hope in South Sudan is that we are going to have a
nation of our own since time immemorial, a country that would
hope to be a country of dignity, peace, freedom and human
prosperity. The achievement of the referendum was a collective
effort for which we thank you and ask you then that the
homework is not finished. We are seeing the responsibilities
that come to us as people of South Sudan to be accountable,
transparent and consistent in building a nation of dignity and
peace. And we can all do this very well with your
collaboration.
And my visit here, definitely, is to invite you, the
American people, the American Government to be consistent, to
persevere, and to remain focused on the cause of the people of
Sudan. You all have very well expressed and discussed the
problems that we have gone through. I want to recommend an
immediate stop to the violence that is going on within Sudan at
the moment. I would like to recall what we have gone through
and to ask you that it is time to stop it. If we do not stop
this war, it is quite clear that it will spread and go beyond
control. There is a possibility that there is this intolerance
within South Sudan. Let us seize this opportunity and stop this
war and give Sudan what it has lacked for decades.
And I would like to express what has been missing on the
accord that was signed in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement. Many of the things that have not been implemented
remain a stumbling block. If we can remain focused and have
those things realized, we can save South Sudan the possibility
of enjoying its future. And we can also guarantee a stable
Northern Sudan that can protect the regional members from going
into conflict.
I want to underline the importance for the support of the
displaced and refugees. The humanitarian support has to
continue. And as much as we know, under the name for peace and
development, the hope for the people of South Sudan is that
July 9th will be the end of the decades of suffering and pains
of our people and is a moment in which we can say the past is
gone and now we can have a new life.
The fear that grows around us can be stopped if this House,
if the Congress, if the American people can be consistent, I
repeat.
I want to conclude with a special appeal that July 9th
should be an opportunity for the Government of the United
States and our friends to guarantee peace in that part of
Africa and that the peace will serve as a balance rod for the
rest of the countries in the region.
Having ended Africa's longest war, Africa's largest country
is at a crossroads. The road after the violence and suffering
of our past has been a long one. But with the continued support
and ongoing commitment of the Congress, we can all help bring
millions of South Sudanese a chance to enjoy the hope and the
freedom of justice and peace it sorely deserves and has long
awaited.
I was born into this war. I lost my mom in the war and I
have grown as much as I am in the refugee camps in the most
difficult areas. And I represent millions of orphans in my
country who have gone through the same history. My story is a
story of the people of South Sudan and the people of the Sudan.
Sudan must not return to war again so they will not lose many
mothers and children due to this war. And that is my interest.
And I pray that this House will continue consistently to extend
and to get Sudan stable and into freedom.
Thank you and God bless you.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Kussala follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Bishop Hiiboro, thank you so much for your
eloquent testimony and thank you for the blessing. We know that
South Sudan is in all of our prayers. And there is a lot that
divides the House and the Senate and Congress these days, but
we are--we will be praying very hard for peace and
reconciliation and that has been led by the church. So I thank
you so much.
Dr. Eibner.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN EIBNER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY INTERNATIONAL--USA
Mr. Eibner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the
opportunity to testify about slavery. I am particularly pleased
that my anti-slavery colleagues, Diane Gooch and Joe Madison,
are with us today.
Slavery, an internationally recognized crime against
humanity, continues to blight the lives of tens of thousands of
Southern Sudanese. It furthermore darkens the prospect of a
genuinely comprehensive and sustained peace and threatens the
security of Africa's newest nation.
May I begin by introducing Achol Deng, a liberated slave?
For about 15 years, Achol served a master in Northern Sudan.
She was threatened with death. She was gang raped, genitally
mutilated, forced to convert to Islam, renamed Mariam and was
racially and religiously insulted. She lost the sight in one
eye when her master thrashed her face with a camel whip for
failing to perform correctly Islamic rituals. This mother of
four said she saw two of her children beaten to death for minor
misdemeanors. She lost the use of one of her arms when her
master took a machete to it because she failed to grind grain
properly.
As Sudan enters a new era of crisis on the eve of Southern
independence with fresh waves of violence, it is timely to
revisit the slavery aspect of what Francis Deng calls Sudan's
war of visions, a cultural conflict that transcends the late
North-South civil war, a battle that continues today.
Senator Danforth, a Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan,
understood the true significance of slavery. In his report to
the President, he rightly identified progress on the
eradication of slavery as one of his four tests of the
willingness of the belligerents to embark on a course of peace.
In accordance with the Danforth recommendations, the U.S.
Government sponsored an investigation by the International
Eminent Persons Group on slavery. Their findings largely
corroborates CSI's. They observed that slave raiding in Sudan
was government sponsored and ``commonplace.'' Slavery, they
also noted, included a disturbing pattern of abuse very much
like that endured by Achol Deng.
The Eminent Persons proposed a comprehensive policy for
eradicating slavery and stated,
``Eliminating the abuses described in this report will
require major political initiatives on the part of both
the Government [of Sudan] and of the SPLM/A. The
initiatives we propose can only succeed with assistance
from the international community. This assistance must
be substantial, long term, carefully conceived and
above all rigorously monitored.''
Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, neither have major political
initiatives nor significant long-term carefully conceived
assistance been forthcoming. While the CPA created the historic
opportunity for ending the civil war, it failed to include a
mechanism for the liberation and repatriation of slaves.
Some bold efforts were made following the signing of the
CPA to restore slavery to the peace agenda of Khartoum, Juba
and the international community. I have mentioned several of
them in my written submission, including H.R. 3844 of 2007,
sponsored by Mr. Smith and co-sponsored by Ms. Watson. But
these constructive initiatives failed as a result of lack of
political will in Congress and in Washington generally.
The signing of the CPA did, however, have a beneficial
anti-slavery byproduct. It produced an end to slave raids in
Southern Sudan. But those already enslaved during the war and
their offspring remained in bondage. According to Southern
members of the Sudanese Government's former showcase anti-
slavery organ, the now dissolved Committee for the Eradication
of the Abduction of Women and Children, over 35,000 slaves from
Northern Bahr El-Ghazal alone remain in bondage. In addition,
slavery is used as a weapon of war against black Africans in
Darfur. The enslavement and horrific abuse of Sudanese tactics
of the Lord's Resistance Army in Equatoria, which I am sure the
Bishop can speak a very long time about, is another appalling
and neglected facet of Sudan's slavery problem.
I would encourage members to search for ways to implement
the constructive proposals set forth in the report of the
Eminent Persons, in particular the need for a financially
transparent and functional Sudanese national institution for
locating and liberating slaves, a program of research on all
aspects of Sudanese slavery, an institution with international
and indigenous components to monitor slavery and its
eradication, and finally an American or international mechanism
to follow up the Eminent Persons' recommendations.
Twelve years ago, Ambassador Susan Rice came face to face
with liberated slaves in Marial Bai, Southern Sudan. She
pledged then that the United States would work tirelessly to
stamp out slavery in Sudan. Let us strive to achieve the goal
established by Ambassador Rice. Failure to eradicate slavery
with all its overtones of racism and religious bigotry will
leave in Sudan a deadly cancer destroying possibilities of
reconciliation and undermining chances of sustainable peace and
stability for the new state in Southern Sudan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to
testify and also for all you and your colleagues do to achieve
the eradication of slavery in Sudan and elsewhere.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eibner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Eibner, thank you very much for your
testimony and your leadership and for ensuring that we try to
stay focused on this horrific issue of slavery. Thank you so
very much.
Ms. Wilkins.
STATEMENT OF MS. DANA LYONS WILKINS, CAMPAIGNER, GLOBAL WITNESS
Ms. Wilkins. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you today to discuss the importance of
the responsible management of natural resources in what will
soon be the world's newest and most oil dependent state.
In order to support stability and development in South
Sudan, the U.S. must ensure that explicit transparency and
accountability requirements are included in both the new legal
framework governing the country's oil sector and the new North-
South oil deal. South Sudan is currently crafting its new
petroleum law with a hope to complete it before July 9th. The
development of this new legal framework is a critical
opportunity for the country to demonstrate its commitment to
democratic principles and to the responsible governance of its
most important sector.
With more than 98 percent of its budget derived from oil,
as Congressman Payne pointed out earlier, South Sudan will be
the most oil dependent country in the world. Many analysts are
suggesting that for this reason and because of limited
capacity, weak institutions, and alleged widespread corruption,
the country will be born a failed state.
Global Witness has repeatedly documented how this state
failure occurs elsewhere--in countries where natural resource
wealth is not managed in a transparent and accountable way, the
results can be not only entrenched poverty and failed
development efforts, but political instability and even large-
scale conflict.
However, this does not have to be the case in South Sudan.
If the legal framework developed now is robust and
comprehensive, South Sudan has the potential to become a best
practice example of a post-conflict country where oil revenues
are governed responsibly and transparently.
During my most recent trip to Juba at the start of this
month, I had an opportunity to speak with many of the central
figures involved in the development of this framework, and I
believe the political will to institutionalize transparency is
there. However, given so many competing priorities and
distractions, and a limited drafting timeframe, the detailed
legislative language necessary to guarantee the publication and
verification of data may be overlooked.
In order to support good governance in South Sudan's oil
sector, the United States must prioritize technical and
institutional capacity building through its foreign assistance
and push hard for transparency and independent verification in
the management of the sector through its diplomatic efforts.
Transparency is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to
allow ordinary citizens to see exactly how their natural
resources are being managed, which in the case of South Sudan
will be paramount in helping build public confidence in the new
state.
The publication of oil sector information also helps to
prevent corruption and avoid the resource curse, thus driving
development through a country's own natural resource wealth.
The new law must explicitly require that detailed
production, revenue and cost data, as well as the fiscal terms
of contracts be published. But publication alone is not enough.
For the oil sector to be sufficiently accountable, it must be
independently monitored. For this to happen in South Sudan,
there must be an office created independently from the Ministry
of Energy and Mining whose sole responsibility is to monitor
and verify the petroleum sector. While I was in Juba last, the
Auditor General expressed his intention to establish a
Petroleum Directorate which will do exactly that, and the
United States must support him in this effort. This support
should include funding if needed, technical assistance and
training and, importantly, political backing for the new
directorate to be guaranteed independence and access to
information.
So what else can the United States do? The U.S. could also
have a significant impact on the ground by supporting local
civil society groups. The establishment of a strong civil
society watchdog will be critical for the accountable
management of oil revenues and for combating corruption. The
U.S. should also support South Sudan in signing up to and
implementing the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative,
which would put many of the reforms I have spoken about on
stronger institutional footing.
Before I close, I would like to take this opportunity to
emphasize the importance of transparency in the new North-South
oil deal. The current deal, a 50/50 split of southern oil
revenues has been managed almost entirely by the government in
Khartoum and does not contain any transparency mechanism
enabling either the government in the South or the public to
verify that the revenues are being shared fairly. This lack of
transparency and accountability has led to much mistrust and
tension between the North and South, repeatedly threatening the
fragile peace of the CPA. Given the North and South's shared
reliance on oil revenues and the fact that more than three-
quarters of the oil is in the South but the major pipelines and
ports of export are in the North, a fair and transparent oil
arrangement which supports the economic viability of both
parties would be a powerful incentive for sustained peace.
As a member of the Troika and one of the main guarantors of
the CPA, the USA should be putting pressure on the negotiating
parties to ensure that transparency and independent
verification are included in the new deal. We strongly
recommend that the U.S. take a more active role in pushing
publicly and privately for these crucial provisions.
South Sudan faces a huge struggle in the months and years
ahead. But with the help of the U.S. and other donors, that
struggle can lead to peace and prosperity for all citizens.
Responsible oil management and transparency in the new North-
South oil deal will very much be at the center of this success.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
answering any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much and for the work that
your organization has done so well over the years.
I would now like to welcome Ambassador Roger Winter and ask
him to proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROGER WINTER (FORMER SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE ON SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
Mr. Winter. Thank you. What I want to do is to give just a
brief summary of my analysis and recommendations that are in
the written testimony. It will be very controversial, and I
urge you to try to take a look at the entire document.
I am rather disturbed that what I hear so often these days
is a comment like we need to make sure that ``both sides'' do
thus and so. And I think if we look at the record, we will find
there is no moral equivalence between the two sides here. None
whatsoever. I think that kind of commentary that has been
picked up by our media and others is a very damaging thing.
There is Khartoum and there is Juba. They both have
problems, but the consequences of their problems are light
years away from each other. And one, that is Khartoum, has the
potential for affecting all that happens from here on out,
whether there is a contentious, bloody relationship between the
two countries after July 9, or something that approaches
cooperation. So let me try to dispel a little bit that what I
think is misguided ``moral equivalence.''
We know from consistent experience with Khartoum that
Khartoum's commitments, its formal or informal agreements, are
not reliable. They regularly use agreements as a tactic to buy
time or to get people to get off their back; but, in fact, they
ultimately do what they want to do. It doesn't make any
difference what the agreement said. And we have seen that over
and over again, because it is a very rich record of
prevarication, of lying, and deception. And we see it in so
many ways. Signing a piece of paper doesn't ever seem to
actually result in them doing what they said they would do.
So, in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, many, many of the
really key provisions of the CPA were never pursued to
implementation by Khartoum. That is also true of the decision
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding the boundaries
for Abyei. They have been entirely disregarded, and Khartoum
has obviously, by their current actions, no interest whatsoever
in going by that court's decision; but rather, they will do
what they choose to do.
It is also the case, for example, that the things that
foster violence right now are things that Khartoum chose not to
do.
The issue of demarcation of borders, which is a factor in
the current bloodshed that is going on, the failure to
demarcate borders that is required by the CPA, it has over and
over again been raised as an issue. And nothing--there has
never been a consequence to penalize Khartoum for the things
they don't do that they promised they would do.
Also, I would like to say it is very clear, my second
point, that Khartoum does not at all hesitate to kill its own
nationals and destroy their property and livelihoods. That is
obvious if you have followed what has happened with respect to
the South and the so-called ``three areas.'' Over and over
again, we see the kind of bloodletting that we are seeing right
now in Kadugli and Kauda and in Dilling and other locations.
This is a pattern that we have seen over and over again: 3
million dead civilians.
If you add up what is documented on the South, if you add
what is from Darfur, from Nuba Mountains, from all of these, 3
million bodies is not something that we can just write off. And
almost all of them were civilians; and, frankly, almost all of
them were children. This is not the moral equivalent of the
SPLM and the SPLA. The SPLM and the SPLA have huge problems,
absolutely, but they don't rise to this level. Khartoum is used
to getting away with murder, in Darfur, in the South, in Abyei,
and in Southern Kordofan and elsewhere. And I must tell you,
with the way they are behaving right now, I fear a great
liquidation of population in Southern Kordofan, in Abyei, and
potentially in Southern Blue Nile after the separation of the
South. I think we are seeing the beginning of that right now.
I think it is terribly important to not--I love the South,
I spend all of my time working to support the South, but the
people of Southern Kordofan, the people of Abyei, and the
people of Southern Blue Nile are the same people, basically;
they just happen to be on the Northern side of the border
between North and South and, therefore, will not become part of
the independent country. What does that mean? That means that
they are locked in there for the long haul, at least right now,
and it is not a pretty thing to think about.
Thirdly, I would say there is no reason to believe that
what I am talking about right now will change. The track record
of an unrepentant National Congress Party in power is, I think,
clear and scary.
I would like to say, there is no moral equivalency between
these two parties. And I recommend, and I have never done this
in my life, okay, I have never recommended something like this
before, I think the possibility of massive liquidation of
populations north of South Sudan that are basically the same
people as in the South, I think they are at risk and I think
our talking has not paid off and we are almost out of time. I
suggest that it is time, as radical as this may sound to you,
it is time to take, I would argue, a military action. I am not
talking about going to war; I am talking about a military
action against a military installation of the Khartoum
government, and do that now as a warning to them that the end
of the playing around with this peace agreement is over and
they must improve their behavior toward the people not just of
Darfur, but most particularly now I am talking about Southern
Kordofan, Southern Blue Nile, and of Abyei.
I would like to suggest that this is important because it
seems--there are at least reports about the potential for using
what I will call illegal weaponry against the civilians in
those locations that I just mentioned. So that is one thought.
The second is that the U.S. take steps to strengthen the
Sudan People's Liberation Army in meaningful ways and to
escalate our efforts to prepare them to at least defend their
new homeland. This is, I would suggest, something that is
important to deter violence against civilians and the potential
for war.
Why? Why am I saying this? I am saying this because the
post-independence timeframe, because the borders have never
been defined adequately in the controversial areas, because
they have never been defined, there are going to be continuing
issues between the North and the South until they are sorted
out. I think it is very important to have a capable Southern
capacity.
I would say thirdly--and this is on the issue of the
casualties of civilians and what has happened in the last few
weeks--it should tell us something about what is immediately in
the future. Almost all of the substantive humanitarian
assistance that goes to assist the people in Southern Khartoum
and in Abyei and in parts of Southern Blue Nile are delivered
through the South. They are delivered from South Sudan and the
issue is that starting on the 9th of July, that border is not
an internal border of a single state, it is going to be a hard
border between two separate countries. And you can bet your
boots that Khartoum is not going to allow humanitarian
assistance into Abyei, into Southern Kordofan and into Southern
Blue Nile. So all of these people who have been damaged and
affected by the most recent violence, there needs to be a
recognition that Khartoum will not allow humanitarian
assistance in the same way the government in the South does for
those people who are currently affected.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Professor Winter, thank thank you very much for
that very sobering assessment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you--you mentioned illegal weapons--
are you talking about chemical weapons and those reports?
Mr. Winter. Not that I know anything, but a lot of where
this comes from is what has appeared over Kadugli and other
locations that have been being bombed and so forth, was an
unusual, very large plane that some people suggested was a
Hercules that was escorted by MiGs, the MiGs that are usually
attacking and doing other things, and the Antonovs are bombing
and so forth. What people saw and reported was this large,
different kind of plane that was being escorted by MiGs, and
that has triggered some of this speculation is my
understanding.
Mr. Smith. If I can ask, obviously to the lead-up to the
full declaration of independence, every day is a day in which
all of us are holding our breath. What is your sense as to what
happens after July 9th, assuming that these terrible incidents
that we have seen, the bloodletting that has occurred, do abate
and hopefully there will be an ability to get resources to
those who are suffering?
And your point, I think, Ambassador Winter, is very well
taken. But when the lights go out, so to speak, and the
international community takes some of its focus off on July
10th and beyond, what huge risks then portend for South Sudan
in terms of what Khartoum and Bashir might be hatching?
Mr. Winter. I would suggest that Bishop Hiiboro may know
something about this from his own country.
Let me say this. Take, for example, the Nuba people, people
of the Nuba Mountains which are an important piece of Southern
Kordofan. We are talking about an area that in the early 1990s
was under a fatwa. The population there of Nuba are visually
determinable pretty much from other aspects of the population.
The Nuba are Christian, Muslim, and traditional kinds of
religion. The fatwa applied to all of those. It was in fact, by
professionals, determined to be genocide.
Now, it is the Nuba in particular that are being attacked
now in Southern Kordofan. They have suffered really
tremendously over time, and it is they where you hear most of
the difficult stories right now about people who are being
pulled out of their hovel and shot, or even having that done in
the presence of people from UNMIS, soldiers and that kind of
thing.
Why I am suggesting some of these actions that I am
suggesting now, you can't just let it happen. Something has to
happen before independence to try to--you know, try to provide
some deterrence for that kind of action.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask a process question with regards
to your time.
Special Envoy Princeton Lyman was at the White House, and I
know he has to be out of this room by 4:30. I am wondering if
our distinguished witnesses have flexibility in their time so
that he can come and present, some questions will be asked of
him, and then we would bring you back. I hate to do that to
you, but when the President calls, the Special Envoy had to
respond to the White House. Would that be okay?
Mr. Winter. Within limits, yes.
Mr. Smith. Within limits, okay. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Winter. I have another commitment, too.
Mr. Smith. I am sorry.
I would then ask Ambassador Princeton Lyman, U.S. Special
Envoy to Sudan, who has served in that position since March
31st of this year to come forward. Immediately prior to that,
he served as U.S. Senior Advisor on North-South negotiations
where he led the U.S. team focused on supporting ongoing
negotiations between the parties to the 2005 Comprehensive
Peace Agreement.
Ambassador Lyman has held a number of positions in the NGO
sector and academia, in addition to a multitude of diplomatic
assignments throughout Africa, spanning a decade. Mr.
Ambassador, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PRINCETON LYMAN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR
SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Lyman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Payne, and
other members of the committee, thank you so much for holding
this hearing and for the great interest I know you have for
this situation.
As you well know, and you know it from the testimony so
far, we face a very serious situation right now. I would ask
that my full testimony be put in the record because it has a
great deal of information on the background to these events
that I hope will be helpful to the committee. But I want to
focus in this presentation on where we are.
We were relatively optimistic after the referendum of
January 9; but in fact in recent months there has been more
tension between the parties and we could see that coming in a
number of ways.
In Abyei, there was a growing frustration by the
population. There was a blocking of the migration. There were
forces introduced contrary to the agreement, forces from both
sides. And tension was building up there.
We have been working nonstop on these issues all through
this period and that includes the more recent events in
Southern Kordofan. From the time that the Sudanese forces moved
into Abyei, we have been working around the clock to mobilize
international opinion in support of the withdrawal of those
forces. And from the President, from the Secretary of State,
from others in the administration, we have urged people--you
know that we don't have direct contact with President Bashir,
but we urged many, many leaders from around the world who do,
to call him and to say that they are risking a great deal by
doing this.
I came just this morning, I had just this morning a meeting
with President Obama where we discussed this situation. He is
deeply concerned. He follows Sudan events daily; and of course
is very concerned not only about the situation in Abyei, but
about what has happened in Southern Kordofan.
The Secretary, as you know, was in Addis Ababa just this
week in meetings with the parties. And let me say where we are
and what has happened in response to this crisis.
On Abyei, we recognized that the situation was growing very
dangerous at the beginning of May. And I and former President
of Burundi, Pierre Buyoya, and the Secretary General's
Representative, Haile Menkerios, immediately flew to Juba and
we worked with both parties to resurrect an agreement for the
withdrawal of forces from both sides that both had signed but
had not been implemented.
We were moving that process forward when a second incident
of attacks from the SPLA on a Joint Integrated Unit triggered
what we feel is an extraordinarily disproportionate response by
the government to move its forces into Abyei.
Our efforts on Abyei have been to get an agreement as
quickly as possible on the withdrawal of forces from Abyei. To
do that, we needed to strengthen the U.N. force in Abyei, which
had been ineffective in both monitoring fully the introduction
of forces that violated the agreement and in preventing the
events that took place when the Sudanese forces came into the
territory. To do that, we have asked Ethiopia to bring their
troops in to the U.N. force because they are willing to enforce
the mandate that that U.N. operation has.
There has been long and sometimes painstaking negotiations
on that. But I can tell you, particularly thanks to the
Secretary's intervention earlier this week, we are fairly close
to an agreement that would have the Sudanese forces withdraw
from Abyei, reinforcement of the U.N. voice, and a new
administration in Abyei. It is not sealed yet, but it is close
and we are hoping it will be signed.
Now, on Southern Kordofan, you have heard a great deal of
testimony on that, and you know we face an extraordinarily
serious problem there. The fighting has broken out. There are
reports of very serious human rights abuses, which you have
heard about, and there is a serious humanitarian situation
where anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 people are displaced as a
result of the fighting.
I have been to Southern Kordofan several times in recent
months in the lead-up to the election there, and have been in
regular contact by phone with Abdul Aziz, who is the former
deputy governor and the leader of the SPLM in South Kordofan,
trying to avert the kind of situation that broke out.
Under the auspices of the African Union High Level Panel,
negotiations to resolve this immediate crisis have been going
on also in Ethiopia, and an agreement is being put together but
yet it is not as close as the one on Abyei.
A delegation just flew by helicopter into Southern
Kordofan, in spite of the fighting, a U.N. helicopter carrying
members of the SPLM and a member of my staff and the AU panel
to meet with Abdul Aziz and to work further on the agreement;
and, in particular, to get an agreement that covers several
things.
First and foremost, we want a cessation of hostilities and
full access for humanitarian assistance to those who have been
displaced.
Second, and this has been worked on, an agreement that the
political grievances which are at the source of the conflict
there get fully aired and negotiated between the NCP and the
SPLM in an organized way in the future.
And, third, an issue which in part touched off this
conflict in Southern Kordofan, a committee to look at how you
eventually integrate the SPLA forces inside Southern Kordofan,
which as Roger Winter noted, and others, are people who come
from Southern Kordofan. They are not Southerners, and they are
looking for their place in that state.
Abdul Aziz, as a result of this mission, has agreed to a
30-day cease-fire on certain conditions, and now we and others
have to work to see if we can get that done.
These are the efforts we have been making throughout the
administration over the last several weeks to arrest what has
been a deterioration in the whole process of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement. And there are outstanding issues that need to
be resolved by July 9.
First, of course, is Abyei, the future of Abyei, a most
contentious issue, and I know members are very familiar with
that.
There is the second question of how the proceeds of oil
from the South will be apportioned during a transition period
and the conditions under which that would take place. There are
issues of citizenship that have to be resolved, issues of
disputed border areas, and a few others.
There have been lots of discussions on these issues, a lot
of technical work has been done; but what we haven't gotten to
are the political decisions that will resolve many of these
issues. Those negotiations were supposed to start this week,
but of course all of us have been diverted to dealing with the
crises in Abyei and Southern Kordofan.
Let me take a moment also to deal with Darfur, because as
consumed as we are with these current crises and the CPA in
general, we are also deeply engaged on the problems of Darfur.
We decided in the administration to put a very intensive
diplomatic effort in the peace talks going on in Doha in the
country of Qatar. Those talks have been going on for 2\1/2\
years without results. My colleague, Dane Smith, Ambassador
Dane Smith, who works full-time on Darfur, practically camped
out in Doha for several weeks with his staff to try to improve
that agreement. We worked very hard to get a second armed
movement, the JEM, into those talks with the Government of
Sudan, and they did engage in talks. The result of Doha is a
draft agreement which is better than the one that came out of
Abuja, but it is not signed yet by the government or any of the
armed movements.
The question is where we go next from there. We have to do
two things. We have to try to work more with the armed
movements on getting them into the peace process. It is not
that they don't have grievances, but many of them have said
what they want to negotiate is the whole constitutional
restructuring of Sudan. They don't want to start with Darfur,
and that makes for a very complicated process when you are
talking about Darfur.
On the government side, we have constantly worked on
questions of access and respect for human rights. There is a
desire, and a legitimate one, for a peace process that engages
many more of the people inside Darfur. But to do that, you have
to have conditions in which you don't have a state of
emergency, in which people are free to talk, not worry about
harassment afterwards. You need security, et cetera.
So what we have said to the U.N. and the African Union that
want to lead this process, ``Not until these conditions are
present, you can't have a process that would be legitimate or
credible.'' So we continue to work on all of these aspects of
the Darfur problem.
It is complicated, also, I might just say in passing, by
what is happening in Libya. I think you are aware that Libya
had been assisting at least one of movements--the head of that
movement, JEM, is still in Tripoli--and what happens in Libya
could have an impact on the situation in Darfur, something we
are watching very closely.
Let me stop there, Mr. Chairman. There is much, much more
to go into. But I just wanted to give you a quick view of the
efforts that we have been making for the last several weeks
throughout the administration, with the President, the
Secretary, the National Security Council, myself and others,
our Embassy in Khartoum, our consulate in Juba, to get at these
issues. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lyman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, what do you think might be
the next flash point after Southern Kordofan, Abyei, and the
Nuba Mountains? Have we identified something that is building,
some pressure that is building?
Ambassador Lyman. I think the other flash point is the five
disputed areas of the border, some more significant than
others. One on the Darfur-Abyei side. The two sides have not
yet agreed on how to resolve those border disputes.
There has been a good deal of technical analysis by the
British and the African Union on those five areas which could
be the basis for a settlement. But again, we don't have the
political leaders having come to an agreement. So there is a
potential flash point if either side tries to occupy those
areas and assert a military control.
Mr. Smith. With regards to the U.N. peacekeepers, both you
and Ambassador Winter, Ambassador Winter was very strong on how
while the U.N. humanitarian efforts have been extraordinarily
helpful, the other efforts by the U.N. peacekeepers fall far
short, particularly with regard, I would suggest, to their
rules of engagement, which you might want to speak to.
My understanding is that after July 9, some 7,000
additional U.N. peacekeepers are envisioned. This is a time
when financial restraint cannot be held up--we would do more if
only we had it--this could mean the difference between an all-
out new genocide and fighting a war, or not. It seems to me
that if there is not a sufficiently robust deployment, there
could be serious, serious problems. What are your thoughts on
that?
Ambassador Lyman. There is work, very advanced, going on
with the Security Council and with the parties to set up by
July 9 a new U.N. mission in South Sudan. It would be a mission
devoted to building state capacity, conflict prevention,
protection in emergency situations of civilians, a very broad
mandate that I think will be approved soon in the Security
Council. I don't have in front of me the exact number of troops
involved; I think it is 7,000. That would be just strictly in
the South.
Now, what the Government of Sudan and Khartoum have said to
the U.N., we don't want the U.N. in the North after July 9. But
there are several areas in which this is now coming back to
discussion. One, of course, is the peacekeeping force that we
are talking about in Abyei which right now is above the 1956
line, and both sides recognize that they must continue a
peacekeeping operation in Abyei.
Then there is the question of a role for a third party in
assisting in border monitoring after July 9, and in these two
very important areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. The
discussions so far on those, the borders and the two areas,
have not reached conclusion, whether a third party should be
the U.N., whether it should be AU, or whether it should be
someone else. And that will shape the response of the U.N. to
what is needed north of the line between the two countries. So
it is much more advanced on the force going and the broad
civilian mission going into the South than it is in the North.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, Bishop Hiiboro made a very
important appeal that the church and civil society be included,
and he noted that the latest establishment of the structures--
and this is post-referendum--and the absence of church, civil
society and other actors' participation in them could lead to a
lack of transparency and inclusiveness. What assurances can you
give that the U.S. is pushing very hard that the church and
civil society are truly partners and are not left out,
particularly in the provision of humanitarian assistance?
Ambassador Lyman. It is a very important objective. I have
been disappointed, as have others, that the negotiating process
itself has not been more open to women, to civil society, to
religious groups. It has been two parties, really, negotiating
between themselves. There has been some effort to reach out to
civil society, but it has not been satisfactory.
The work on a transitional constitution has largely in the
South been kind of an in-house operation. It is among the
politicians more than it is civil society. Right now the
religious institutions play a major role in the delivery of
services. Without them, many people wouldn't be receiving
health care and other things. We have urged the Government of
South Sudan to--as it develops its permanent constitution--to
make it a very broad process of consultation and participation
throughout the country. We think that it is extremely
important. They have committed themselves to that in principle,
and we will be working with them through NDI, IRI, and other
organizations that we have, to make sure that that happens.
Because it hasn't happened sufficiently now, and that is doubly
important, Mr. Chairman, because in the South there is a lot of
considerable unrest, some of it sparked by militias, but some
of it inherent in the communities themselves. And you can't get
at that simply by government or military means, you have to get
the churches and you have to get civil society involved.
Mr. Smith. One last question. I have many questions, but
because of your time constraints, I will just ask one more.
Dana Wilkins has testified that the U.S. should be more
involved with the oil transparency issue, and she makes a very
strong appeal that we do so, and notes that we are not. Since
wars are fought over oil, land, demarcation of boundaries,
obviously these are inextricably linked, are we going to be
more involved in that?
Ambassador Lyman. We have been heavily engaged in
discussions with the Government of South Sudan about this. We
recently had a Troika mission--that is the U.S., U.K. and
Norway--headed by our USAID Administrator, that raised this
issue very seriously with the South. The IMF has been there to
talk about this. We are now with the Norwegians, putting 10 or
12 people into the Oil Ministry of South Sudan to help develop
their capacity, and we are working with their finance
department to ensure that there is transparency in this area.
The Norwegians are also being very helpful in this regard.
It is an extremely important issue, as you have heard from
the other witnesses, and we have said over and over again that
for the Government of South Sudan, this is going to be one of
the major tests of their ability as a new state to manage their
resources well and to earn the support and credibility of the
international community.
Mr. Smith. Ambassador Winter it would appear, if we were to
sum up his view on this, is very much concerned about the
duplicity on the part of Bashir, which we have all seen, but he
has lived it. He saw how we would think something was going to
happen and it wouldn't. It reminds of what Slobodan Milosevic
always did in Serbia. He would sign a peace agreement or a
cease-fire, and 2 days later he would break it. We would have
that false sense of hope over and over again.
Is there something dramatic that the U.S. and our partners
need to be doing to ensure that this man who has committed
genocide is not perhaps looking to develop another crisis where
he will use force and use it with impunity?
Ambassador Lyman. What we have to do in a case like this,
Mr. Chairman, at least to the best of my ability and others, is
to get the people in Khartoum to recognize that it is in their
own interests to have a successful peace process with the
South; not preaching to them about being good guys, but telling
them that there are big consequences to their not doing so.
Mr. Smith. And what are those consequences?
Ambassador Lyman. Well, the North, after July 9, will lose
about 60 percent of their revenue. They will be shouldering a
$38 billion debt. They will have very serious economic
problems. They already are experiencing some of those. The only
way to resolve these or deal with them is to come back into the
good graces of the international community. That means dealing
effectively and properly with the CPA and with Darfur.
It is not just our condition, it is the condition of all of
our Western allies and others who are major creditors to Sudan.
They risk all of that if, for whatever reasons, they take a
military solution or otherwise violate the CPA. And we have
made that crystal clear. They have lots to gain if they do it
right. They have lots to lose for the people of Sudan if they
don't.
I think, to be perfectly honest, you have to look at what
they see as their own interest. And what we have said to them
is, being isolated in the world, facing all of those economic
consequences, having an unfriendly relationship with the South,
all of those things are bad for Sudan. It is to see it in their
interest not because they are good guys or bad guys, but that
this is the only way that they can produce a viable, stable
society in Sudan.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ambassador, I commend you for your many years of
distinguished service. I do feel, though, that we got off to a
late start with the Obama administration and the Special Envoy.
I think that the focus might have been misdirected and I think,
unfortunately, time was lost and we find that you have an
impossible--almost impossible situation you have inherited.
Having said that, though, it does seem that the Bashir
regime would recognize that time is running out, that they
really have serious problems after July 9th. But the fact that
they continue to behave the way that they do, it is almost
incomprehensible about the thought process, their tendency to
overreact in Darfur. It was some soldiers or civilians that
went into a barrack and the next thing you know, thousands of
villages are bombed in retaliation. I mean, you talk about
moral equivalency, you couldn't even use the word.
The alleged attack by SPLM on a U.N. convoy, once we
finally got down to the common denominator, it was perhaps a
gunshot really, not intentionally or did much damage or
whatever, but then the overwhelming response by once again the
Government of Sudan, using their overwhelming power, no kind of
moral equivalency. And so I just wonder whether this regime in
Khartoum can ever be reformed. It just makes no sense.
And then the arrogance of President Bashir that he is going
to go to China, and Amnesty International has requested that
China arrest him since they are a permanent member of the
Security Council and not a member of the Rome Statute. Or at
some point if he is an indicted criminal--and it is a long way
from Sudan to China or other places--that he does. I think at
some point in time, we need to empower some kind of
international special forces to intercede and to arrest him or
to have some serious kind of intervention to bring him to
justice, because this is never going to work with the manner of
impunity that he goes around the world and does what he wants
to do.
However, let me just ask, the situation in Abyei, is there
the possibility, or even in South Kordofan, the SPLM want to
have a transition from that into the police or military or
something, and others being deployed out of military. There has
to be some time to do this.
In your opinion, do you think that the plan that has been
laid out before, what they laid out as a plan, do you think
that there is time for that to work; where, like I said, the
SPLM, because they are not going anywhere, could demobilized,
but there has to be someone in between to try to be there to
enable it to happen? What are the prospects of that happening?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you very much, Congressman. And
again, let me thank you for all that you do on behalf of
Africa.
Let me distinguish three aspects of that. In Abyei, the
understanding in the CPA, which we need to go back to, is that
there should be no militarized forces in Abyei, only a U.N.
peacekeeping force and local police. That was the objective
that we were working on so desperately at the beginning of May,
called the Kadugli agreement, but it fell apart in the matters
that we discussed. But that is the essense of the agreements
being worked on. You have a local administration and you have a
local police force, but security is with the U.N. peacekeeping
force; and, as I said, an enhanced one with the support of
Ethiopia.
When it comes to South Sudan, I think South Sudan faces an
extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances with regard to
the SPLA. Part of their strategy of achieving unity, of coming
to terms with various militia that have fought in the past
against the SPLM in the South, has been to bring them in, and
their soldiers, into the government and into the Army. The
result is a force that is really much too large. And as they
face some of these other militias, those deals might continue
to be necessary, but you get the force even larger.
On the other hand, many of these people are not trained for
civilian life. They don't have the skills. There is a high
illiteracy rate. So what the chief of staff, General Holt, has
said and what we have agreed and what I think the U.N. has
agreed, you don't start immediately a demobilization program.
What you do is take several years to build this force more into
a professional lineup, provide a lot of skills training for
people, doing things for the society, whether it is agriculture
or construction or other things, and then go into a
demobilization process where you are putting skilled people
back into society.
If you do it too soon, if you send people back with no
skills, they are easily recruited by militia. So it has got to
be not a quick demobilization, but a process where you get
bigger first and then down. I think we all now understand this
is how it is going to have to be.
Inside Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, you have a
situation where you have both in those states and in the South
but from those states, tens of thousands of soldiers who fought
in the civil war. Eventually they should be either integrated
into a single army in the North or demobilized. But the point
is that they are not prepared to do that unless they know that
the political rights for which they fought are going to be
protected. That has been the issue behind the current conflict
in Southern Kordofan.
So what we are hoping will come out of these negotiations
is an agreement that these political grievances and concerns
have to be addressed, and that any plans for integrating or
demobilizing those forces have to be related to an assurance
that the political issues are being resolved.
It is a touchy kind of issue for both sides to work on, but
that is what is going to be necessary before you can get to a
demobilization in those areas. I hope this is okay,
Congressman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. My time has expired. But I
would ask very quickly, if the chairman would indulge me, about
the tanks, the tanks that the South Sudanese have paid for that
are on tracks still in Kenya.
Is there any possibility that those assets that belong to
the Government of South Sudan can be released by the U.S.?
Ambassador Lyman. I have to ask you if we can deal with
that in classified session. I am happy to come up and do that.
Mr. Payne. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ambassador, for being here today. My first
question has to do with North Sudan and the fact that currently
their behavior--they are violating the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement protocol. Now, in your testimony you talked to us
about the fact that written agreements are being put in place
for Abyei and also for Kordofan. We heard from Mr. Winters that
apparently the North Sudan doesn't adhere to these agreements,
that there is concern that even if you have the best agreement
on paper, if they don't pay attention to it and they don't
adhere to it, it doesn't do any good.
My question to you is: Is there a contingency plan? Is
there an understanding by the administration that we are going
through this step here, but more than likely it may not work?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
You know, to go back to now the very familiar phrase of
President Reagan, ``trust but verify,'' in the Abyei agreement,
you have to have a U.N. force capable and willing of enforcing
the mandate. If you don't have that, either side could break
it, and the North included, of course. What we have been
working at is to make sure that we have a U.N. force that is
not only mandated but willing to go to every part of Abyei.
I don't want to get into the argument of moral equivalency
because I understand that. But the fact is in Abyei, both sides
blocked the U.N. from fully inspecting the amount of forces
that they had brought into the area. It only works if the U.N.
not only has the mandate but is willing to enforce it. That has
been at the heart of this discussion, to bring in a better
force into Abyei.
Now, when it comes to Southern Kordofan, what I think has
been demonstrated at terrible cost is that the Government of
Sudan can't come in and militarily just disarm those SPLA
soldiers. That you get into a terrible fight at great human
cost, but it is not a walk-over. And hopefully out of that
comes--again this is mutual interest, not anything else; the
only way to deal with that problem is to negotiate with parties
that have some wherewithal.
I am hoping that in the discussions that are coming out now
on Southern Kordofan, there is a recognition you can't do it
militarily. You might want to, you might have people who say we
ought to, but you can't. And if you can't, then you need to
find another way. So that is what I think is going to happen in
Southern Kordofan, or at least I hope so; that people realize
that the military solution is not going to work.
Ms. Buerkle. Just as a follow-up couple of questions, and I
would like your opinion as to whether or not you think what is
going on in Abyei is really tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
Ambassador Lyman. Well, what has happened in Abyei is that
when the Sudanese forces moved in, the population, remembering
what happened in 2008, left. And understandably so. And what we
have said is, until those people are allowed to go back and as
soon as possible, you have what could be called ethnic
cleansing because you can't just remove people from where they
are and then not allow them to come back.
But for the government to say they are free to come back
any time, of course they are not going to come back while it is
occupied by Sudanese armed forces.
So the reason, one of the reasons that we have pushed so
hard to get an agreement on withdrawal as fast as possible is
so over now 100,000 people can come back to their homes, and we
get away from any thought that you could change the ethnic
composition of Abyei through military means. And that is
clearly part of the objective. It has to be.
Ms. Buerkle. Lastly, what leverage do you think the United
States has to contain the events you are talking about prior to
July 9?
Ambassador Lyman. I smile because we debate that all of the
time in the administration.
Look, I think there are a number of things that give us an
important role. One is that Sudan--and it is not just us, but
we are a major player--Sudan, and by that I mean North Sudan,
cannot come out of its economic isolation without the agreement
of the United States. They can't get the debt relief, they
can't get to the World Bank, they can't get to the IMF, they
can't get off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The
relationship between Sudan and the United States is critical to
all of that. It is a point that we make, and sometimes they
recognize it and sometimes they are angry about it, but it is a
reality.
The second thing is in the negotiations that are overseen
overall by the African Union High Level Panel, it is important
that the United States be participating and be able to talk to
both sides about the substance of those agreements, and we have
been able to play a very significant role in that regard.
It is that, and it is working very closely with a number of
our allies so that we speak with one voice. I mentioned that I
traveled recently with my colleagues from Britain and Norway,
the Troika, but we also traveled with the European Union
Special Envoy, as well, and we try to mobilize as much united
as we can.
And the Africans. Look, Prime Minister Meles has played an
extraordinarily important role. And we work closely with him so
that we multiply, if you will, the leverage by bringing more
parties to the table.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. A couple of questions. You mentioned
people returning, that people should be able to go back. But
what would they actually be returning to? Are there villages
intact, was the housing destroyed?
Ambassador Lyman. What happened in Abyei and we are seeing
in Southern Kordofan is a great deal of looting and destruction
of property. I saw one estimate that something like 20 percent
of homes or building in Abyei towns were destroyed. I don't
have verification on it, but it wouldn't surprise me. A
tremendous amount of looting. So when people go back home,
obviously there is going to have to be a lot of help in
rebuilding. Now, we haven't worked out the details and the
financing of that. But we have a coalition of humanitarian
agencies that are working with them now, with displaced people
that will go back into Abyei and work with them on
reconstruction. But you put your finger on one of the terribly
devastating costs of this conflict. Many have lost everything
and they have to have their lives reconstituted when they go
home. I think we are going to find that in Southern Kordofan as
well.
Ms. Bass. And one of the previous witnesses had mentioned
that he believes that if things don't go well after the 9th,
that we really could be looking at a virtual genocide. And I
wanted to know your thoughts on that. And I have a question
following that that was asked actually by one of my
constituents who e-mailed it to me: What is the administration
doing to stop the atrocity in Khartoum and how will the
administration work to stop the violence toward civilians?
Distinguishing that from what could potentially be a genocide.
Ambassador Lyman. It depends a lot on why or where such
would happen. Obviously, as Roger Winter pointed out, that
danger in many people's minds could happen in Southern Kordofan
or Blue Nile if there isn't the kind of recognition of rights,
et cetera, that I talked about earlier. In the South, it is a
different story. You are not talking about, I don't think,
genocide as much as you are talking about ethnic differences,
cattle rustling, militias, et cetera, a lot of fighting and a
lot of dislocation. But I don't think that borders on genocide.
So I am not clear that that is immediately the problem as
it is in this continued level--you know, many people say if we
don't get these things settled, the two sides will go back to
war. What I fear, because I don't think either side really
wants to go back to full-scale war, is that you get a
relationship that is not even a cold peace. It is a very
unfriendly relationship between two countries that try and
spoil each other. ``I will help Darfurians because you are
helping the rebels and so and so,'' and each side is trying to
upset the other with great loss of life for people caught in
the middle. I worry about that.
Now, it could get worse than that. But that disrupts the
lives of everybody because a very large portion of the people
in the North and South live very close to the border. Their
lives depend on an open border. They trade. They migrate with
their cattle up and down, et cetera. If you get into what I
call not even a cold peace but an unfriendly hostile
relationship, those people are going to suffer a great deal on
both sides. That in my mind is the bigger threat.
I hope a bigger war is not on the horizon, but I see that
as a pattern that would be very destructive if they don't come
to the kind of understanding between the two countries, as I
often say to them, you don't have to kiss on the cheeks but you
have got to shake hands, you have got to recognize that your
lives are intertwined. You don't have to like each other, you
do have to recognize that you have mutual relationships that
you have got to develop.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a leaked United
Nations report that says that the Sudanese Armed Forces'
invasion of Abyei was, in the words of the U.N., tantamount to
ethnic cleansing. So I was going to ask you what is the
administration's response to that report and what consequences
are being considered? And then the other aspect of this is the
new report, the June 1st attack by the LRA. It has been 25
years now that we have dealt with Joseph Kony, and he has been
abducting children and brutalizing them in such a horrific way
that he turns them into killing machines. But the last report
cites that escaped child soldiers have reported Sudanese Armed
Forces trucks during their time in activity delivering
munitions, delivering weaponry, also bringing uniforms to LRA
commanders. This is pretty problematic, especially when you
consider that the latest attack on June the 1st had to repeat
the modus operandi that Kony often uses where he gathered a lot
of children, had some of the people massacred in front of their
very eyes and had some of them identify and kill their parents
and then have them boiled, dismembered them and boiled them in
water. The fact that we have not been able to get across to the
Khartoum government that this kind of support, this kind of
using the LRA to destabilize South Sudan--and this was on the
South Sudan-Ugandan border where this occurred--the fact that
we haven't been able to drive that home means that just
explaining this to them may not be working. So what is the
administration prepared to do in light of this in order to get
some results? And we have given the authorization, myself and
Congressman McGovern on that legislation, you have got the
green light on taking Kony out. What is being done to take Kony
out?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you, Congressman. I couldn't agree
more about the horrific character of the LRA. There was a
meeting just in Addis while I was there of the countries of the
region and the United States and others on how to implement
exactly what you are talking about, to eliminate the LRA. We
have a task force in Washington following up on the
legislation. Very good legislation has come out of the Congress
actually. Actually a member of my staff is taking over the lead
of that in July. So I think the plans are being formulated by a
coalition of countries in that area along those borders to go
after the remnants of the LRA. We have made it very clear to
Khartoum that any support of the LRA is a threat to any kind of
normal relations.
I haven't seen the report that you mentioned. I would like
to get it, please, because I do raise this issue often. But we
do have--and I would ask my colleagues in the Department who
work on this to give you an up to date on what happened in
Addis and the plans that are underway.
Mr. Royce. Very good. And I am going to follow up with
another point, and that is the new mission that the U.N. is
working on regionally. My concern is what is being done to give
them the wherewithal to protect civilians, to make certain that
they have as part of their mandate a definition that gives them
the ability adequately in situations where we have already seen
happening in Darfur happens, again we make sure that there is a
credible deterrence there.
Ambassador Lyman. The problem for U.N. peacekeeping forces
is, of course, how much they get out in front and start
engaging in conflict with one party or another. It is a
longstanding issue.
Mr. Royce. Get out in front is your way of looking at it. I
was in Darfur. I have seen--it is not a matter of getting out
in front. It is a question of when civilians are overrun and
slaughtered and run to the U.N.--or to take the situation, for
example, in the former Yugoslavia.
Ambassador Lyman. I take your point completely because it
is important that the U.N. be proactive in those situations and
it goes to the question I was asked earlier about the South. We
want a capability in the new U.N. mission there to move very
quickly in situations like that, in fact to have a good sense
of where that kind of problem would break out. UNAMID in
Darfur, we have gotten the U.N. forces to be much more
proactive in asserting its rights to move into areas and get to
them. And those cases that you described where they haven't
been doing so have been a source was not only great
consternation on our part but very frank discussions with the
U.N. So I take your point.
Mr. Royce. One last point if I could get this in. The Chad-
Cameroon pipeline project. I went out there and took a look at
that. And we put a lot of pressure on that government to try to
make sure that that money went not to line politician's
pockets, right, but for roads and for schools. The question
here is going to be in South Sudan what you will be able to do,
as difficult a challenge as this is going to prove to be, to
make sure that our Government is supporting the ability to put
in place the transparency necessary, because otherwise this is
going to have a sad ending. Whereas if we get out in front of
this and really leverage what influence we have for full
transparency in terms of the oil revenue, I think it could have
a very beneficial outcome in building society there and maybe
teach a lesson to the North as well. So I just ask you on that
front.
Ambassador Lyman. No, Congressman--and I mentioned this
earlier--I don't think I have had a conversation with officials
in the South that this issue has not been raised. But more
specifically, we and the Norwegians are putting 10 people into
the Ministry of Petroleum to help them develop the right
systems. We are working with the Ministry of Finance to get
transparency there. Our friends from Britain and Norway have
joined us to say this is going to be a critical factor in how
the world comes to support the government of the South Sudan.
So it is a big issue. And we have emphasized it a great deal.
Mr. Royce. Ambassador, I appreciate your good work in the
past and working with you in the past, and thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ambassador Lyman. Mr. Chairman, I have been monopolizing
this a little bit. We have Raja here and she knows a great deal
about the plans of USAID for South Sudan and for some of the
humanitarian activities. So I hope if you are interested in
those things----
Mr. Smith. We are interested. And, in fact, we would like
to invite her back for an additional hearing. Let me just ask a
couple of questions if I could very quickly and then Mr.
Payne--as a matter fact, I will ask the questions, Mr. Payne
will then ask you because I know you have to leave immediately.
Ambassador Winter made a very, very strong statement in his
written testimony. He talks about how in Abyei and elsewhere
obviously, Khartoum attacks and expects only a neutered
international reaction. And he said something that I would
appreciate--because past is often prologue, and you had to,
coming on line as Special Envoy, deal with whatever good or ill
had been done by previous Special Envoys--and I would
appreciate knowing your reaction to the statement by Ambassador
Winter. ``I believe''--this is him speaking--``that more than 2
years of the Obama administration's approach to Sudan made
matters worse, emboldening Khartoum and setting the stage for
Abyei's and South Kordofan's current horrors. Perhaps the
eccentricities of General Gration's approach to being a Special
Envoy for Sudan are related to the administration's commitment
to a reach out to the Arab and Islamic world.'' And he also
points out his greatest issue was General Gration's highly
biased approach to Abyei. And I am not sure if we are reaping a
bitter fruit from that or if he has that wrong, but I
appreciate your reaction to that.
And secondly, Dr. Eibner in his testimony reminded us that
President Salva Kiir declared in 2006 and addressed the
Parliament that the government remains deeply committed to the
retrieval of Southern Sudanese women and children abducted and
enslaved in Northern Sudan.
Back in 1996, I chaired a hearing right here, Slavery in
Mauritania and Sudan, and Secretary William Twaddell, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, you remember him, from African Affairs,
said, and I quote, ``The Government of Sudan has denied that
slavery exists and refused to investigate such reports or to
cooperate with others seeking to do so.'' He did point out that
the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices included a section concerning the persistence of
slavery and the alarming increase in reports of the seizing of
civilian captives, particularly in the war zones.
An unfinished bit of huge business and I am wondering--
obviously you are dealing with a whole lot of highly important
issues--but are we pushing for a full accountability and
hopefully repatriation of those slaves?
Ambassador Lyman. On your first question, look, I think
that--and I worked with General Gration for several months
before he was nominated for Kenya and we worked very closely
together. And quite frankly, he worked his heart out and his
soul for peace in Sudan. People may have quarreled with his
style or things, but I found him just overwhelmingly dedicated
to the peace process.
Now, if you look at the record, getting up to and through
the referendum, when I started in August working with him,
people said we couldn't possibly have the referendum on January
9th and if we had it, it would be a disaster. We did--and I
don't want to say we get all the credit because we don't, but
we certainly did an awful lot to make that happen. And it is as
much General Gration as myself and others who worked on that to
make sure that the Referendum Commission was stood up,
supported, capable and that we weighed in politically heavily
to make it happen.
We worked hard on the Darfur crisis. We tried very hard to
get an agreement on the referendum. And we just ran into an
impossible situation where each side was not prepared to accept
a voting situation in which the other side would have a clear
advantage. The Ngok Dinka did not feel the Misseriya should
have the right to vote and the North argued that the Misseriya
not only had the right to vote but to vote in very large
numbers. And 9 days of day-and-night work led us to the
conclusion--and not only us, but the two parties--this isn't
going anywhere, maybe we need a political solution. And we have
been working on that ever since.
So I think quite frankly that a lot of work was done over
those 2 years. Of course I came on last August, but I found
people very dedicated, very committed, working literally night
and day on behalf of peace.
When it comes to the slavery issue, this is a very sore
point--a very sore point. It is a bitter, bitter memory for
many people. I don't know of plans for full accountability, I
don't. And I can look into that. But I know for many people,
this is a bitter, bitter part of the history that they carry
with them. And sometimes when you are dealing in the
negotiations, that bitterness jumps up and you realize
sometimes how deep these feelings go.
So I take what you are saying very seriously and I will
look into whether there are any plans on it.
Mr. Payne. Very quickly. I think two things I want to
mention quickly. I believe that the Government of South Sudan
would want to see a transparent and a well working oil system.
I think they need the help. I think in Chad there might have
been resistance and needed to be convinced this is what you
have do and if you don't do it, we are not going to get the
money. I think in South Sudan, that is not the problem. The
problem is going to be the capacity to manage it properly. And
I am glad to hear that the Norwegians and the U.S. have 10
people there.
Secondly--and I do know that I agree that General Gration
was a very hard worker. I just think that we tried to get
hearings. We were able to get him to come before the committee
I chaired for 2 years one time. We felt that if there could be
more discussion we might have been able to get our points
across, our ideas, and we could have worked together, but he
would not come before the House committee. He did go over to
the Senate on some occasions.
Just one line of questioning. I don't know whether it is
classified or not, but we have reports that over a dozen trucks
filled with chemicals are heading for Kordofan. Chemical
weapons are a violation of world human rights and things
dealing with war, and so forth and so on, and I would hope that
there could be some verification. It is even alleged that Mr.
Saleh Gasch, who is a leader in the Government of Sudan, set up
a company called G-A-I-D, GAID, for the purchase of chemical
weapons.
Now, this is alleged. However, I would hope that we would
really take a serious look into whether chemical weapons are
being transported to Kordofan. And if so, I think that this
raises to a new level and that there will have to be some kind
of an action with--we just can't allow this to occur.
Ambassador Lyman. No, Congressman. I just heard about this
today before I came here and will look into it. I don't have
any information on it or evidence one way or another. But I saw
the reports as I was coming here and I will look into it, and I
will get back to you with whatever we have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. We tried to stay within
your time limit. And I would say to Ms. Jandhyala, thank you
for being here. Without objection, your full statement will be
a part of the record. And we would like to invite you back for
a specific hearing on Sudan on just humanitarian issues if you
would be amenable to that. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jandhyala follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Ambassador Lyman. She is worth it.
Mr. Smith. I know. I would like to now welcome----
Ambassador Lyman. And thank you for all the interest. I
really appreciate it.
Mr. Smith. I would like to now welcome our first, second,
panel back to the witness table. And I would also ask that Ms.
Buerkle, if she could assume the chair for a few moments.
Ms. Buerkle [presiding]. We are going to get started again
with our first panel. Thank you and we apologize for the length
of your wait here. I am going to begin the line of questioning
and then will turn it over to Mr. Payne.
Bishop Hiiboro, I would like to start with you if I could.
In your opening comments, you talked to us about the United
States being consistent and being focused on the South Sudan.
Can you elaborate for me? What do you need from the United
States?
Bishop Hiiboro. Well, what I mean is that in the report
that we have gone through with the support of the United
States, we have concerns about how much efforts that we could
keep on the momentum, the kind of system we have in our
country. An example--that is one of the few that I can
highlight. With the peace agreement in 2005, there was a little
bit of silence not only from the United States but also from
the international community. Until 2008, when we were close now
to the election, a lot of efforts came out for which I
appreciate. But I think--the issue of Sudan has been on the
agenda for so many years. So I would think that with the birth
of the new country that is coming, efforts could be done both
from the Sudanese side and from our friends, from the United
States, to get this issue finished on the world agenda is what
I meant.
Thank you.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. To all four of our panelists, I
would like for you to comment. I think you all heard me ask the
Ambassador what he felt our leverage was as a country to get
the North Sudan to cooperate. If you could comment on that and
if you feel there is other things that we could leverage as
well.
Ambassador Winter, if you would like to start. I know you
have a time constraint.
Mr. Winter. I have never fully understood Khartoum's way of
thinking. So I may be off base. But obviously they were looking
for at the very beginning of this process--you are talking a
decade ago where we had a relationship on intelligence and
those kinds of things with them, still do to some degree, I
guess. But I think--this is my personal view--that they were
looking for a relationship and they were willing at least to
enter a process of negotiation that would produce something, an
agreement which would benefit them. I personally think that
that changed and changed seriously in the summer of 2005. In
the summer of 2005, several things happened that were key to, I
think, how they shifted.
First of all was that on the 8th or so of July of that
year, Dr. John Garang went to Khartoum for the first time in
several decades of the war. When he went there, a group of the
lowest number that I have heard, it is like 5 or 6 million
people, showed up to greet him. They were not just Southerners.
They were Southerners, they were Northerners, they were from
Darfur, they were from Beja in the east and all over Sudan
because there was a hunger on all kinds of people in Sudan for
a new governance arrangement. I think that kind of turnout,
which was not all Southerners, his perceived constituency,
because of his arguments for a new Sudan, the fact that so many
people of so many different kinds showed up, I think put the
fear of God in them about what the possibilities were under an
arrangement that the CPA required and he was going to be Vice
President of the entire country.
Then, less than 4 weeks later, he was dead. He died. And I
think his death divided--having seen the scare of all these
people coming out and supporting basically his policies, the
fact that he died in the helicopter crash opened up the
possibility of actually eventually backing off of all of the
key commitments that they had in signing the CPA, and that is
why it has been such a rough road and continues to be right
now.
That is my view.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Ms. Wilkins.
Ms. Wilkins. Well, I have to respectfully disagree with the
Ambassador's opinion of agreements because I do think that
agreements, getting commitments down on paper, can be very
important and can be a useful point of leverage. Now of course
the agreement that jumps out to me is this new oil deal in
particular, which has additional points of leverage. The North
is very reliant on the oil revenues and it would be a massive
blow--they would collapse without some share of these revenues.
And that is one place to start in saying, great, well, if we
are going to come together in this agreement, which they have
to, you need to be transparent in how we are managing this. And
that is one way to exercise leverage.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Dr. Eibner.
Mr. Eibner. Thank you. The Special Envoy outlined a number
of areas where we have great leverage and that is a fact. We do
have leverage, but it is not obviously enough to make Khartoum
fall into line with what the United States wants to do. And I
see little--that there is little space between actually regime
change and negotiating or having discussions with Khartoum on
the basis of their interests, which is what the Special Envoy
emphasized, the American strategy is to not like them but
simply try to identify their interests. And if there are
interests that are compatible with ours, then we try to reach
some agreement. This obviously happened in the case of the CPA,
according to President Salva Kiir of Southern Sudan, over 90
percent of the CPA has been respected all of these years and we
would not have the prospect of an independent Southern Sudan
were it not for the possibility of many agreements being
respected. But it is not for me to say whether there should be
regime change and whether the United States is in a position to
exercise that and to do it effectively and then do it in the
right way that doesn't create more killing, displacement, and
enslavement or whether we have to proceed on the basis of the
strategy outlined by the Special Envoy and one that its
predecessors have followed.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Bishop Hiiboro.
Bishop Hiiboro. My reading of the situation, I would think
that if you really have a stable North, then that would also
hold the peace for the South. So decisions that we can take
regarding the government in the North Sudan have to be also
very much weighed again in South Sudan. And so the regime
change definitely I think I can speak about, but that has to
come from within. And also the level of discussions going on
with the government and the Special Envoy to Sudan should also
a little bit get down to the grassroots. And so--get the people
involved. To my thinking, maybe the--the discussion is a little
bit very high. So getting the people on the ground involved I
think would be able to provide a possibility for understanding
the situation and finding out a solution to the problem in the
Sudan.
And finally on the same and looking at the issue of the
implementation of the CPA, we had already foreseen these
things. People are already aware that if some of those elements
were not implemented, we are going to have a conflict even
before the referendum. And that was sort of like, no, we pay
attention to the referendum to succeed, then we shall come to
talk about Abyei. But I think the time has come and past and
now we are already in violence. So therefore the moment I would
think that more groundwork needs to be done involving the
stakeholders and the current leaders and to see the best way
they can be able to resolve the issue. I don't think the people
in the North need violence. They need peace, too.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much. I yield now to the
ranking member, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Ms. Wilkins, what is your--
in a nutshell, how do you see the plan for South Sudan's oil
sector going--you had some points that you had made before.
What were they again real quickly that you would like to see?
Ms. Wilkins. Of course. Of what the United States can do,
action points for example?
Mr. Payne. Right.
Ms. Wilkins. Wonderful. Back to what the Special Envoy was
saying about how the U.S. and Norway are now beginning to do
some capacity building in the Ministry of Finance and the
Ministry of Energy. That is a great step. What I would really--
I would very much like to add to that, though, is the other
aspect of accountability and the real technical support and
capacity building for the Legislative Assembly to be able to
monitor how the ministries are functioning and how the
ministries are actually managing the sector.
And in addition, I had mentioned it earlier in my
testimony, but capacity building and technical support for the
petroleum directorate which the Auditor General intends to
create. And of course capacity building for civil society. That
is going to be huge. And as of yet, no donors appear to be
stepping forward and saying we are going to take a real lead on
building the capacity of local civil society groups to take an
active role in the management of the petroleum sector. I
believe that is a real oversight.
Mr. Payne. Let me just ask a question. You were saying that
you felt the government of--the Khartoum government showed, I
guess, good faith. You said the CPA went through and that you,
I guess, had faith in them. Do you have any way to know that
the--even their accounting of the oil accounts? I mean, you
have talked about the South. They say they pumped 10,000
gallons last hour. Have you looked to Khartoum, have you
questioned them about is there a real meter that you can see
and that it is going--have you taken any kind of a look--
because you seem to have a lot of confidence that they are
going to do the right thing, although they have just broken
every sort of agreement that they have made?
Ms. Wilkins. No, I wouldn't say I have a lot of confidence
that they will do the right thing here. No, no. I disagree with
the importance of agreements. I think that getting commitments
down on paper is very important even if the----
Mr. Payne. But they have been broken as much as they have
been written. And it is great to have it written because at
least there is something to work from.
Ms. Wilkins. Yeah. Something to hold people to. And I think
that that is where it is really important.
Mr. Payne. I mean, Darfur, they have broken every single
agreement they made.
Ms. Wilkins. No. Certainly. But I think that is why we have
to chase them on things like the audit of the current oil
sharing agreement which they agreed to do last year, or in 2009
rather. And progress is actually moving ahead on that audit
happening. They are waiting now to choose a company, an
international, credible auditing firm to conduct the audit. And
that is where you step in on verifying. Because I agree that
both parties, the North and the South, can agree to implement
this, any new agreement, effectively and transparently, but it
is about independent verification.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Bishop, the LRA continues to exist.
And once again in Sudan, the government has continued to
support them as they move along. This group should have been
eliminated 20 years ago. They still roam around. Do you feel
that with the new Government of South Sudan that that should be
a priority for them or do you think that the Bashir government
will continue to support the LRA, and would that be some
conflict between the North and the South as they try to deal
with the LRA?
Bishop Hiiboro. Thank you. The issue of the LRA definitely
is a very serious issue for Sudan and especially the region
where I come from, he--that is where he operates, within the
area where I live. And so we are only amazed too at the
situation of the LRA that has continued for so many years
without any proper solution. We wonder about how they get their
support, how they are sustained and how--they also carry out
their activities with a very high degree of military hardware.
No one knows definitely. I cannot say. I only maybe want to
speculate. We don't know where they get their supplies from.
But all we know and I know that every day as I speak in my area
there are continual raids on the population and attacks on the
population, abducting, looting, killing. And this is causing a
lot of displacement. And so I hate to think that it has even
gone beyond an international issue. It is a regional issue that
involves Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, and the Sudan
and also the international community. And my worry is that the
continued presence of the LRA in the forest, with that kind of
maximum support of them from a source I don't know, there could
be a time bomb for the destabilization of South Sudan or
anybody. Anybody with the terrorist oriented activities can buy
them and can use them for anything that they would wish.
So I am hoping and so many others are hoping that with the
birth of the new country, probably an initiative will be taken
by the Government of South Sudan to involve the other countries
because they have gone across the border, and to control them
and in these collective efforts, a regional approach and also
international.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Eibner, we
listened to your testimony and I certainly have to commend the
CSI in the early days when they exposed the whole question of
abductions and other advocates who played an important role in
exposing the extension, the existence of slavery and people
being enslaved. There then became a debate, you may recall,
with UNICEF that had some question about the fact that what had
gone on initially to a smaller degree tended then to be
amplified because when the redemption program came in, it kind
of created--it created an industry actually. Some alleged that
because there was money now to buy back abducted people, that
it heightened the abductions because millions of dollars came
in as a new industry. And then actually even some reports got
into the fact that the money--there was corruption on the part
of some people involved in it. And I know that there were
restrictions imposed by the SPLM on the CSI.
And I just wonder--I think we do need to take account of
people in the North; it is going to be very difficult to track
abducted people who are in the North. I think that in the
South, the Government of South Sudan, if there are still
remnants of that, I am sure that would probably still be a part
of the social services.
So, you know, there are so many gigantic problems going
forward, it seems as though that you are saying that this is
one--I assume a looming overwhelming problem in the scheme of
things in Sudan. I just kind of wonder to the extent to which
the situation still exists.
Mr. Eibner. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
respond. First of all, there has been no evidence of any
credible sort from any--from UNICEF or anyone else about
fueling the slave trade that it has made, that more people have
been taken into slavery than otherwise would be the case. In
fact, all of the evidence that I am aware of points to the
contrary, that slavery has actually decreased to the point
where they are not happening today. And I am sad to say that
those who failed to address the slavery problem, those who knew
about it back in the 1980s and failed to address it come up
with these kinds of things as a cover for their own
inadequacies and failure to address crime against humanity.
And in terms of corruption and such allegations, you quite
rightly say there are allegations and I would be delighted to
have really hard evidence about really anything that we do in
Sudan that is not helpful. And I can assure you that if I had
hard evidence, I would look into it very thoroughly and we
would make sure that all of our operations are either conducted
in a way that is helpful to the victims and the victimized
communities or stopped if we were to feel that they are in some
way harmful.
And I must say I am not aware of any restrictions that the
SPLA has put on CSI in terms of its operations. If you are
aware of any restrictions, please let me know and we will try
to abide by whatever regulations Juba has. But CSI operates
fully in conformity with the law in Southern Sudan and the
wishes of the authorities. And it would be very unfortunate if
people were to think that that were not the case because it is.
I believe that the slavery issue is extremely important today
both because of people that are still apparently enslaved. They
are human beings, human beings like the lady Achol Deng that I
mentioned, and today there may be somebody whose genitals are
removed, somebody who is executed because they displeased a
master. This is important and we want to find ways to get them
back.
That is important just on humanitarian grounds. Slavery is
a crime against humanity, and it cannot be just marginalized in
the political debate in Sudan. But there is another reason and
that is why I mentioned Francis Deng and the ``War of Visions''
because there is something that fuels this cruelty, this
slavery, and it is related to the different visions and the
competing visions. And one vision is based on racism and
religious bigotry that will justify this kind of appalling
behavior in the minds of perpetrators, and this needs to be
addressed as a part of the political debate on Sudan.
Already there has been some mention of regime change, and
this is not something I wish to get into but I think everybody
has to understand that slavery wasn't invented by Omar Bashir.
The slave raids got underway in earnest in a very serious way
when there was what people call a democratic government in
Khartoum that was a coalition government. All of the so-called
democratic parties were involved and they were the ones who
were really responsible for setting this in motion. This
problem goes much deeper than a particular leader, a particular
party in Sudan. And if we are really serious about bringing
sustained peace to Sudan and enabling peoples, whether they are
in two separate states or three states or whether they are
united, to be able to live together in peace and harmony, then
we have to address these issues. And slavery symbolizes that.
I believe that you were probably in Juba at the time of the
referendum, and I am sure that you saw all of the campaign
posters for the independence of Southern Sudan. And it was to
prevent slavery and to enable us to develop--vote for
independence. Slavery is an important issue in the hearts and
minds of Southern Sudanese, and it is something that we address
and we err if we just sweep it to the margins of political
life.
Mr. Payne. Well, I am not saying we should sweep anything
anywhere. All I am simply saying is that we have oppression
throughout the world. I mean, we could almost call slavery here
in the United States if you want to use that term. I just think
the term is used a little loosely because it is used in some
places and not used in other places. We ought to have a
definition of the way that exploitation--you can go to India,
you can go to Brazil, you can go to Alabama with the chain
gangs where people wear chains and they work on farms and they
get no pay and they work 10 hours a day and they are given poor
meals. And so all I am saying is that we have inequities and
abuses that are worldwide, China, Brazil, the Caribbean,
Indonesia, where you have sex trading that goes on in
abundance, even the border of Burma. I went to Burma while
going to China. You would be surprised, you wouldn't think that
prostitution and gambling occurs right up there. But they use
other terms.
And I would like to follow up with you because I do have
some information that I would like to get to you since you said
you are unaware it of and I think we could perhaps set up a
meeting at another time.
Just one last question since my time is really over, Mr.
Winter, if there could be some immediate things that our
Government could do to try to get this situation--and let me
also recognition Mr. Joe Madison, who had gone to Sudan many
times, went on a fast and really did much and is a radio
personality and has done a tremendous amount to get on the
airwaves way back when not many people were talking about
Sudan. So thank you for being here, Mr. Madison.
What would you do immediately if you were a Special Envoy?
What would you suggest to Mr. Obama that should be done now
because I am really concerned about what is going on?
Mr. Winter. First of all, I wouldn't want to be said
person. There is at this point no clear simple answer to that,
a quick answer. We have been talking for 11 years. Everything
has been said. I mean, the CPA process started in 2001. This is
2011. Everything that can be said pretty much was said. The
question is, what do we do? And that I think is the weak link
in the thing. So if you want to go back--you can go back, for
example, in the case of--we have been doing a lot of talk about
Abyei and I always stand corrected to the other people--to be
corrected by other folks on the panel.
But just to raise the issue of the mobilization by Khartoum
of the Misseriya people, not for the Misseriya people's
benefit, but for Khartoum's benefit. If you have a government
that deals with--for their good that actually divides
populations against each other, something is dramatically wrong
now. When we were talking about slaves in the 1980s, it was the
so-called Murahaleen that were doing most of that slave raiding
with the complicity of people in the government.
Now, the Murahaleen consisted of two primary groups. One of
them was the Misseriya. The Misseriya are the same people who
under the auspices of Khartoum burned down Abyei in 2008, and
that have been consistently harassing. The 31st Brigade of the
Sudan Armed Forces is one of those military units that does the
attacking and the violence in the Abyei area. The whole
discussion about the kind of thing I referred to earlier about
Special Envoy Gration in my written testimony about what he was
trying to do to benefit the Misseriya was this same population
that was one of the primary enslaving populations.
Now, the truth of the matter is that the Misseriya people
definitely need a lot of help, but the way it has been handled
by Khartoum doesn't ultimately help the Misseriya people. For
example, the Misseriya people, by the way, have their own
homeland. It is a large one. It is headquartered by Mugled, the
town of Mugled. They bring their cattle down into Abyei,
historically with agreements with the Ngok Dinka, for water and
pasture and a lot of them pass through Abyei further into the
south. Giving them a little more chunk of Abyei doesn't really
solve most of their problem because they need to go further
south. So it is not--what Mr. Gration was doing was not solving
a problem, but he was moving the goal line further south, which
was problematic. And what I would say is that the issue of the
entitlement that the Special Envoy was trying to do to create
by saying they should have part, equal responsibility for the
northern part of Abyei, really that is not at all the kind of
thing that the whole CPA was about.
The Abyei Protocol is focused on the issue of residence.
People can get to vote in the referendum on Abyei's status if
they were residents. They had to include the Ngok Dinka
community because that was their traditional homeland. But
beyond that, any other residents--and there actually are
Misseriya who are residents in Abyei. And nobody, including the
Ngok Dinka, have any problem with those people voting in an
Abyei referendum. But what Khartoum has been trying to do is
get the whole large part of the Misseriya population to move in
and claim residence.
Now, keep in mind, they have a homeland area in which they
spend most of their time, normally around 8 months out of the
year. So up to 4 months of the year they may pass through
Abyei. Well, to say they should be able to keep their own
homeland and then have parts of somebody else's homeland seems
something is wrong with that formulation.
So this whole process is a process that is being, in my
view, manipulated by Khartoum for Khartoum's benefit but isn't
really solving the situation. And they are justifying it by
saying--as I say in my written testimony, it would be like--
since I live in Maryland, and I am a resident of Maryland and I
can vote in Maryland because I am a resident, it would be like
saying, well, the Misseriya, since they live north of Abyei,
the area headed by the sort of capital town called Mugled, they
are residents there for at least 8 months of the year and they
can vote there. But because they go for up to 4 months and pass
through Abyei, well, they should be able to vote there also in
the referendum. And it is like me, I live in Maryland, but if I
go and spend summer months on the ocean beaches in Delaware
should I be able to say I am a resident of Maryland and a
resident of Delaware and therefore I can vote in Maryland and I
can also vote in Delaware?
That is the kind of thing that is really underpinning the
conflict and the way it is being handled by the Khartoum
government now. It doesn't hold any water.
Mr. Smith [presiding]. Thank you. In your testimonies,
which you have really laid out I think very clear and concise
and compelling recommendations, you have really anticipated
many of our questions, although members may have additional
questions they would like to ask. I would like to ask one final
question and just--is there anything you heard from Special
Envoy Princeton Lyman on which you might want to comment on,
having sat through his testimony a few moments ago? For
instance, Dr. Eibner, he did agree that he would more robustly
look into the issue of slavery, and when I talked to him on the
way out, he reiterated that commitment. If there is anything
anyone would like--yes, Ms. Wilkins.
Ms. Wilkins. Yes, I would just add that, I said it before.
It is wonderful that they are putting in advisers in the
Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy, but it is very
important that the donors, led by the U.S., also focus on
building the technical knowledge and capacity of the
Legislative Assembly and of the Auditor General's office. To
only focus on the ministries which are actually doing the
management would risk undermining accountability in the
government.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Let me comment on that there. There is a group
called the House Democracy Assistance Commission here headed by
Mr. David Dreier, and that is exactly what they do, they select
new or re-emerging Parliaments. And they just came back from
Mongolia and Georgia, countries that have had a transition. We
have already discussed the possibility of the commission
expanding to one other country in South Sudan. So I do
believe--and they have focused strictly on the legislative
branch, which in many countries are very weak. I mean, the
executive has the power to have the staff, the budgetary. And
so that is what we had discussions already about.
So that is a good point. Thank you.
Mr. Winter. I said before that we have been talking for 11
years on this agreement and its implementation. I suggested in
my written statement that it is time to take an action. And I
never foresaw myself ever suggesting such a thing. But my
concern is that this situation can become a train wreck, a
train wreck that influences the lives of millions of people in
southern North Sudan and in South Sudan. And we are the prime
entity in the whole process. And if anybody is going to take an
action, it would have to be us; it is not going to be Norway.
It is not going to be Holland, you know. Somebody else. And I
think if you look at the calendar and the state of affairs, we
are at a significant risk of failure. Not a failure on having a
separate South, but having a separation that becomes even after
separation a train wreck for many, many, many people of South
Sudan and Northern--the south part of Northern Sudan.
Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Yes, Bishop.
Bishop Hiiboro. One of the points from the Special Envoy
which I felt he should highlight is the post-referendum
arrangement committee that has been set. So I think it will be
necessary at this point because the time is already close. We
are already getting to July 9th and the negotiation will be
new. It will be between the two countries discussing issues
that have led to peace. But the post-referendum committee that
has been put in place, it should have been much earlier. I
would suggest that the Congress should put its energy very much
behind this because it is going to resolve those issues that
can pull the country into serious danger, that can pull the
country into war. With that, we would be able to halt, to halt
issues that could lead to war.
Additionally, Mr. Payne said he was able to speak with the
President yesterday, Salva Kiir, and he said he is exercising
maximum calm, not to turn to violence. I think it is an
opportunity that can be used at this very moment to address the
many issues. But after July 9th, from the 10th onward, then I
think the language could easily change. So I think the highest
time is for the U.S. Government to throw its authority behind
the committee and those things that are left should be well
resolved before that time.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
If there are no further comments, I want to thank our
witnesses not only for your insights and counsel and for the
work you do, but for being so courteous for allowing Princeton
Lyman to present his testimony because of his schedule because
I know you all have schedules as well. I deeply appreciate that
courtesy extended to him and to us.
Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
