[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE NORTH-SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT 2012
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-150
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-002 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 deceased 3/6/12 deg.
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
RON PAUL, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
CONNIE MACK, Florida ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID RIVERA, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
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 KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey--
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York deceased 3/6/12 deg.
ROBERT TURNER, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Princeton Lyman, Special Envoy for Sudan, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 6
The Honorable Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency
for International Development.................................. 15
The Honorable Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau for
Population, Refugees and Migration, U.S. Department of State... 23
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Princeton Lyman: Prepared statement................ 10
The Honorable Nancy Lindborg: Prepared statement................. 17
The Honorable Anne Richard: Prepared statement................... 26
The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California: Letter from Members of Congress to the
Honorable Barack Obama dated March 30, 2012.................... 42
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York: Prepared statement................. 62
Written responses from the Honorable Princeton Lyman to questions
submitted for the record by the Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle.... 63
THE NORTH-SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT 2012
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m., in
room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon.
Let me first apologize for our lateness. We did have a
series of votes on the House floor. So, \1/2\ hour later,
again, I do apologize for not convening on time.
Before we begin today's hearing, I would like to
acknowledge the tremendous verdict rendered earlier today by
the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague. The court
found former warlord--and we all know about him--Liberian
President Charles Taylor guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and
crimes against humanity, ranging from pillaging to murder, to
rape, to enslavement. Taylor is scheduled to be sentenced by
the court on May 30th.
As we all know, Taylor trained and armed the notorious
Sierra Leonian rebel group known as the Revolutionary United
Front, or RUF, which terrorized the country through acts of
sexual violence, amputations, and forcible recruitment of child
soldiers. RUF took control of Sierra Leone's diamond fields
which provided revenue for their reign of terror and for
Taylor, through funneling sales of Sierra Leone diamonds to the
international market through Liberia.
This court set a number of precedents. It is the first
hybrid tribunal created by agreement of the United Nations and
the Government of Sierra Leone. It is the first modern
international criminal tribunal to complete its mandate. Its
decision today marks the first time a head of state was
indicted, tried, and convicted by an international tribunal.
It now establishes the principle of accountability for
leaders who violate international law. One hope is that those
in Sudan who have been indicted by the International Criminal
Court will one day meet the same fate as Charles Taylor.
I would just note, parenthetically, that David Crane, who
was the prosecutor of numerous people in Sierra Leone, was a
frequent visitor to this subcommittee and did an outstanding
job in bringing so many others to justice who committed such
heinous crimes during that reign of terror.
Today's hearing will examine the current conflict between
the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan, and the
policy options for stalling a full-blown war that are available
to the United States and the rest of the international
community. As we meet here today, the two countries move ever
closer to all out war, and some strategy to avert this
eventuality must be devised soon, if it has not already been
created. We hope to hear some insights on that. Our hearing
should review what such a strategy should look like and,
hopefully, will be implemented.
The United States is one of the guarantors of the peace
process that ended the second North-South civil war in 2005,
but it did not end our responsibility alone to prevent what
everyone believes would be a disaster for the two nations,
their populations, and, likely, for the welfare of their
neighbors as well.
The U.N. and the African Union certainly bear some
responsibility for working to restore peace. However, no
lasting peace will be likely if other interested parties fail
to play a positive role in this crisis.
The Khartoum government is now talking about ``the spirit
of jihad'' rising in the north. Jihad is often interpreted as a
call for all true believers to help in the fight against one's
enemy, although there are other definitions of working to make
oneself a better person, but certainly that is not the
application here.
Sudan reportedly reached out to the Arab League to initiate
discussions on the current crisis, and the Arab League might be
able to convince Sudan's leaders to calm down their rhetoric
and help them to see the negative end result of their
warmongering. If Arab nations can support a workable plan to
fulfill the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
that ended the second Sudan civil war, then they will have
helped a nation, led by people who consider themselves Arabs,
to create a sustainable future with peace and security.
China imports 5 percent of its oil from Sudan currently.
According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, that total
could rise soon to 10 percent, due to regional tensions in the
Persian Gulf. Oil shipments from Sudan depend on both the
Southern supply and the northern pipelines. War between the two
would have a significant impact on China's ability to continue
importing Sudanese oil. As a result, Beijing has been trying to
mediate the current dispute. South Sudan President Salva Kiir
has been in Beijing this week for discussions on ending the
dispute between the two countries.
While all nations must join in the effort to end the North-
South Sudan conflict, the difficulty of achieving a lasting
peace is evident from the long history of North-South
animosity, mistrust, and war. During colonial times, the
Northerners and Southerners were treated differently. When
independence finally came in 1956, the continuing estrangement
of Muslim Northerners and Christian and Animist Southerners was
established.
The first civil war that began in 1955 was the result of an
Arab-led government in Khartoum that broke promises of
inclusion and marginalized some Southerners. The massacre of
Northerners in the South only exacerbated the growing hatred
between them. After 11 years of relative peace, the second
civil war broke out in 1983, when the Sudan People's Liberation
Army fought for independence of the South. The CPA not only
ended the second civil war, it set the South on the road to
independence, which was finally achieved in 2011.
Unfortunately, although the peace agreement laid out the
path to sustainable peace, but it was never fully implemented,
as we all know. The genocide in Darfur distracted the
international community from fulfilling the CPA, and nearly a
year after South Sudan became a nation, there is no agreed upon
border, the Abyei region remains in dispute, citizenship
remains in dispute for those in border areas, and there is no
agreement on how oil revenues are to be divided.
With all these unresolved issues, some form of conflict was
inevitable perhaps, especially between antagonists with a long
history of mistrust. The animosity between leaders for both
sides does not bode well for peace talks or for peace accords
that would be sustainable. Both sides have taken actions that
have made the situation we now face more difficult to resolve.
But I would respectfully submit that a false equivalency will
not help us to achieve, and especially those who have suffered
so much, a lasting peace.
Whatever the international community thinks of the South's
capture of the oil junction town of Heglig, no nation will
allow an antagonist to use a location as a staging ground for
repeated attacks without retaliation. Sudan's Government has
been brutally oppressing Darfur and, more recently, has been
relentlessly attacking people in the Southern Kordofan and the
Blue Nile States for months.
Our committee has held multiple hearings on this terrible,
terrible development. To equate months of vicious attacks that
have killed or displaced thousands with the short-term
occupation of a strategic town will neither placate the North
into ending its cruelty against its own citizens, nor shame the
South into withdrawing from the staging ground for assaults
against it.
I have met both Sudan President Omar Bashir and Southern
Sudan President Salva Kiir. I found Bashir to be obstinate and
uncaring about the destruction his armed forces have unleashed
on his own citizens. President Kiir has been single minded in
pursuing independence over Sudanese unity since he assumed the
leadership of South Sudan in 2005.
There have been numerous ceasefires and peace accords
between the North and South over the years, none of them
enduring. If we cannot devise a means of achieving a lasting
peace, we may gain a brief halt in the fighting, but the war
will inevitably resume at some point.
We have today--and I will introduce them formally in a
moment--very distinguished witnesses who are not just
knowledgeable about the situation on the ground, but are
playing a very constructive and a meaningful leadership part in
trying to achieve peace in that region.
I will introduce them shortly, but now will yield to my
good friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, the ranking member, for
any opening comments.
Ms. Bass. Well, once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
holding this critical and urgent hearing on the security crisis
and brinkmanship that appears to have brought Sudan and South
Sudan to the verge of war.
I hope that in the course of today's hearing we gain new
insight into how the alarming and dangerous course of events in
recent days, and, indeed, over the last several months, can be
reversed.
On July 9th, 2011, the world enthusiastically, yet
cautiously, watched as South Sudan declared its independence.
Less than 10 months later, a number of very contentious
disputes have yet to be resolved. These include the North-South
border demarcation, citizenship rights of those living in the
North and South, and arrangements regarding oil and related
financial issues. These differences and recent military and
political provocations by the governments of both Sudan and
South Sudan now imperil the fragile peace and nation building
made possible by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
I am deeply concerned about what is already a crisis of
immense and terrible proportions. Reports on recent events are
horrific. In an Associated Press wire story, we learn, and I
quote,
``War planes bombed the market and an oil field in
South Sudan, killing at least two people, after
Sudanese ground forces reportedly crossed into South
Sudan with tanks and artillery. The U.N. mission in
South Sudan confirmed that at least 16 civilians were
killed and 34 injured in bombings by Sudanese aircraft
in Unity State.''
Another AP story suggests that Sudan has initiated war on
its southern neighbor. It states, and I quote,
``South Sudan's President said its northern neighbor
has declared war on the world's newest nation just
hours after Sudanese jets dropped eight bombs on his
country.''
It is critical that both governments immediately stop all
cross-border attacks and return to diplomatic talks. Both
governments should immediately establish a demilitarized border
zone and commence with the Joint Border Verification and
Monitoring mechanism. Sudan, in particular, must halt its
reported aerial bombardments, most importantly, because of the
toll in innocent civilians.
Ambassador Lyman, I look forward to hearing you and your
colleagues' interpretations as to whether these two nations
are, in fact, at war. What constitutes a war?
In either event, the alarm bells are ringing very loud, and
the threat of full-scale war is dangerously high. I hope that
you will be able to suggest ways that we, as American
policymakers, and the wider international community can show
strong support to bring these nations back from the brink and
prevent a catastrophic return to conflict and losses of life,
resources, and the opportunities to build a lasting peace.
While we are trying to understand the specifics on what is
taking place, I do know that it is imperative that all those
with a vested interest in real genuine peace must show a strong
unified front and speak with one voice, and demand an
immediate, unconditional, and sustained end to attacks and acts
of violence, as demanded by the U.N. Security Council in its
statement on April 12th. I urge African leaders to forcibly
make that demand as well. Strong international political will
and pressure must support an immediate de-escalation of the
current dangerous and lethal climate in order to facilitate
renewed work toward forging a permanent peace.
We must also urge the parties to halt their use of
incendiary and uncompromising language which only fuels what
already are high levels of mistrust and animosity. I was
appalled to read remarks attributed to Sudan's President Bashir
who was quoted in press reports as saying of South Sudan that
there is to be ``no negotiation with these people,'' whom he
earlier described as ``insects that must be eliminated.'' Such
disturbing and offensive language is both unacceptable and
irresponsible.
Before I close, I would be remiss if I also didn't take a
moment to speak about the mass atrocities in Darfur and today's
conviction of Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against
humanity involving Sierra Leone. There is tremendous need to
ensure a comprehensive approach to the challenges facing the
Sudans, and that includes addressing the continuing suffering
in Darfur. This situation in Darfur is far from resolved, and
we must remember that it is just as tied up in the conflict
between North and South Sudan as the South Kordofan and Blue
Nile States.
Today's conviction of Charles Taylor and his involvement in
extraordinary acts of human cruelty in Sierra Leone sends a
strong and unequivocal message: We will hold those who turn a
blind eye to human rights and the sanctity of life accountable
for their crimes.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Bass, thank you very much.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. First, thank you for giving
myself the opportunity to sit in on this hearing, and thank you
for your continued leadership on this and so many issues.
I had had the privilege to serve on this committee, this
subcommittee, for many, many years. I witnessed and worked with
you on so many issues around the CPA, on sanctions, on the
genocide that was taking place in Darfur, and all of the issues
that were so important. Yes, so it is good to be here with you
today.
And I thank all the witnesses.
Let me congratulate just for a minute our ranking member,
Congressman Bass, for your leadership and for your commitment
and your astuteness in terms of really wanting to see,
especially on this issue, it being a bipartisan solution as it
relates to what Congress can do to really help pull back the
war drums that we are hearing now being beaten, and, also, to
ensure that the humanitarian assistance can get in, and, also,
for all of the issues that you both laid out in your very
excellent opening statements.
So, I will just stop and welcome the witnesses. I look
forward to your testimony.
But I want to just thank you for giving me the privilege to
sit in with you and, once again, congratulations.
Mr. Smith. You are always welcome, Ms. Lee, and thank you
for being here and for your work on behalf of these very vital
issues.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking
member as well and congratulate her.
I, too--or perhaps I shouldn't say, ``I, too''--I am an
interloper, not having been a part of the committee. I think
when I was last here we were talking about human trafficking
and there are still great issues that have to be dealt with in
the area of human trafficking.
I am honored to be here today to hear these outstanding
witnesses give us some intelligence on not only the crisis as
it relates to war, but the greater human tragedy that is
already taking place. I assure you that my concern for people
and their being cared for properly is one that is not second to
the war. The war, I want to see it end. I don't want war of any
kind. But even while people are at war, we can still have the
decency to treat human beings as human beings.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield back any
time that I have left.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
But very briefly, Ambassador Lyman, Princeton Lyman, has
served as the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan since March of last
year. 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 CPA. Ambassador Lyman has held a number of
important positions in the NGO sector and academia, in addition
to the multitude of diplomatic assignments throughout Africa
spanning several decades.
Ambassador Lyman has recently returned from being on the
ground in Khartoum and Juba, and we look forward to hearing his
comments on the recent events in his second appearance before
this subcommittee.
Then, we will hear from Nancy Lindborg, who is the
Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict,
and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID. Ms. Lindborg spent 14
years as President of Mercy Corps, where she focused on
international relief and development. During her time in Mercy
Corps, she also served in a number of positions where she
worked on issues related to foreign relations, foreign
assistance, of course. No stranger to this committee, Ms.
Lindborg testified last summer on a hearing on Somalia. We look
forward and welcome her back.
And then, Anne Richard, recently sworn in earlier this
month, as the new Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees,
and Migration Bureau. Ms. Richard's previous government service
includes service in the State Department, the Peace Corps, the
Office of Management and Budget. She also worked on the Council
on Foreign Relations, the International Rescue Committee, and
was part of the team that founded the International Crisis
Group.
Ambassador Lyman, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PRINCETON LYMAN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR
SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Congresswoman Bass, it is wonderful that you have assumed
this position.
Congresswoman Lee, it is so good for you to be here, and
Congressman Green.
I was privileged yesterday to be invited to that
magnificent ceremony yesterday to honor Donald Payne, who
graced this committee for so many years and embodied so much
the spirit that this committee, this subcommittee, has had of a
bipartisan approach to dealing with the issues of Africa,
America's interest. I know the chairman has worked very closely
with him, and we miss him greatly, but it is wonderful to see
this strong, continuing interest from this committee. So, thank
you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the full testimony be
submitted for the record, if that is okay, and let me just try
to summarize the situation and what we are doing now.
The tension along the border, frankly, has been great for
almost a year now, since the conflict began in Southern
Kordofan/Blue Nile. I will come back to that. But there have
been brushes of conflict along the border off and on for some
time.
That led South Sudan in early April, April 10th, to move
forward and occupy the area of Heglig. Now the international
reaction was immediate and unified, urging South Sudan to
withdraw. The reason was that it raised the conflict to a new
level. It is a disputed area, et cetera, but we knew that it
would raise the level of conflict to a new level, and it did.
South Sudan did agree to withdraw, but had to withdraw under
pressure because of the counterattacks coming from the
Government of Sudan.
Mr. Chairman, you put your finger on it when you talked
about the security concerns because that is at the heart of it.
Regardless of the disputed claims law of where the border lies,
the fundamental concern for South Sudan is that that border has
been used as a staging ground for attacks of militias into
South Sudan. Having a secure border is in their interest, and
therefore, it gives them an interest in seeing a resolution,
and a fair resolution, of the conflict in Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile, as well as of the border.
On the side of the Government of Sudan, they also have
major security concerns, but they mischaracterize, in our view,
the nature of the problem. Because the problem derives not only
from the uncertainty over where the border is and all of that,
but the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile they feel
can be addressed if only the South would not lend any support
to it, the border can be sealed off, and they can pursue a
largely military approach to the resolution of that conflict.
That is wrong on several grounds. It won't be solved
militarily. It is a political problem for the Government of
Sudan to address with the people of the Nuba Mountains and the
people of Blue Nile. And just trying to seal the border and go
after the South for whatever support might be flowing North
doesn't get at the problem. So, it doesn't solve their security
interests, either. And that is how we have got to get back and
dealing with the real one.
You asked a good question, Congresswoman Lee, about how
you--I think it was you, Congresswoman Bass--about how you
define whether they are at war or not. Actually, it was an
issue when I got there because, you know, when two sides are
shooting at each other, it looks like war.
But what I was struck by was neither side wanted us to
characterize it as such. People on both sides, regardless of
some of the rhetoric, said, ``We don't want to go to full-scale
war. We really don't. Please don't call it a war, because, yes,
we are shooting at each other on the border, but we can't go
back to full scale war.'' And that, I heard from people in
Khartoum and in Juba.
The question is, how do you manage a situation like this
without gravitating into war? That is why this situation was so
dangerous in the conflict over Heglig.
Now the international reaction was sudden, quick, unified
that the parties have to get back on either side of the border.
I went right away to Juba and then to Khartoum. With a unified
international community, we worked together on what would be
the way out. And it is very much along the lines that the
members of this subcommittee have mentioned.
What we have said is that you need immediately a ceasefire,
immediately thereafter going to a process whereby the border
can be demilitarized and monitored. The irony is the two sides
had already agreed to a mechanism for doing that. They just
never implemented it. It is called the Joint Border
Verification and Monitoring Mission, which would have both
sides monitoring a 20-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone,
supported by the U.N. peacekeeping operation from Abyei, the
force commander with some of his troops, to provide security
and assistance.
What we said was you have got to get back and implement
that program. There has to be a stop to the bombing. There has
to be a stop to the conflict, and you have to get back to the
negotiations.
We worked with a lot of people around the world, that that
message would become loud and clear to both parties. And we
were very pleased that the African Union Peace and Security
Committee meeting on Tuesday didn't just settle for a general
hortatory statement, ``Oh, please come back and get back to
peace talks.''
They took a very concrete set of steps with very tight
timelines and said to the parties, ``This is what you've got to
do.'' And it was a message that what is going on between those
two countries affects the whole region. It affects all of East
Africa and beyond. The African Union was sending that message
in a very strong way.
They, then, asked the rest of the international community
to back that up. We are doing that. We are calling on other
partners. We are hoping the Arab League will back that same
resolution up today. They are meeting today. And the U.N. is
working on a resolution as well, to bring as much unified
international pressure to bear on the parties, that this kind
of way of going at it, this kind of back-and-forth conflict is
not the way; they must get back to the negotiations.
After that resolution was passed, we are waiting today.
Each government is supposed to make a statement on cessation of
hostilities. We hope they will do so. The border has quieted
down in the last 2 days. We hope they will both agree to that
right away and that the specific talks on the border can start
next week.
Now I want to also address--and the chairman has raised
this, and you all have raised this--the situation in Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile. There will be no real security on the
border until that situation is addressed. It is both a
political problem but it is also a tremendous humanitarian
problem.
We have, since the middle of last year, been raising the
issue of a looming humanitarian crisis in these areas. We have
been urging the government to open up humanitarian access to
them.
When the government objected to western NGOs, they said,
``Oh, you're just going to come in; you are going to set up a
new CPA. You are going to split that area off, like you did the
South. We are not going to let it happen,'' then the U.N., the
Arab League, and the African Union said, ``Okay. We'll do it.
No western NGOs. We are ready to do it.'' They didn't still
approve that, and we have not stopped doing that.
But you will hear from Nancy how serious that situation is
and what we are trying to do on that. We continue to press on
that.
But it is more not only the humanitarian; what we had hoped
was that, if we could get humanitarian access, it would almost
de facto lead to a cessation of hostilities in that area and
create a climate for political talks because there must be
political talks.
We have talked to the SPLM-North, the people who are
fighting in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. They say that,
``If humanitarian access is announced by the Government of
Sudan, we are prepared for cessation of hostilities and to
cooperate in any way we can to let the food and the assistance
come in.'' So, we have to get to that. The U.N., others, like
Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, are working to encourage
those political talks which must take place.
As we work with the parties, and we are working very
closely now with all the international actors, particularly
with the African Union and the African Union High-Level Panel,
but also with others, like China--you mentioned China--and with
all the P5. You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and you are right,
that the Chinese have stepped up more, and we welcome that. I
have been in touch with my counterpart. They have an envoy for
Sudan.
Secretary Clinton leads next week the Security and Economic
Dialogue in Beijing with China that we have every year. Sudan
will be high on the agenda. I will be accompanying her, and we
will have at least two meetings on Sudan specifically during
that time, and hope to strengthen our own cooperation between
China on this.
The final thing I would like to mention is the seriousness.
We have to look ahead. And Congressman Green put his finger on
this. We get wrapped up in the conflict, of course, but there
are some deep, long-term economic/humanitarian problems in both
Sudan and South Sudan which the leadership of those two
countries must, must address, and they must organize
themselves, get their productive sectors, including the oil
sectors, going again. So they can begin to address these.
Because the long-term situation is not good, and Nancy will go
into that in some detail.
The last thing, and it is a little out of my line to do
this, but if I could make a suggestion to the committee, we are
trying to get not only all the diplomatic and all the
countries, but others to write letters to the leaders of the
two countries. This committee has a long, very distinguished
history of concern. We are happy to provide you whatever
detailed information you might want. But I think hearing from
Members of Congress about the very things that you have said in
your opening statements could actually be very helpful. It
would reinforce the messages that we are trying to get from
countries in the Middle East and countries in Africa, countries
in Asia, to the parties, that they must move away from this
kind of a conflict and to resolving it.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer questions
on this. But thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lyman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ambassador Lyman, and we
will follow up on that idea. It is a great one. I am sure many
of our colleagues, both sides of the aisle, will be eager to
sign on. So, thank you for that very good suggestion.
Assistant Administrator Lindborg?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NANCY LINDBORG, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT AND HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Lindborg. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Bass, and Congresswoman Lee, and Congressman Green, as
visitors to this committee. Thank you for the leadership and
the concern that this committee continues to demonstrate.
Congratulations, Congresswoman Bass, on your leadership
position.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today to
make some comments.
Just picking up on what Ambassador Lyman was saying, as you
well know, these are two countries that have suffered from
extraordinary humanitarian suffering for many decades. People
throughout the region have been in a situation of need. The
American people have long been a helping hand and a friend.
On the basis of last July's really joyful celebration, we
were on a pathway to peace, a possibility of moving out of some
of the worst suffering. We cannot afford that those fragile
gains are imperiled by the possibility of moving into war once
again.
Congresswoman Bass, as you noted, the actions and
incendiary rhetoric really of both governments have got to be
reined in. We have got to help pull them back from the brink.
My full testimony, which I ask be submitted to the record,
which details some of the issues that present serious
humanitarian concerns, from Darfur to the fighting that has
continued in Jonglei. But I want to really focus on two areas
today.
The first is what Ambassador Lyman noted is happening in
the two areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. The fighting
that erupted there last year has escalated into a full blown
cross border conflict. It has already displaced, killed, and
severely affected over 0.5 million people. It has disrupted
harvests and services. It has derailed a lot of the critical
work that was underway as a result of the 2005 CPA.
In both areas, the Government of Sudan continues to block
the international community from reaching a population that is
desperately in need of help. The sustained aerial bombardment
that you all noted by the Sudan armed forces has terrorized
communities, and it is keeping people from their fields and
from food.
We are seeing just this last week a spike of very severely
malnourished children arriving in South Sudan from Southern
Kordofan. We very much fear that these children hint at some
very tragic situations unfolding where we are unable to reach.
Our food security experts predict that between 200,000 to
250,000 people in Southern Kordofan are already facing a
serious food emergency. That is just one step short of famine.
In Blue Nile, households will be at that food emergency phase
by August.
As Ambassador Lyman indicated, we are continuing to call on
all parties to the conflict to allow immediate and full access,
to agree to the tripartite U.N., African Union, and Arab League
agreement. The solution that is necessary is full access and to
enable humanitarian assistance to reach these people in need.
With the rains approaching, time is not on our side.
I wanted, secondly, to underscore a very equally worrisome
in a different way situation going on in South Sudan because of
the heightened economic crisis. The decision to halt oil
production will have critical impact on the people of South
Sudan. That was 98 percent of the government revenues, and it
has prompted an austerity budget. That means it will be
impossible for South Sudan to fund some of its core operations,
including to sustain some of the really important progress that
has been made over the last 6 to 7 years in improving school
attendance, access to clean water, health. We now have 68
percent of children in school. This is extraordinary.
The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, however, just
reported a new study, that almost half of South Sudan, 4.7
million people, will be food insecure in 2012. That includes
2.7 million people who are already requiring food assistance to
survive.
I mean, all of these numbers are so enormous that it is
difficult to keep in mind the people, the women, the children,
who are behind those numbers. But it does help put down the
magnitude of what we are talking about.
At the same time, we continue to have people returning from
the North. There are some 400,000 who have already returned,
coming from urban environments to live in largely rural areas.
A direct confrontation between the South and the North
would absolutely further derail the ability to make progress on
the humanitarian situation, whether in the South or in Darfur,
in Jonglei, and in the three areas. Unfortunately, we are
already seeing many donors having to shift their resources from
a development agenda to a humanitarian agenda. So, we are at
risk of losing a lot of that progress. On April 20th, in the
South, in South Sudan, the U.N. has already gone into an
emergency crisis footing, based on about 20 indicators. The
continued escalation of the conflict will only exacerbate a
very dire humanitarian situation, and it will be the women, the
children, the very vulnerable and longtime marginalized
communities who will be most affected.
I would just close by echoing the statement that President
Obama made this weekend when he spoke directly to the people of
both South Sudan and Sudan, saying that ``the Presidents of
both countries must have the courage to return to the table to
negotiate and resolve these issues.''
These are people who have withstood decades of hardship.
They deserve a better way forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Lindborg.
Secretary Richard?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANNE RICHARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Ms. Richard. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Bass, members of the committee, and visitors. Thank you for
including a discussion of the complex situation for refugees in
this hearing on the crisis in South Sudan and Sudan.
I am very pleased to be able to appear before the committee
with my two colleagues. Even though I have been Assistant
Secretary of State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration, or PRM, only since the beginning of April, I
have worked very closely in the past with Nancy Lindborg and
with Princeton Lyman. In fact, Ambassador Lyman once headed
refugee programs at the State Department. I hope I can emulate
the leadership he displayed in that era. More importantly, our
three offices routinely work very closely together on these
challenging humanitarian issues.
Sudan has both hosted and generated hundreds of thousands
of refugees and internally displaced persons over the years.
Today I would like to briefly comment on the newest Sudanese
and South Sudanese refugees and on the situation of the South
Sudanese who live in Sudan. And I would like to outline the
multiple refugee movements in the region.
The newest refugees are those generated by conflict within
Sudan along the disputed border, as you have heard the other
witnesses discuss already. They have fled into South Sudan and
Ethiopia, and they number some over 140,000. Some have fled
even to Kenya, principally fleeing the fighting and aerial
bombings in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States.
Additionally, there are over 8,000 new South Sudanese refugees
in Ethiopia and Kenya who are escaping the murderous cattle
raiding and ethnic hostility between the Nuer and Morley
peoples.
There are always refugee assistance challenges in an
emergency. In this case, new camps have had to be built for the
influx of Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia and South Sudan.
Finding adequate clean water supplies for over 90,000 refugees
in Upper Nile State has paradoxically been quite difficult in a
country that is known for being widely flooded for much of the
year.
Humanitarian agencies are racing against the clock with the
rainy season beginning in earnest this month. We have so far
put $34 million toward the emergency response in South Sudan
and Ethiopia through the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, or
IOM, and some nongovernmental organizations.
The greatest challenge, however, has been protecting
refugees, maintaining the security and neutrality of refugee
camps, ensuring that refugees are safely moved away from
volatile borders and out of the potential line of fire, and
that any combatants are disarmed and/or separated, and that
women and girls are safe from sexual assault or other violence.
Nationality and citizenship were early issues in the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, process. One concern was
that some would be left stateless if Sudan became two
countries. Regrettably, these issues remain part of the
unfinished business of the CPA.
Before the latest round of fighting, both governments had
agreed to the idea of a presidential summit that would have
addressed many of these outstanding issues, including
citizenship and residency. Unfortunately, that presidential
summit has not yet occurred.
An unknown number of people of Southern heritage continue
to live in Sudan. Estimates range between 300,000 and 700,000.
This includes people who have never lived in or even been to
South Sudan. Safe and orderly movement of those who either
choose or might be forced to return to South Sudan is a high
priority and a major preoccupation of two of our key partners,
UNHCR and IOM. Reception and integration in South Sudan are
also ongoing critical concerns. The most immediate concern is
that these people not be victimized as the level of conflict
and rhetoric between South Sudan and Sudan increases.
These two situations, new refugees and potential mass
movements from Sudan to South Sudan, are part of a broad,
interlocking set of humanitarian concerns and refugee movements
in the region.
I sketch these out in my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to request that the full testimony be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, yours and Ms. Lindborg's will
be.
Ms. Richard. Notably, the testimony touches on South Sudan.
South Sudan is also host to over 23,000 Congolese and Central
African refugees who have fled attacks by the infamous Lord's
Resistance Army. There are another 5,000 refugees from
Ethiopia's Gambela region.
And then, in Sudan proper, Sudan itself, there are around
150,000 Eritrean refugees in 12 camps in the east and in
cities. There are as many as 40,000 refugees from Chad living
in Sudan.
And then, of course, several of you have mentioned already
the situation in Darfur. As you know, there are some 280,000
Darfur refugees in Chad as well as over 1.5 million displaced
people within Darfur itself.
Finally, as Ethiopia and Kenya are called upon to host new
Sudanese and South Sudanese refugees, they are also facing
continued inflows of Somali refugees fleeing famine and
violence in Somali.
The point that my colleagues in the Population, Refugees,
and Migration Bureau wanted me to be sure to make was, even as
we analyze the recent arrivals across the border from Sudan
into South Sudan, we must keep in mind the large number of
refugees and displaced people who are being helped and in need
of protection throughout the region.
In all of these cases, PRM's primary concerns are
protection and achieving genuinely durable solutions for the
displaced, a chance to go home again or restart their lives in
a new home. Life-saving and life-sustaining assistance are
means to these ends.
For example, the aid provided through PRM partners is used
to transport vulnerable refugees away from a border, to clear
land for new camps as necessary, to register and document
refugees, to drill for sufficient clean water, and to provide
the basics of sanitation, adequate food, minimum healthcare,
and shelter, as well as primary education and youth programs
that will protect children from being recruited as soldiers.
Having visited this area in conjunction with my previous
work, I am saddened by the continuing hostilities between and
within these two nations, while I am also honored to be leading
a bureau that provides much-needed assistance to the many
affected people.
I am also grateful for the excellent collaboration with our
Africa Bureau, Special Envoy, and USAID colleagues.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to highlight some
of our work and concerns. I am very appreciative that you are
holding this hearing.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Secretary Richard.
Let me begin with Ambassador Lyman. In your testimony, you
point out that the U.S. is not working alone to diffuse the
crisis, and you point out that the AU High Implementation
Panel, led by a strong team; it's led by three Presidents,
including the Burundian, the South African, and the Nigerian
former Presidents.
You were the ambassador to two of those countries, South
Africa and Nigeria. I am wondering, perhaps more than anyone
else, the insights you might be able to share with us about how
well they are doing in terms of an action plan or a strategy,
what the outlines of that plan might look like. Are they
personally involved, and to what extent, in this effort, if you
could, Mr. Ambassador?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Panel has done extraordinary work keeping the parties
at the table, helping with technical help, defining the issues
very much, moving them toward agreement. I think it is the
general belief of former South African President Thabo Mbeki
that it is the responsibility of the leaders of these countries
to reach the conclusions, make the tough compromises, and do
it. They haven't been willing to do that on many of these
issues, like Abyei or borders.
It is interesting that the African Union communique
yesterday, Tuesday, said, at the end of 3 months, we are just
going to have to put solutions on the table that the parties
must accept.
The second thing for the Panel is to make sure the parties
know that its work is backed up by a very strong international
community. That hasn't been as clear to the parties as it is
now. The U.N. Security Council is now more unified than it has
been on Sudan. With the African Union communique, the Arab
League coming in along the same lines, then the Security
Council coming in along the same lines, we hope that will
strengthen the Panel's political weight, if you will, as they
bring these parties to the table.
Very specifically, they will start next week. I think next
week they will start on this border, to set up this border
demilitarization and verification system, and then set up a
schedule for the parties to come back to prepare for a summit
that would address how to negotiate the big issues like oil and
other things.
We had a lot of progress before this latest crisis with the
Panel--I was there with the parties, et cetera--on how to deal
with the very difficult oil issue. They would get back to that.
It is not impossible to solve that issue if they get back to a
collaborative approach. The Panel helped bring them very close
to an understanding of how to do that.
Mr. Smith. Would you say their working point is in terms of
trying to craft, first of all, an end of hostilities and then
deal with some of the systemic issues?
Ambassador Lyman. Yes, both parties, both countries have
said that the AU Panel is the one they recognize as the one to
facilitate the negotiations and bring people together.
I will tell you one of the things that bothers me about the
situation between the two countries is that they don't have
enough communication between themselves on a regular basis. If
it weren't for the Panel, they might sometimes never get
together. It is the Panel that convenes them.
But we have said over and over to people in the government,
``That's fine. That's good. But you should be talking to your
counterparts all the time.'' We did it all through the Cold
War. And they need more of that. There is some of it going on.
But now the Panel is the one that brings them together to put
together these border agreements and things like that.
Mr. Smith. What is the relationship of the AU HIP--is that
the proper way of saying it, the Implementation Panel, the
High-Level?--with the Chinese Government? Do the three
Presidents have access to Beijing, and does Beijing respond?
Ambassador Lyman. China hasn't played a major role with the
Panel up until quite recently. The way the Panel was structured
from the beginning, there are two observer missions. There is
the U.N. and ourselves are official observers. Others have been
invited in.
Thabo Mbeki has been now more in touch with the Chinese and
I think would like them to play more of a role, to be present
like some of us are when these negotiations take place. I am
going to raise that next week when I am in Beijing.
Mr. Smith. Can I just ask you, Ms. Lindborg, you mentioned
the situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile has severely
affected over 0.5 million people. How does that break out in
terms of how many people have actually lost their lives? How
many have been displaced in terms of actual numbers? What are
the specifics on that?
Ms. Lindborg. Loss of life is always difficult to estimate,
but we are seeing about 28,000 have come into the South. There
has been another outflow North into Khartoum, around the 10,000
or so figure. We estimate that there are about 300,000 who have
been affected who are still inside Southern Kordofan, and many
of those are displaced. Of that number, the estimates are about
225,000 to 250,000 who are in this serious food emergency
crisis phase. Those are the people that we are most concerned
about now. That is where the malnourished children population
is coming from.
Mr. Smith. You talked about limited access. How would that
break out? Are we talking about up to 250,000 people and a lack
of ability to have access to them with humanitarian supplies
and medicine and food?
Ms. Lindborg. That is right. In both Southern Kordofan and
in Blue Nile, there is some limited access to the areas that
are controlled by the Government of Sudan.
Mr. Smith. They are the ones that are restricting access?
Ms. Lindborg. They have blocked all access of all
international actors into the areas controlled by the SPLM-
North in the two areas.
Mr. Smith. So, that is what happened previously, too,
because that is what it was?
Ms. Lindborg. Correct.
Mr. Smith. So, they are just continuing. But now the
consequences are growing more severe with more people now being
affected? Would that be correct?
Ms. Lindborg. That is right, and as people's harvests
continue to be disrupted and their access to food is
interrupted.
Mr. Smith. You brought up an interesting, disturbing, but
interesting point from your recent return from one of the
states in South Sudan, that people are having a hard time
adjusting from the rural to the urban. Did I get that right?
Yes, adjusting to the rural from the urban. Is that because
they are not farmers and they just don't--could you elaborate
on that?
Ms. Lindborg. Yes. You know, there is a significant
population of almost 400,000 who have now returned from Sudan
to South Sudan. I was just, a few weeks ago, in Northern Bahr
el Ghazal, which is one of the states bordering Sudan, and met
with a number of people who they were not farmers. They did
laundry. They did small trade. They did a variety of more
urban-based livelihoods, and they are now in a position of
being very rural.
So, a lot of the assistance that we have provided has been
to help that reintegration and to work both with the families
who have returned as well as the local governments on how to
establish alternative livelihoods, how to allocate land, how to
enable that return. All of this is imperiled, both by the
shrinking budgets in South Sudan, because of the oil shutdown,
and as more resources have to go toward those populations that
are at risk through other conflicts. So, we have a squeeze
going on, and a conflict escalation will just exacerbate a
really dire set of humanitarian challenges.
Mr. Smith. Ambassador Lyman, there are four current U.N. or
peacekeeping deployments in South Sudan, Abyei, and Darfur.
What role are they playing in mitigating this ever worsening
crisis? And is there a need for additional deployments or for
the U.N. and/or AU to reconfigure a new deployment?
Ambassador Lyman. There are, as you say, four; there are
three peacekeeping operations and one Special Envoy. The
biggest two operations, one is UNAMID in Darfur, which just
focused on Darfur, and, then, the new mission in South Sudan.
They have done a lot of work on internal problems in South
Sudan; for example, the fighting that broke out in Jonglei that
pit two ethnic groups against each other, thousands of people
involved, several hundred killed. They have been working very
closely with the government to try to address that and similar
problems inside South Sudan; also, to try to get verification
of what is going on on the border. But they are not allowed to
cross that border.
Then, there is a mission that was set up in Abyei itself.
That, as you know, is a disputed area. It was occupied
militarily last year by Sudan. To get them to withdraw, and
they have almost but not entirely withdrawn, a new peacekeeping
force was put in there, almost all Ethiopian troops. That
peacekeeping force has done an exceptional job. They have kept
the peace. For the first time in 3 years, there was a migration
that the nomads could come in and leave. They have kept other
entities from coming in just more recently. They patrol the
whole area.
But what has not happened is that the 100,000 Ngok Dinka
who were displaced last year have not yet been able to return.
So, there is more work that needs to be done.
And then, there is a Special Envoy, Haile Menkarios.
Now what the South wanted was, as you said, a new
peacekeeping entity along the border. We did not think it was
practical to try and have the U.N. patrol that entire border.
It would have been huge.
However, the Abyei force commander does have a mandate to
work with them on this verification process. He has got 300
troops designated to work with them on that.
The U.N. Security Council is reviewing that mandate this
month, in May. If more is needed for his mandate, they will be
looking at it. So, I don't think we want to start putting yet
another peacekeeping force in separately, but we want to
support that border monitoring process.
Mr. Smith. Are there sufficient U.N. peacekeepers and AU--
--
Ambassador Lyman. There are sufficient ones in the South,
in UNAMID. The question is whether the original idea that they
only needed 300 to be the support mechanism for this is
sufficient. We have to see as they get back into the
discussions. He had agreed, the force commander, that that was
sufficient. Whether this latest conflict changes that is
something we have to look at very closely.
Mr. Smith. Just two final questions.
Secretary Richard, you talked about the $34 million that we
are providing to you in ACR and to IOM and others. How much
need is there, how much unmet need? I am sure UNHCR is
gathering money, I know it is, from other donors. But are they
meeting that call? Are people responding sufficiently? And what
is the unmet need?
If you could speak to resources versus access, you know,
maybe all of you would like to speak to that? Does stockpiling
of foodstuffs that can't get to people because the workers, the
humanitarian relief workers, are precluded entry, mean that
that food spoils and people die?
Is $34 million enough? Is the EU coming forward with money?
Ms. Richard. Mr. Chairman, I think, as usual, the U.S. has
taken the lead in providing that assistance, and that it is a
good start in getting needed aid to the people who need it.
But, as you have heard, more people are coming across the
border. They are severely malnourished. The rains are
anticipated to start. And then, there will be real serious
problems of getting access as the roads are washed out. So, it
is a situation that is going to bear a great deal of watching.
I just came from a meeting with the High Commissioner for
Refugees who is in town this week. He met a little while ago
with Secretary Clinton. One of the things he raised was his
concern that, with so many things going on--and this was one of
the crises that he mentioned, but he also mentioned Syria, the
Sahel, and other concerns--there was so much going on, he was
very concerned about having sufficient funding to do a good job
everywhere.
So, I would say at the moment we have made a good start,
but certainly we have a lot of concerns that resources will
continue to flow to this area.
Mr. Smith. In terms of the refugee camps, when I visited
Mukjar and Kalma Camp, I remember hearing multiple stories, and
I have heard them here, obviously, from advocates, of security
concerns, especially for women in terms of rape and abuse. The
refugees that are flocking together in camps, who is providing
security and how adequate is it?
Ms. Richard. I share your concern for the women. What I
understand is that the camps in the area we are talking about
today are overwhelmingly female. They are women and girls and,
also, women and children. So, in those kinds of situations, we
always see security issues.
I am so glad you raised this today. I met, last week or the
week before, with a lot of our top partners in the non-
governmental organizations to say we have to put a very big
spotlight on this very issue. Because sometimes people say,
``Well, it is an emergency. There is nothing we can do right
now to worry about preventing or responding to gender-based
violence.'' But I consider it something that is very much a
lifesaving measure to which attention must be paid during the
emergency situation.
In terms of who is providing security right now, I
understand that there is a great deal of Southern Sudanese
presence in both Unity State and Blue Nile. I mean, the local
governments are involved, the state governments are involved,
and there is a lot of movement. But in terms of who the
vulnerable people are, I think they are overwhelmingly female
and they are extremely vulnerable.
Mr. Smith. One final question, and then I will yield to
Ranking Member Bass.
Ambassador Lyman, have you perceived any change, real or
perception-wise, with the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood
and the more extremist Islamist groups that have emerged in
Egypt, because there is a direct connection, obviously, with
Khartoum and Cairo? Do you perceive any change?
I mean, the calls for jihadists, we all know what the war
in Southern Sudan was all about, the imposition of Sharia law,
though it often gets forgotten. Now are we seeing a reemergence
of that? And is that consolidation of radical belief in Cairo
affecting Khartoum?
Ambassador Lyman. Well, there are some extreme groups in
Sudan. Some of them have been very critical of any movement on
the peace process even or rights for Southerners in Sudan, you
know, people who are still living there who have come from the
South.
I don't think it is the mainstream in Sudan. It is not the
mainstream of Islam in Sudan. But those groups are there.
As you said, the kind of rhetoric that President Bashir was
using during this last crisis was very, very frightening and
wrong. One of the things that the AU and others have said is
rhetoric has to stop. Africa is very, very conscious of how
much that kind of rhetoric contributed to the terrible events
in Rwanda. So, there was an immediate gut reaction to that. I
hope it doesn't inflame those kinds of radical elements you
talked about.
But they are there, but at this point they are not the
mainstream. We are hoping that the Government of Sudan is
conscious----
Mr. Smith. But, again, is Cairo having an influence?
Mubarak was no prize, and many of us met with him every time he
came here or in Cairo, but----
Ambassador Lyman. You know, the relationship now between
Khartoum and Egypt is kind of evolving with the new government.
The foreign minister from Egypt actually visited both Khartoum
and Juba during this crisis to try to calm the situation down.
But I really don't know about what might be going on between
the parties.
Mr. Smith. Could you ask around? And if you get the
information, let us know?
Ambassador Lyman. I can ask and let you know. Thanks.
Mr. Smith. I do have one final question, if you don't mind,
more of a statement, if you want to respond to it. I am
concerned--and you may be, too--about the sense of equivalency
between Salva Kiir and Bashir. One has been indicted by the
ICC, as we all know; the other has not and is, I think, a very
good man.
But it reminds me of what happened in the Balkans. I
remember, after the invasion of Croatia, I went to Vukovar and
all these places that are under siege by Slobodan Milosevic.
When I talked to our interlocutors at the EU, they would say,
``Oh, they are both at fault. They are both at fault.'' And
there was a sense of one is aggressing and attacking, using
MiGs and every other means of destruction; the other is trying
to defend themselves.
At some point, a country responds, hopefully sooner rather
than later, when its citizens and folks are being attacked and
killed and maimed and the like. I just get a sense that that
same thing is happening here. But maybe it is a diplomatic
fiction, so that people can meet in rooms and hammer things
out. But Bashir is clearly the perpetrator of these heinous
crimes, not Salva Kiir.
Ambassador Lyman. Mr. Chairman, you know, one of the things
that I have said over and over again in Khartoum, because
Khartoum says, you know, they are criticized more than the
South or something like that. And I said, ``The reason you are
criticized is the way you fight wars. You fight wars with
civilian casualties, with the use of militias who are not under
the rules of war. You don't fight like armies do in the 21st
century. You commit terrible human rights violations. And you
will be condemned by the international community if that is the
way you carry out what you think of as your security
concerns.'' And there is no question that that is the case and
has been the case historically.
Where we do call upon both parties in kind of an equivalent
way is not to make the problem worse by the way they clash at
the border or take risks with peace. For the South, I think it
is a great challenge for them to come to an agreement with a
government that they have many historical and current
grievances with. We do encourage them to come to those
agreements because, as Nancy has pointed out, with no revenue,
South Sudan will be in a terrible situation. And so, in that
sense, we call both parties to the table and want them to do
so. But there is no equivalency in the human rights violations
and the history of it between the two.
Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I actually want to follow up. You were asking about Egypt.
Since you asked about Egypt, it made me wonder about Libya, and
just in terms of the flow of weapons. I don't know if that has
been an issue in Northern Sudan. So, I don't know who I am
directing that to, maybe the Ambassador, but I am not sure he
heard my question.
Since my colleague was asking about Egypt, it made me think
about Libya. I was just wondering if there is an issue with the
flow of arms from Libya into Northern Sudan.
Ambassador Lyman. The problem of the arms flowing in out of
Libya, because several of the Darfur, two of the Darfur rebel
groups fighting with the Government of Sudan fought on the side
of Gaddafi, it is believed that they have come out of that
situation with considerable arms, although it doesn't seem to
have had as big an impact on the fighting as we thought.
The Government of Sudan, of course, then fought on the side
of the rebels in Libya and was very concerned about that flow
of arms. I don't think it has had as significant an impact on
the situation in Sudan as it may have had elsewhere in the
Sahel.
There has an uptick in fighting in Darfur, but we have a
feeling that that reflects the fact that the arm movements have
taken advantage of the fact that the Government of Sudan had to
move more troops over to Southern Kordofan, and they took
advantage of that situation. But I don't think it has had a
major impact.
Ms. Bass. I see.
And then, several of you have talked about the U.N.
peacekeepers that are there. I just wanted to ask you a
question about whether or not they are having any challenges
having the tools that they need to carry out their mandate
safely and effectively. And specifically thinking about South
Sudan, with just 68 miles of paved road, with a territory about
the size of France, helicopters are essential to the
effectiveness. And then, with Russia's decision last year to
withdraw eight helicopters, it contributed to this already
being a serious problem. So, I was just wondering what was the
status of that. Has it gotten any better?
Ambassador Lyman. Yes, you are absolutely right; without
helicopters, they can't move rapidly at all. They have been
able to replace most of the helicopters that the Russians
withdrew.
But it did come at a time when there was a great deal of
conflict in Jonglei. It really did slow UNMIS down. It is a
very difficult area to get around, particularly rapidly.
Now what the UNMIS has done is that they have stationed
their people out much more than traditionally is done. And so,
they can respond faster. But it is going to get harder in the
rainy season. So, the helicopters become essential. It is also
true for the government forces to move around.
In Darfur, the main problem has been when the government
denies access because they say security conditions are such. It
doesn't happen often, but it happens whenever there is
fighting, and it slows down UNAMID's ability to respond
quickly. That has been raised with the government over and over
again. I think that is the main problem they have had. They
have had other logistic problems, but in Darfur that has been a
problem.
Ms. Bass. So, you were referencing the access earlier. I
think you said humanitarian access, if it was announced, the
fighting will stop. Could you explain a little bit more about
that? And I think it is connected to what you were just saying.
I didn't understand what was blocking the access.
Ambassador Lyman. In the two states of Southern Kordofan
and Blue Nile, which are part of Sudan--they are not part of
South Sudan--fighting broke out there last June, I think it
was, May or June, after an election that was contested. And the
fighting has gone on ever since by what is called the SPLM-
North. That is the people who come from Nuba Mountain and from
Blue Nile, from the Southern part of Blue Nile, but fought on
the side of the South during the civil war. But they are now
part of Sudan.
That is the area where, as Nancy described, we see a major
humanitarian crisis because the Government of Sudan, these are
their own people, but they have not allowed international
humanitarian access. We have talked to the SPLM-North. In fact,
I talked to them quite recently. They said, ``Please, you can
say publicly that, if the government would announce that they
are accepting this approach to humanitarian. . . .''----
Ms. Bass. I see.
Ambassador Lyman. [continuing]. ``We would agree to
cessation of hostilities in order the food gets into people,''
et cetera. So, that was what I was referring to.
Ms. Bass. I see. Thank you.
And then, also, in terms of the international effort and
support, you mentioned, Ms. Richard, I believe, that, of
course, the United States is carrying the majority of the
burden, but who are the other major players? And what is the
relationship in terms of funding? Are we carrying 90 percent,
50, 60?
Ms. Richard. Yes, generally, in most refugee crises, the
United States provides a quarter or more, depending on our
interest level--and thank you all for having such a great
interest level in this--of the international appeals that come
out.
The other major donors are the same major donors that
respond to most of the U.N.'s appeals. So, you are looking at
Western Europe and the sort of G8 countries funding that.
What the High Commissioner is trying to do is reach out--
and perhaps this gets back to your question, Chairman Smith--
and find new donors, get more countries involved in this, get
them engaged in this, getting them to be productive and make
this more of an international effort. He said, or his Executive
Committee, which are the member states that take a particular
interest in UNHCR, the size of that has been growing, which is
a good sign. But now we need to see that growing on the dollar
side, too.
Maybe Nancy Lindborg can talk about some of the aid flows,
and Ambassador Lyman can talk about the contributors of
peacekeepers.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Ms. Lindborg. Yes, there is a very engaged group of donors
both for South Sudan and for Sudan. In South Sudan, there is
what is called the troika of Norway, UK, and the U.S. That has
been very involved with ensuring that there is the kind of
funding that is needed to move toward peace.
Ms. Bass. African nations?
Ms. Lindborg. Not so much on the donor side. Certainly
involved with the larger efforts of----
Ms. Bass. Peacekeeping?
Ms. Lindborg. Right, of peacekeeping, and hosting of the
refugees.
I would say that the big frame to communicate is that this
has been a multi-decade effort with many, many international
providers of assistance, both regionally and from the donor
community. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the pathway of
peace that it opened up and great concern that, because of the
escalated conflict, because of the cessation of the oil
revenues, that we are moving seriously backwards.
Ms. Bass. My colleague mentioned China. I know President
Kiir was just there and came home. I was really surprised he
was there at all, I mean, you know, considering the fighting
going on.
So, a couple of questions. What is China contributing
toward this effort? I didn't hear you mention them. And then,
also, I mean, I know one of the reasons why he was there is
because they would like to have the oil not go to the North.
They would like to develop the capacity for it to go South.
What would be the timeframe in that? Do we know anything that
resulted from his trip to China, even though it was aborted?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you.
Before that, just to mention on the peacekeeping forces, if
you put all three of those peacekeeping operations together,
you have about 50 countries contributing. African countries are
very prominent in that regard: Nigeria, Rwanda, Ethiopia, et
cetera.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Ambassador Lyman. The force commander in UNAMID is a
Rwandan general. The force commander in Abyei is the Ethiopian
commander, and the UNMIS is a Nigerian commander. So, Africans
play a very prominent role in the peacekeeping.
On China, I think they do have a small contingent in
UNAMID, engineering I believe. But their real world is
political and economic. They are roughly a 40 percent owner of
the major oil industrial companies there, and particularly in
the pipeline.
I am not sure that their interest is really in seeing an
alternate pipeline to the South because most estimates that I
have seen are that that is 3 to 5 years away. Meanwhile, they
have got this huge investment.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Lyman. So, only by an agreement between the two
countries to resume production and export through Sudan is
China's interests served in the near future.
I don't have the results of the trip President Kiir took.
So, I don't know what may have come out of that. But in our
conversations with the Chinese, they definitely want peace and
security in the area because, otherwise, the oil sector can't
go back into production.
I think that has to mean that China has to, along with
others, address some of these fundamental political issues
which are the source of the insecurity and use their long
relationship with Sudan and President Bashir in this regard, as
well as the relationships they are developing with the South.
Ms. Bass. I think both the chair and I would like to hear
from you when you come back from China as to what happened.
I have other questions. I don't want to take up any more
time. So, let me just ask one final question.
What more do you think the United States should be doing?
And that is for anybody. What more do you think the United
States should be doing? Is there anything more we should be
doing? Are we doing everything?
Ambassador Lyman. First of all, my staff tells me it is 40
countries, not 50, contributing to the peacekeeping. So, I have
got to get it straight.
Ms. Bass. Oh, thank you.
Ambassador Lyman. But it is a question we ask ourselves all
the time. I was just in a meeting yesterday of our senior
deputies from all our agencies on Sudan, a Deputies' Committee
meeting, and that was the question that we all looked at. What
more can we do?
What we are trying now is to mobilize people from around
the world to put pressure particularly on Sudan, but on South
Sudan, to get back to the negotiations, to reach agreements. We
are providing a lot of technical support to the actual
facilitation/mediation by Kabul and Vecchi.
The aid agency is doing an extraordinary job of responding
to the humanitarian situation, as much as we are able to do,
and has been creative in doing so.
I would welcome ideas that we could do more. Because we
don't have contact with President Bashir, we obviously are not
in the position of being the mediator that brings the two
together, but we do have contact with many senior people in
Khartoum.
We look at that, and, Congresswoman, any suggestions from
the committee would be welcome. We ask ourselves this literally
all the time. I appreciate it.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lindborg. Congresswoman, I would just add that we have
long been a leader in provision of assistance, thanks to the
generosity of the American people and with your leadership.
Last year, we put about $440 million into South Sudan and
Sudan, primarily Darfur, and continue to work to mobilize
response from our donor colleagues and to ensure that we are
continuing to mobilize in the face of great need.
The sad sort of benefit of all of that is that, when these
crises flare up, we do have a lot of capacity on the ground and
the ability to move food or people to move quickly, when new
fighting flares up, whether it is on the border in Abyei or in
Jonglei. Even though it is an extraordinarily difficult
operating environment with, as you noted, very few roads, we
have the ability to meet immediate humanitarian needs. The
concern is that they are growing.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Even after Southern Sudan has withdrawn its troops from
some of the disputed areas, Khartoum has continued to send the
Antonovs and rain the bombs down. This would include bombing
civilian areas.
I had an opportunity some years ago in Darfur, Sudan, to
visit Tine that had been bombed by Antonovs. I saw what that
did. We talked to, by the way, survivors of various attacks by
the government forces.
President Bashir is using the type of language again,
talking about going after the ``insects'' in the South, as he
calls the people of the South, rallying his troops, clearly,
doing what they know how to do in terms of genning people up to
do what they used to do with the Janjaweed. So, this is an
incredibly dangerous situation right now, from the activists
that we talked to on the ground in South Sudan, relaying to us
their concerns about how this plays out.
I wanted to ask you, Ambassador, the oil cutoff, the
renewed operations down there have got to be weighing on
Khartoum, given what we know about the machinations within that
capital and the problems that beset that government. Some have
speculated recently that that might trigger a change within
Khartoum.
Do we have a window on what is taking place in that
capital? Do we have any insights? And do we have any
contingency planning for any scenario, should such an event
occur?
Ambassador Lyman. I am glad you raise this because we talk
about the impact of the oil cutoff and crisis on South Sudan,
but it is also very, very serious for the economy of Sudan. If
you just look at the exchange rate, having gone from the
official 2.9 or something to 7, you know that prices are going
up; people are experiencing shortages, fuel shortages, basic
commodities. They don't have the foreign exchange to import
food. They usually import a lot of food.
The economic consequences in Sudan are very great. And you
have to get outside of Khartoum to really appreciate it because
there is kind of a surface normalcy in Khartoum, but if you go
out to the rural areas or even talk to people who are
struggling in Khartoum, you realize the economic problem is
severe.
There are people in Khartoum and Sudan who understand that
they face a major economic crisis. The loss of revenue and the
failure now to have a functioning collaboration with oil is
just making the foreign exchange situation even worse.
In our view, for a government to continue to fight in
Darfur, in South Kordofan, in Blue Nile, et cetera, when their
economic situation is so severe, is a dangerous and bad policy
for their own people.
Mr. Royce. Right, right.
Ambassador Lyman. I can't tell you what it may do
politically in Khartoum. I don't have that kind of inside
understanding. But I do know from people that have spoken out
publicly, that have talked publicly, that there are people who
think this set of policies is not the right direction for
Sudan.
Mr. Royce. Right.
Ambassador Lyman. Now whether that translates into changes
of the policy, I can't tell you.
Mr. Royce. Well, we don't know, but the point you make is
that pragmatists are being sidelined on both sides of the
border. The point I would make is you want to permanently
sideline the hardliners that are sidelining the pragmatists. To
do that is going to take a more proactive communication
campaign into Khartoum, broadcasting into Khartoum, as we used
to do in Poland or in Russia, you know, in East Germany, where
you take advantage of the situation on the ground.
You give people information about the situation on the
ground. You talk about the crisis that is being created by bad
governance. You give them an alternative. You suggest that
alternative. You have got to be more proactive on that. It is a
non-confrontational way, if you are proactive, to offer out a
different scenario.
The last question I wanted to ask is, in your testimony you
talk about everybody speaking with one voice on the issue. I
was going to ask you, have the Arab states or the OIC, are they
on that page? Have they spoken on those issues?
Ambassador Lyman. We did a major outreach to all the
members of the Arab League just in the last 24 hours, 48 hours.
They are meeting right now in closed session.
What we have urged them to do is to be in total synch with
the African Union's approach to this that they enunciated the
other day. I have not seen the communique coming out of that. I
hope it will be as close to the African Union approach as
possible, so that we get their collaboration and speaking, as I
say, together. And then, we want the same from the U.N.
Security Council.
So, I will let you know once I get a sense of what has come
out of the Arab League meeting.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Ambassador Lyman. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Panel.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Congresswoman Lee?
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me just follow up on a couple of questions that were
asked earlier in terms of what else the United States could do.
I know for many, many years many of us have been concerned that
we could not do as much--and I am not talking about the
humanitarian front right now because we recognize and
appreciate the level of humanitarian intervention and
contributions this country is making. But we haven't been able
to figure out, given our relationship with the Sudanese
Government as it relates to cooperation on matters of
terrorism, because we are in contact with--it may not be
Bashir, but it is his government. How does that hamper or
hinder what we are trying to do now and what they are trying to
do in terms of this new escalation of war? So, that is the
first question.
Then, secondly, China, for many, many years we have been
encouraging our Government to use more leverage with China, so
they could use more leverage with the Government of Sudan in
how they are moving forward, not only with the implementation
of the CPA, but the new war that has taken place. And I think
it is a war. I think that we haven't been as assertive as we
should have been and as we should be. I am pleased to know that
the administration and you are going to be talking with the
Chinese at the meeting that is coming up.
We actually had 68 Members of Congress sign a letter asking
the President to engage in discussions around this new
eruption. And so, we are very pleased to have that.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it is appropriate, but I
would like to have that letter inserted into the record.
[The letter referred follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Ms. Lee. And finally, let me just ask, in terms of the
political obstacles that are preventing the humanitarian
assistance and intervention, what are those political obstacles
as you see them? I know oil is one in Heglig. I mean, we know
that. But what are some more obstacles that we see that need to
be removed?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you so much.
On the first question, there is a degree of cooperation on
terrorism because the Government of Sudan finds that in their
interest as well. But the big types of cooperation that might
be possible between our two countries cannot take place while
they remain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and
they remain on that list. They have not met the conditions that
we feel are needed to do so.
They would like more cooperation in that area. It would
serve our interests if we could do it. But, until we can get
satisfied that the conditions are right to do that, we can't go
forward with that.
It doesn't impact, quite frankly, because I work on this
every day, it doesn't change our way that we approach the
issues of North-South issues, of Southern Kordofan and Blue
Nile; it really doesn't.
The point is that their continuing to be on the list of
state sponsors of terrorism is something that we say to them,
if you want to come back into the international community in
good graces, dealing with issues like Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile on a political basis, allowing humanitarian access,
not doing, as Congressman Royce mentioned, the constant use of
bombing on civilian targets, then the full ranges of
cooperation not only in security matters, but in economic
matters, could take place. But we can't do it under these
circumstances. We have had very candid conversations with them
on that.
On China--and the letter was a valuable letter--when Vice
President Xi came here from China just a couple of months ago,
the President and Secretary of State said, ``We need to
cooperate on Sudan. We need to join together on this.''
And then, President Obama talked to President Hu when they
were at the meeting in Seoul on nuclear issues and agreed that
this had to be a priority.
As I have mentioned, I have been in regular contact with my
counterpart there, the Special Envoy. But, also, when I travel
in the region, I always stop to see the Chinese Ambassadors in
Khartoum, in Juba, in Addis Ababa.
Next week, when the Secretary goes to China, this will be
high on our agenda as well.
So, I think the cooperation with China is picking up very
rapidly. I think their reluctance traditionally to get involved
in political matters in countries in which they are doing
business, here they recognize that they can't serve their own
interests as well as everybody's if they don't. I think that
cooperation is building up.
On the political obstacles to humanitarian access, what the
government of Khartoum claims and argues is, if the food goes
into those areas, it will prolong the fighting because part of
it will get to the military, no matter what, and will
strengthen their desire to keep fighting.
Second, they have this memory in their view that, once the
humanitarian community enters in, then comes the U.N.
peacekeepers. Then, they lose their sovereignty. Their view is
that this was part of an attempt to carve off more of their
country or at least reduce their control over it.
We have tried to deal with that in many ways, like I said,
this tripartite proposal which has the League of Arab States
and the African Union and the World Food Programme. I think
Congressman Royce said that there are hardliners sort of
driving policy right now in Khartoum. In spite of all of the
efforts to convince them on this, they still have not allowed
that. I think those are the reasons driving them in that
regard, but I think they are wrong.
Ms. Lee. But in terms of international, bringing more
attention to the world as to what is taking place now, we
remember what happened with Darfur. It took a while for the
world to really recognize that genocide was taking place. And
many of us have visited Darfur many times and have been in the
refugee camps, but you don't see the visual. You don't see the
suffering, and you don't see the starving and what is taking
place.
I am wondering if there has been a problem with media
access, and if, in fact, the Bashir government, because of what
happened around Darfur and the world came together, are they
using different tactics now in terms of media access and
preventing the rest of the world from really understanding what
is coming, what is getting ready to come down if we don't take
some action very quickly?
Ambassador Lyman. You know, it is exactly right. There is
no free media access. Some journalists have gone in on their
own. Nicholas Kristof went. Alan Boswell has gone, some others,
and they have written about it.
There has been more interviewing of refugees to get a
better sense, and you will see various reports have come from
George Clooney, from Human Rights Watch, from others,
particularly interviewing refugees and illustrating these kinds
of problems.
I do think--and we have worked very hard on it over the
last 6 months--we have generated a great deal of unified
international opinion on this. In almost every statement coming
out of other countries now and out of the AU, it is to the
government: You must allow humanitarian access to these areas.
But you don't get all the pictures and attention that took
place in Darfur, and partly because access is so difficult.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Bass for this hearing and this
oversight, which I think is crucial.
Just in memory of our fallen colleague, Congressman Payne,
we are reminded of the great excitement of the inauguration of
the new nation of the government, the new nation of Sudan,
Southern Sudan.
Let me, just as a point of personal privilege, thank,
Ambassador Lyman, yourself, and, of course, the representatives
of USAID and the State Department, but also the journalists. I
note that Ellen Ratner is in the room, who visits this region
quite frequently. But the journalists have not, many of them
have not persisted in the story.
Even, Ambassador Lyman, the good news and the bad news, but
certainly to continue the thought, I will just say to you that
I have had an experience--and I can say it now because I am
back here in the United States--where I was refused entry into
Khartoum, meaning that I was in Chad waiting and waiting and
waiting for a visa, having been to at that time the refugee
camps in Chad, which were, if you will, raw and extreme, if
anything; women and children living in almost dust bowls. But
we certainly appreciated the fact that there was a welcome mat
somewhere for them.
And I had wanted to go into Khartoum, and it just shows, of
course, there have been incidences when we have come. But say
that this was the first time around, and just happened to slip
across the border because we had waited. We had tea. We waited
into the night for the visa to come. It was on its way; it was
on its way. Just to at that time dialog with the African Union
troops that were there.
Subsequently, I went into Darfur with all the necessary
credentials on another occasion, but, then, sat down and saw or
listened to stories, to recall our memory, Mr. Chairman, of the
women who were brutalized as they left the camps to pick
firewood. We seem like we overcame that, even though I don't
think we fully resettled those individuals. And you were
certainly right at the head of leadership.
Now we have Southern Sudan, and we now know that across
that region there is disruption; there is difficulty. So, I
know this may have been answered, but I want, if you will, a
thorough approach to it in respect to the Heglig crisis and its
aftermath. What accounts for the rapid escalation of that
conflict between Sudan and Southern Sudan leading to South
Sudan's occupation of Heglig? And please describe the military
situation to Southern Sudan's withdrawal from Heglig? What is
your assessment based on military operations and troop
movements in the field, whether we are seeing indications of a
return to full-scale war between the two governments?
In the midst of that is the unmerciful treatment of human
beings. I will add a leverage. What is happening to the women?
Are they still being raped? Are they still being abandoned
because men have gone or men are victimized, so women are sent
forward?
And do you take seriously and at face value the Sudanese
Government's assertion that it is intent on ousting the
Southern People's Liberation Movement that we have known for a
long time? And to what extent are the conflicts in Southern
Kordofan and the Blue Nile linked to or likely to shape the
outcome of the military situation from the Heglig conflict, if
you would? And I have a question for the other representatives.
But, Ambassador, thank you for your service. It has been a
long time.
Ambassador Lyman. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, and
for your continued interest in this, as you have.
What sparked, I think, the occupation of Heglig by South
Sudan was a frustration that really extended over a long period
of time of clashes on the border and bombing across the border;
that they felt they were being pushed, and when they exercised
restraint, it didn't stop.
They went into Heglig earlier in March and then withdrew,
and then the bombing continued and the fighting continued. And
they just said it is enough, and they wanted to react much more
strongly.
The problem was, as we and others told them, that by doing
that, they had raised the conflict to a new level because they
occupied an area of enormous strategic importance to Sudan and
could have increased the kind of--you know, before then,
neither had attacked the other's oil facilities. It could have
gotten totally out of hand. They would have committed mutual
economic suicide.
They did agree to withdraw, but the government pursued them
in doing so, bombed across the border, and generated a
situation which has calmed down. It has been much quieter on
the border the last 2 days. Both sides are now getting ready to
respond to the African Union's demand for cessation of
hostilities. They gave them 48 hours to respond. They are
supposed to respond today.
As I said earlier, I don't think--and I have talked to
people in the governments in both places--that people really
want or governments want to go to full-scale war. Neither one
can afford it, can sustain it. That doesn't mean that they are
not prepared to engage in conflict over what they see as their
security conditions/issues on the border.
And those are related to the conflict in Southern Kordofan
and Blue Nile, which the Government of Sudan continues to
characterize only in military terms, not in political terms,
and which the Government of South Sudan says, ``We can't have a
border which is used to send militias into South Sudan.''
So, until they can get a handle on the security of that
border, the danger of those clashes continues. Right now, I
think the military on both sides, they have largely pulled back
across the line that they both use. We are hoping that that,
plus the rainy season, will lead to a lower level of conflict
than we have seen and, hopefully, open the door, create a
climate, if you will, for more political talks.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This question is for everyone, starting
with Ms. Richard. Is Khartoum the same old Khartoum? Both South
Sudan and Khartoum indicate that one or the other is backing
the rebels. Give us the true and honest level of the
humanitarian crisis. What level of crisis do women and children
find themselves in? If you are note-taking, is it time to--it
looks as if Southern Sudan has gotten its muscle--but is this
another moment of intervention, the African Union,
peacekeepers? Are we letting this fester, so that we find
ourselves in an enormously sad humanitarian crisis?
Ms. Richard?
Ms. Richard. Well, Congresswoman, I am going to defer to
Ambassador Lyman to answer your question about Khartoum.
On your question about the scale of the crisis, I think
that this hearing makes very clear that this region can be like
a tinderbox. And so, smaller skirmishes have the risk of
reigniting war.
We can see how many people currently, as we have talked
about these different groups of people who have been displaced,
you know, different people right now are suffering throughout
this region.
I visited a year ago in the summer, right before the
Independence Day. I was there a couple of weeks in advance in
Juba talking to colleagues and trying to get a fix on the
prospects for peace in South Sudan. And it was such a hopeful
time, you may recall----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Ms. Richard [continuing]. After so many years of war.
What really came through to me was the incredible needs of
the people in South Sudan. There is a great deal of illiteracy.
There are not sufficient educated people to run the government
ministries, to provide the services that so many people need.
I saw people returning from the Khartoum area in very large
boatloads coming down the Nile to start their lives over in the
South. As we have heard today from my colleague, Nancy
Lindborg, these people are trying to start over, trying to
become farmers, trying to have livelihoods. The needs to
educate their children, some of whom have never lived in the
South before and were born in the North, were born in Sudan
itself; the needs are very, very great.
So, to take the very tough prospects for achieving economic
development, for achieving an educated and healthy citizenry,
and then to toss all of that back into violence and conflict,
that is just absolutely the wrong direction.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Lindborg?
Ms. Lindborg. I would echo much of what my colleague has
just laid out. You know, these are people who have borne
enormous hardship for decades. There was precarious peace going
forward. We knew it would be difficult. We knew it would take a
long time.
But there have been gains over this year since the CPA was
put into place. What used to be 20 percent children in school
is now 68 percent. Many more millions of people have achieved
access to water, to health, to basic services. Much of that is
in jeopardy right now because of the lack of oil revenue; 98
percent of South Sudan's budget stems from oil.
As the conflicts escalate, both the North and the South are
putting their people in peril. We are losing what precious
developmental gains were made in South Sudan. Between Darfur,
Abyei, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, the intercommunal fighting
in Jonglei, and the 4.7 million people, half the population of
the South, of South Sudan, who are food-insecure, you have
about 8 million people who need humanitarian assistance. That
is a huge number of people.
As the conflict escalates, and there is no oil revenue to
provide even basic services by the government, there will be
the potential for adding to that 8 million because they are not
otherwise able to move forward with their lives. They are not
able to go to hospitals or go to schools that the government
previously was supporting.
So, it is imperative that we pull back to peace and that we
find a way forward because of the burden that is placing on the
women and the children, and a history in that region of
marginalizing vulnerable communities.
The challenge is enormous. The stakes are very high. The
solutions will not be military.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ambassador Lyman was going to finish. Ambassador Lyman,
could you just throw in--not to throw in--but the
dysfunctionalism of the energy industry, because many don't
understand it is not functioning? And if you know anything
about the burden on women and children?
Ambassador Lyman. Well, as Nancy has said earlier, when you
get into large scale food-insecure areas, women and children
are often the ones who suffer first and foremost. We can see
that in the refugees coming out, and many of them are women and
children. In a war situation, clearly, they are very much in
danger.
You asked about Khartoum; is it the same old Khartoum? Here
is a situation where Khartoum had an opportunity to develop a
productive and positive relationship with South Sudan. You will
recall that President Bashir came to the independence ceremony
and was well received and said all the right things.
But every time there is a sharp difference or a crisis,
there is kind of a default back to let's use military power;
let's use our bombing; let's use the gun, et cetera. And that
brings out all the worst characteristics from that regime and
makes it very hard to deal with these problems in the right
way. It is almost like you have a Jekyll-and-Hyde situation
sometimes.
So, what has to happen in Khartoum is--and Thabo Mbeki
phrased this extremely well in a lecture he gave in Khartoum in
November 2010. He said, even with the secession of the South,
Sudan is a diverse country, and therefore, it has to be
governed as a diverse country. That means there has to be
political change in the way Sudan governs itself.
That is the fundamental issue. It is the issue that the
Sudanese must address because, otherwise, there will always be
trouble in the Darfurs and the Southern Kordofans and other
places. And that hasn't taken place.
I think there are a lot of people who understand that in
Khartoum, who know it has to take place. But that is really the
challenge. Thabo Mbeki phased it very well and he has spoken
out on that many times, as have others.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my last word to you, Ambassador Lyman, we are not, the
United States and its policy, going to abandon this region. We
are going to stay engaged in the fight, if you will, a
nonviolent fight on behalf of this region, this area.
Ambassador Lyman. I can tell you that the White House is
all over me every day.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Excellent. [Laughter.]
Let me join in that, in a way of strengthening you.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for your
kindness.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute you,
Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member as well, for hosting this
important area. Mr. Chairman, I would also compliment you on
some of the positions that you have taken. They have been very
meaningful to me personally.
I did go to Darfur, and I saw the throngs of people living
on the ground and off of the land. There is no substitute, I
think, for seeing some of these things as they develop.
I want to compliment the witnesses here today for the
intelligence that you have accorded us.
My friend, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, has served with this
committee and has traveled to these places many more times than
I, but I think that she never tires. My suspicion is that she
will be back before I will. So, I want to compliment her as
well.
I have just a very few questions. So, I will be as pithy
and concise as possible, but I don't want to be so terse and
laconic as not to make a point.
Let's start with the oil and how it flows. It is in the
South, but it flows through the North. If there is a change in
the direction, and if the South somehow manages to have access
to another means of moving the oil, how will this impact, if
you can prognosticate to this extent, or just the thought by
the North of losing the opportunity to have the benefits that
flow from the oil, how will this, if you can prognosticate,
impact this concern that is already at a crisis level, as far
as I can see?
Mr. Ambassador, would you care to give an answer first?
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you.
For the South, if it had an alternative way, it would not
feel that it had such a difficult situation with a regime that
they often have great difficulty with, including on oil. But
the prospects, the possibilities of doing that are not short
term. People I have talked to, people who are oil experts,
engineers, et cetera, looking at the types of soil that would
be involved in Sudan or the mountains in Ethiopia, looking at
alternate routes, estimate 3 to 5 years and a very expensive
proposition. It doesn't mean that someday it can't be done, but
it is not a short-term solution to the problems that Nancy
outlined with the government that needs revenue.
It is in the interest of both countries to have this sector
run. They both benefit. I think Sudan would lose a lot if South
Sudan ended up unable to have a satisfactory and assured
relationship with the Government of Sudan about the oil flow.
They get fees. They get processing fees. They get access to
oil for the refinery. There is also in this negotiation a
payment from the South to ease the loss of oil revenue that
came from the CPA. All of that is in the very high priority
interests of Khartoum.
I think there are a lot of people there who know it. But
the negotiations which were very promising a few weeks ago have
been set way back. So, I am hoping that kind of rationality on
both sides says, ``Look, we don't like each other very much,
but we both are hurting our people and ourselves by not being
able to function.''
If the oil reserves are such in South Sudan that it would
also justify an alternative, that is a possibility, but it is
not a near-term one. For South Sudan to put all its chips on
that means they would go years without any revenue. That, we
think, is very dangerous.
Mr. Green. I see.
With reference to the humanitarian crisis, the prospect of
food moving in over land is a good one. I like the idea, and I
think this is the way most NGOs would like to move large
amounts of food as well as other humanitarian substances. The
question, however, is about airdrops. In a time of great
crisis, I understand that you have others who will try to take
the food. But if we can find out where people are, which can be
difficult, airdrops of food into an area where you have a
humanitarian need has been used before. To what extent is this
available to us, given the 200,000 people that may be near
starvation?
Ms. Lindborg. Well, you want to look at all of the options.
One of the concerns with air operations is that, for those of
you who remember Operation Lifeline Sudan, which was critical
for many years, it did have agreement on both sides that it
would operate. So, for those kinds of operations to really have
the impact that we want and need them to have, you really need
to have that sort of agreement to enable the airdrops to be
effective, to reach those who need it the most.
Mr. Green. May I assume that we are seeking approval of
both sides for airdrops? I know that there is some
consternation about having NGOs, or especially Westerners, come
into the country. With an airdrop, you don't have to touch the
ground, but food gets to the people. Are we negotiating along
these lines?
Ambassador Lyman. We haven't emphasized the airdrops,
Congressman, because if they would approve the proposal on the
table, the World Food Programme group could bring in so much of
the needed food. Airdrops would not be able to do nearly as
much.
I think the government would have great objection to
airdrops. I think it would be very hard to get their approval.
They would consider it a hostile act. That doesn't mean they
are right; don't get me wrong. But I think it would be a hard
thing to get them to approve.
I just wish they would approve the most logical and most
effective way, which does not involve western NGOs, which does
not involve anyone but people they trust as doing it for
humanitarian purposes. I think we have to keep pushing them on
that. It is the most useful possible way to do it, as well as
other things that one looks at.
Mr. Green. My final comment has to do with China. Countries
do what they believe to be in their best interest. I am
confident, Mr. Ambassador, that you are explaining that this is
in the best interest of China, the world, but China benefits
from oil. And they are getting an amount of oil from Sudan now.
So, we have had it requested of us--and I know that the
request has been echoed to you, but I will just reiterate;
sometimes things bear repeating--please take advantage of the
opportunity when we have our high-level meetings to make the
request in your way to make sure that China understands that we
desire that they help us with this crisis that is looming in
Sudan. And it is to their advantage to do so, I believe, but I
hope that you will continue to exercise your good office's use
of this type of diplomacy.
While we are thanking people, I do want to thank Mr.
Clooney, who did go in at some considerable risk to bring back
some empirical evidence of the atrocity that is taking place. I
don't ever want to discount what good Samaritans do, and I
consider him a good Samaritan for what he has done at some
considerable risk.
So, thank you for what you are doing.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member.
I yield back any time that I may have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
Ambassador Lyman. I would say one thing on the China thing.
I assure you that the Secretary is leading our high-level
dialog next week. Sudan remains very high on her agenda, and we
will be making those points next week in Beijing.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
And just to reiterate or echo Mr. Green's comments on
airdrops, I would agree that they are part of the solution,
especially for the harder to reach when access is denied. I
hope that will be robustly promoted.
I remember when the killing fields were occurring in South
Sudan, remember the loss of 2 million people. We had UNICEF
testifying in 2172 Rayburn, and many of us pressed very hard
that the international community was doing far less than it
could to get permission from the Khartoum government to allow
those to go through. They had absolute veto power, and missions
would be deployed or not based on their willingness to allow it
to happen. And people would die when the airdrops didn't occur.
So, I know it is on the table. At least I hope it is. I
hope it is even more so, because if you can't get a team in,
you know, you can drop meals ready to eat and a whole lot of
other things that in the short term could absolutely sustain
life. And so, I do hope that is being looked at.
I would also like to ask if the faith community is being
adequately included with the AU High Implementation Panel, the
players themselves, whether or not the mullahs and the Catholic
and Anglican bishops, who I know in terms of the provision of
healthcare and ensuring that people get food to eat and
medicines to help cure, are, if not our best, certainly are at
the very top of people we need to be partnering with. I am
wondering, are we working with them closely on the ground to
make sure that the refugee camps as well as at other places,
that money is going to faith-based NGOs that are doing this
work, particularly indigenous faith-based NGOs?
But, Ambassador, if you could speak to whether or not the
faith community is being pulled into this in a way that it is
certainly capable of helping to bring about a more positive
outcome?
Ambassador Lyman. They have played a very significant role
in the peace process within South Sudan. You know, this
terrible conflict that took place between the Nuer and Morley.
And it is the religious community that is playing a major
role in bringing the communities together. That is true in
other parts of South Sudan as well. They also play--and Nancy
can speak to that--they also play a major role in delivering
services.
We are also reaching out now to the faith-based communities
internationally, as I had requested of the Congress, to make
their voices heard to the leadership about the need for peace.
But, yes, they are very active and extremely important in
South Sudan particularly. But Nancy can----
Mr. Smith. But, again, when the AU High Implementation
Panel meets, do they incorporate and integrate----
Ambassador Lyman. No. No, I can't say they do. You know, it
is a negotiation sort of between parties. You don't see civil
society there. You don't see faith-based. I think that has been
unfortunate in this whole process.
Mr. Smith. But it would seem to me that special faith-based
envoys could play a big role as well.
Ambassador Lyman. I think it is a very good point.
Ms. Lindborg. I would just note that we work very, very
closely with a number of faith-based organizations throughout
South Sudan, in Darfur as well, where they are absolutely
critical to saving lives, to ensuring that needs are met. They
work closely with the faith-based leaders throughout South
Sudan.
We also just signed recently an MOU with the OIC's
humanitarian arm. So, we can foster greater cooperation between
the NGOs that USAID funds and the primarily Islamic groups that
the OIC funds. It grew out of our experience of working side by
side in Somalia, and we are looking to bring that globally.
So, I think your point is a very important one, that we pay
a lot of attention to the role that those organizations can
play.
Mr. Smith. Before we conclude, any----
Ms. Bass. Yes, I would just like to thank you for all of
your testimony and participating today. And again, Ambassador,
we look forward to hearing from you when you come back from
China.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and also the members
that participated. As all of you know, I am new in Congress.
This is just my second year. I recognize that there are many of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been working
on this issue for many years, which is why we had extra
participation today. I really appreciate your input.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass, and thank you
for your leadership. It is great to work with you.
I want to thank our very distinguished panelists for the
extraordinary service you render and your leadership, and for
taking the time this afternoon to share that with us, as we
work together in partnership.
Pursuant to your recommendation, Ambassador Lyman, we will
do that letter. I hope that has some impact.
And I look forward to working with you going forward and
appreciate it.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 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]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
