[Senate Hearing 112-473]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-473
SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN: INDEPENDENCE AND INSECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-020 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 RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
William C. Danvers, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Clooney, George, Cofounder, Satellite Sentinel Project,
Washington, DC................................................. 31
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts............. 1
Lindborg, Hon. Nancy, Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency
for International Development, Washington, DC.................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Lugar, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From Indiana................... 4
Lyman, Hon. Princeton, Special Envoy for Sudan, U.S. Department
of State, Washington, DC....................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Temin, Jonathan, Director, Sudan Program, U.S. Institute of
Peace, Washington, DC.......................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Ambassador Princeton Lyman to Question Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry.......................................... 53
Response of Assistant Administrator Nancy Lindborg to Question
Submitted by Senator John F. Kerry............................. 53
(iii)
SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN:
INDEPENDENCE AND INSECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Shaheen,
Coons, Durbin, Udall, Lugar, Corker, Isakson, and Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate
it. Thank you.
Mr. Ambassador, we are delighted to welcome you here today.
One of the privileges and responsibilities of our committee is
to shine attention on important issues when they are not part
of the daily drum beat of the news cycle.
We all remember the famous moment in ``Charlie Wilson's
War'' when, having achieved the objective of driving the
Soviets out of Afghanistan, Charlie Wilson is stunned to see
how quickly his colleagues have moved their attention
elsewhere, despite, as Wilson said then, that the ball keeps on
bouncing. Well, we know what came next and how tragically too
many policymakers only returned their attention to Afghanistan
after 9/11.
Our committee, I believe, would fail the test of history if
we allowed attention today to drift from the critical situation
in Sudan and South Sudan.
I had the privilege of being in Sudan a number of times
over the course of the last few years, and particularly for the
referendum. And I saw the expressions of hope for the future
and watched the difficult birth of a new nation. I was
privileged to be there with Ambassador Lyman, with others, with
George Clooney, John Prendergast, people who invested a lot of
time and effort and energy to get to that moment.
I think now we would all do well to remember that you can
have a vote to make a new beginning for a nation or any number
of things, but you can lose the future when the tough choices
that follow are denied, when they are deferred, or when
collective attention is somehow diverted. That is why at a time
when the world faces a lot of competing crises, all of which
are competing for attention, we need to wrestle with and
understand what steps the United States and our partners should
take to help Sudan and South Sudan resolve the complex
challenge before them.
Make no mistake. It is the leaders in Khartoum and Juba who
must choose between a future of conflict and poverty or a
future of security and prosperity. But we must not abdicate the
important role the United States can play in helping to nurture
the process just as we helped the midwife the birth of a new
nation.
There are actually some signs that are cautiously
encouraging. On January 9, President Bashir made the right
choice in allowing the South's referendum. On July 9, he made
the right choice in recognizing its outcome, and even in
traveling there to welcome it. Yesterday he announced that he
would travel to Juba for the first time since independence in
order to meet with President Salva Kiir.
But for every step forward, there has also been a step
backward toward the patterns of violence and repression of
Sudan's past. In the last year, Bashir has waged war on his own
people in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. He has arrested
student protestors, and he has rejected viable solutions, the
outstanding issues in favor of aerial bombardment and bellicose
rhetoric. The past has begun to become prologue.
For its part, South Sudan has established itself as a new
nation. President Kiir has named a diverse Cabinet, and the
leaders in Juba have put forward serious proposals for a
lasting settlement. But the country has also experienced
wrenching ethnic violence. There are allegations that it has
supported proxy fighting in the north, and, in an act that may
be justified, but may also be self-defeating, it has cut off
the flow of oil.
For all these struggles, we cannot devalue the progress
that we have seen. Peacefully creating a new state was an
accomplishment of historic magnitude. Furthermore, in Abyei,
Ethiopian peacekeepers have helped to bring a critical measure
of stability, although it has to be said that it came after an
enormous amount of movement of people and the killing of
people, and really the cleaning out of the whole population in
that area. The New York Times recently titled an article,
``Hope for Darfur,'' and, I would ask you, when was the last
time you saw ``hope'' and ``Darfur'' in the same sentence?
Cautious optimism may be appropriate given recent
developments. Some Darfuris who were displaced are returning
home, and the Sudanese Government and the Liberation and
Justice Movement signed a peace agreement last year. So, I look
forward to hearing today whether these steps, if actually
implemented and supported, could, in fact, become the
foundation for a more lasting resolution in Darfur.
At a time when there are those who want to slash the
international affairs budget, I want to point to Sudan and
South Sudan as examples of the power of diplomatic engagement.
The CPA was signed because of diplomatic engagement. The birth
of a new nation took place because of careful, sustained
diplomatic engagement. We can and must continue to put our
shoulder to this wheel, even as we acknowledge that the fate of
these two countries lies with their people and their leaders.
Sudan must escape its fatal cycle of conflict, not as some
next chapter in the Arab Awakening, but because it is the only
way to forge a viable political and economic future for its
people. The bombing and humanitarian blockade in Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile has to stop.
South Sudan in turn has the opportunity to avoid the
corruption that has too often plagued oil rich countries, and
it has the opportunity to create an inclusive government that
embraces ethnic diversity.
Last December, I had the privilege of standing with
President Kiir at the engagement conference with South Sudan
here in Washington. At that conference, he spoke eloquently
about the long road to freedom. I know that journey came at
tremendous sacrifice in blood, sweat, and tears, but the long
road to freedom was never intended to be at trek to perpetual
conflict and poverty and violence. It was always a journey to
hope and prosperity. That journey continues. Two fragile states
emerged on July 9, and we are all here today because it is in
the vested interest of the international community that those
two countries become partners in political and economic
stability, not volatile adversaries in an already troubled
region.
We are also cognizant that this region is the region that
extends south to the territory of the Lord's Resistance Army,
and extends to Eritrea, into Somalia, to al-Shabaab, and to
many other dangerous players, all of which could create
conflagration that could even eclipse the longest war, which
was the war in Sudan that saw the loss of over 2 million
people.
So, we are privileged this morning to be joined once again
by the President's Special Envoy to Sudan, Ambassador Princeton
Lyman. We know that you are just back from Ethiopia, Mr.
Ambassador, and, believe me, for all the members of this
committee and for all of us, we want to thank you for your
tireless service and for your efforts to try to move this
process forward.
We also welcome Assistant Administrator Nancy Lindborg from
USAID. And we are particularly grateful for their efforts and
their partnership in what we are trying to achieve.
And I also want to welcome our first U.S. Ambassador to
South Sudan, Susan Page, who is in the audience today.
On our second panel, George Clooney and John Prendergast
will join us, and I want to thank them, both of them. I was
there with them last year. I saw firsthand the focus and
attention that their efforts and their project has brought to
this issue. They represent the Satellite Sentinel Project,
which has given us a window into events in Southern Kordofan
and Blue Nile and elsewhere. And they are literally today just
back; they arrived yesterday from Sudan and will share with us
their observations. I am pleased that they have been able to
get here, and I know they are going to be talking with
Secretary Clinton and President Obama tomorrow and others this
week.
And joining them on that panel is Jon Temin, who is a Sudan
scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
So, I think today we will have a good opportunity to really
get some insights, and we welcome it.
Finally, let me just on a note of sadness. I think as many
of you know, Congressman Don Payne passed away last week. He
was a constant champion for all of Africa, a tireless advocate
for the people of Sudan and South Sudan. His funeral service is
taking place today, and this morning our committee remembers
him for his dedication to the cause of peace.
Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
welcoming our distinguished witnesses. We look forward once
again to their testimony, and we have appreciated their good
counsel. And I join you once again in a tribute to Don Payne,
who has worked with us in this committee and in the House, and
has been such a champion for Africa.
The Foreign Relations Committee has become very well
informed about Sudan, and now South Sudan, over the past
decade. This is, unfortunately, due to the inordinate amount of
human suffering that has occurred there, including genocide,
other crimes against humanity, deadly tribal conflicts and now
border clashes.
The extreme violence and depravation that characterize much
of the conflict in the central African region, including Sudan,
has recently been brought home to millions in this country
through the viral YouTube video that depicts the cruelty
inflicted by Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army.
The impact of the bloody fighting between Sudan and South
Sudan has been brought home in another way. When the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in 2005, finally
achieved the separation of South Sudan from the north last
July, it was hoped that the petroleum wealth they shared--oil
from the south is exported through pipelines in the north--
would be deemed too precious for either side to forgo. Instead,
however, oil exports have stopped, putting upward pressure on
oil prices globally. Even though the United States imported no
oil from Sudan, oil is traded on a world market, so in today's
tight oil market, any major loss of supply affects all prices,
from the crude that Americans import to the gasoline that they
put in their cars.
This is why I have stressed the importance of U.S. and
international efforts to improve transparency and governance in
oil-rich countries. Stability in oil-producing regions leads to
stability in gas prices here, and I appreciated very much the
leadership of Senator Cardin in that effort.
Events in faraway lands can directly affect the U.S.
economic and security situation. Besides influencing the cost
of the fuel that heats our homes and powers our vehicles,
conflicts in places like Sudan, Somalia or the Arabian Gulf can
place strains on our humanitarian resources and require us to
maintain civilian and military capacity to respond to crises
that affect our national security interests.
The administration should redouble its diplomatic efforts
with the international community, including the African Union
and the Arab League, to help bring about a stable and
productive South Sudan and a more responsible and responsive
Republic of Sudan. Developments in the past 8 months have only
made those challenges greater. The most egregious violence and
violations of international law again emanates from Khartoum,
Sudan, as the al-Bashir government engages in its familiar
pattern of crimes against humanity, including starvation as a
method of war.
I expect our witnesses today will describe the humanitarian
and human rights atrocities that have occurred since the two
countries separated in July. I am particularly interested in
learning about the displacement of more than 120,000 people
from the Nuba Mountains of Southern Kordofan and from Blue Nile
State, along the new border between the two Sudans. I am also
concerned about the genesis of dozens of violent conflicts that
have erupted within the borders of the new South Sudan.
This is a country where people fought for years to be free
of subjugation by Khartoum. We had hoped that independence
would lead them to set aside their tribal differences and work
together to build a new nation.
The United States has played an important but carefully
defined role, which it must continue, in seeking resolution of
the conflicts that plague the region, from Senator Danforth's
efforts at concluding the CPA to Secretary Powell's efforts to
stop the genocide in Darfur, to Secretary Clinton's recent
direct engagement at the U.N. on a peacekeeper agreement.
Famine looms in the Kordofan and Blue Nile areas of Sudan,
thanks primarily to the actions of the Government in Khartoum.
This follows closely another manmade hunger crisis in Somalia
that also threatened hundreds of thousands of families.
The United States should work to galvanize an international
response, in conjunction with the Arab League and the African
Union, to preclude further catastrophe. In particular this
means leveraging our diplomacy to press China, Sudan's major
oil customer, to live up to its responsibilities as an
important world power and use its influence to help bring about
a reconciliation of the parties.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Mr. Ambassador, we will lead off with you, and then,
Administrator, we ask you to follow, obviously.
I do need to announce, unfortunately we just got word that
there may be as many as three votes in the Senate at about
11:30, so with that mind, I am probably going to ask for about
a 5-minute round here. We may have to have a small hiatus and
recess and then come back, which if it happens it happens, but
we will try to proceed as expeditiously as we can.
Mr. Ambassador, thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PRINCETON LYMAN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SUDAN,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Lyman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for all your leadership on the Sudan issues. Senator Lugar,
a great pleasure to see you as a great champion in these areas.
And to all the members of the committee, thank you very much
for the opportunity. I do ask that the full written testimony
be made part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection it will be.
Ambassador Lyman. And I will join you in noting with
sadness the passing of Don Payne. I think all of us who work on
Africa have looked to him for decades for counsel, for advice,
for his leadership. We will miss him very, very much.
I want to talk about several aspects of the situation in
Sudan and South Sudan, which you and Senator Lugar have
mentioned. The relationship between the two has been
deteriorating. And in particularly, the continuing violence in
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile is adding to the tension
between the two countries to border conflicts, and to a
breakdown in the spirit of negotiations that is necessary to
deal with oil borders Abyei, and almost anywhere else.
And both countries are struggling with internal challenges,
to which you referred, Senator Lugar, and which my colleague,
Nancy Lindborg, will talk in more detail.
Turning to the particular crisis in Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile, since last June, this conflict has taken place, and
it has created an enormous humanitarian emergency as well as a
serious political problem for Sudan and for the relations
between the two.
You will hear more about the details of the humanitarian
crisis from the second panel. Mr. Clooney and Mr. Prendergast,
just back from that area, and Nancy will have more details. Let
me talk about what we have been doing in the efforts to control
this situation.
From the beginning we have said to both the Government and
to SPLM North, which are fighting in this area, that there is
no military solution to this problem. It derives from political
issues that were not resolved in the final stages of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It will not be settled
militarily. And the two sides must eventually return to the
negotiating table.
But our immediate concern is with the humanitarian crisis.
Nancy will talk to the details of how many people have been
displaced and how serious the crisis is. But since last
October, we have been saying to the Government in Khartoum that
this crisis is coming, that you could see that by the nature of
the war, the bombing of civilian areas, and all the things that
have been taking place there, the failure of people to be able
to plant, et cetera, that a major humanitarian crisis was going
to occur in this area. And we said that the Government of Sudan
must allow international humanitarian access, and that the
world cannot stand by, and certainly the United States could
not stand by, and watch such a crisis unfold if the Government
did not take action.
Now, we had recently, and this refers to something that
Senator Lugar mentioned, a proposal to the Government from the
United Nations, the League of Arab States, and the Africa
Union, to carry out an international humanitarian program. I
can say, members of the committee, that since last October, we
have contacted virtually every country in the world who would
have any influence on Khartoum to bring pressure to the
Government of Sudan to allow such a program. And we were
delighted when the League of Arab States in particular, along
with the Africa Union and the U.N., joined in this.
We have a unanimous resolution of the United Nations
Security Council--China, Russia, all the rest--calling for
immediate humanitarian access. We have not received a reply yet
from the Government. We have some hopeful signs about their
reaction to that proposal. But we have not yet received
approval.
Now, should they approve it, action must be taken very
quickly. We have a very narrow window before the rains come and
make all the roads impassable. So, if humanitarian assistance
is going to come to those areas, it has to come soon. And if an
internationally carried out program is not underway, we have
ways for the United States to provide indirect support to the
Sudanese to reach the most vulnerable people, but it is not the
most efficient way. The most efficient way is for the
international access that has been proposed to the Government.
Now, I would like to turn to some recent events, gentlemen,
that have occurred since we submitted the written testimony. In
that written testimony, I described the relationship that had
been deteriorating between Sudan and South Sudan. And the
conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile was contributing to
that. The shutdown of the oil that has been referred to because
the two sides could not agree on the financial arrangements in
the sector, and the Government of Sudan in Khartoum had begun
diverting South Sudan oil. And frankly, my assessment in my
written testimony was rather dour.
But yesterday we received word from Addis where I just
returned from the negotiations, that the two countries decided
to step back from the brink. They looked at each other and
said, we are going in the wrong direction. The papers we have
put on the table are not going to help the situation. We have
to step back. We have to go back to that concept that we all
claimed we were committed to, of two viable states taking care
of our mutual security and economic needs. And they have set a
new path forward.
It will include another summit meeting with President
Bashir coming to Juba. It would set a new tone for the
negotiations. It would set out a timetable for dealing with the
issues of oil, Abyei, and the others.
Now, we have seen these recommitments before, so while we
take a great deal of hope from them, a lot will depend on what
happens over the next several weeks. I want to salute the
African Union High Level Panel, led by President Mbeki and
President Buyoya, who, with steadfast determination, inspired
the two take a different approach to the way they were going.
And in particular, I want to congratulate the parties for
stepping back from the brink of what was a deteriorating and
dangerous situation, and begin to look again at how each of
them has been destabilized while trying to destabilize the
other, and each of them are hurt in the process.
Senator, I would like to also turn briefly to the situation
in South Sudan. Time does not permit me to go into great
detail, but as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of
challenges in South Sudan. While they have made a lot of
progress in setting up the Government and doing a number of
things, it is an extraordinarily poor country with very poor
infrastructure. There are deep fissures within the society as
revealed in the crisis in Jonglei, which Nancy will talk about
further. And the loss of oil revenue only aggravates this
problem by depriving the Government of badly needed resources.
So, we have to look very, very carefully and work very
closely with South Sudan and with Sudan to resolve the oil
crisis and to help the Government deal with those problems.
Now, in Darfur in Sudan, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
there is a little bit of progress, but a long way to go. As
long as there are 1.7 million people still in camps and another
280,000 in refugee camps across the border, we cannot say that
we have really come far from the situation of a few years ago.
Wholesale violence is down, but there is still a great deal of
insecurity.
The Government signed a peace agreement with just one of
the rebel movements, and we recognize the limitations of that
agreement. On the other hand, it contains a lot of the elements
that led to the conflict in the first place, and we will see if
the Government and its partner will actually implement some of
these programs.
We have talked to the movements that did not sign the
agreement, and several of the armed movements have refused to
do so. But they, too, say if any benefits from these
agreements--this agreement for their people, they will be happy
to see it. But their focus is right now elsewhere.
Just another comment about the situation in Sudan itself.
In Sudan, they are also facing an economic crisis. A loss of
oil revenue has taken away 70 percent of their revenue. Food
prices are rising. Foreign exchange is very short. And they are
fighting on three fronts: Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and
still somewhat in Darfur. As we have said previously on many
occasions, the fundamental challenge in Sudan is the governance
of the country. There is still a system where the center
dominates the periphery, where there is a depravation of human
rights, where wars are fought with terrible violations of
people's rights and protection. And until that changes, until
there is a new political situation in Sudan that is inclusive,
that is democratic, that brings all the people of that country
together, they will not come out of the problems they have, and
they will not resolve their differences, not only with the
United States, but with many other countries of the world.
That is the task that all the people in Sudan have to turn
to, and that is true of the people who are fighting, the Sudan
Revolutionary Front, which has taken up arms against the
Government. They, too, have to project an image of what Sudan
would look like. What do they want? How do they see an
inclusive Sudan so that people can come together with a new
political system? Until that happens, Sudan will be in
difficulty, and we urge them to rise to this challenge as well.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer questions on these and
other matters, but I hope this gives you a general picture of
where we have been working. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lyman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Special Envoy Princeton Lyman
introduction
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you
today.
First, I want to note with sadness the passing of our good friend
and committed friend of Africa, Congressman Don Payne. He demonstrated
enormous dedication to the issues relating to Africa. Over the last two
decades, he worked tirelessly as an advocate for human rights, as a
strong, unwavering voice for all Sudanese people and as a partner for
peace and justice. I had the privilege of welcoming him to South Africa
in the final days of the transition to democracy. I also had the
pleasure of accompanying him to the July 9 South Sudan independence
celebrations in Juba. Over the years, I drew on his wisdom and guidance
on every Africa issue. His many contributions and dynamic spirit will
be greatly missed.
Today I am here to talk about the deteriorating situation between
Sudan and South Sudan, which continues to be of utmost concern to the
administration. We are deeply troubled by the continuing violence and
worsening humanitarian situation in the Nuba Mountains. In addition to
its devastating humanitarian consequences, the ongoing conflict in
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan has fueled the mistrust
which is poisoning the negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan over
oil, security, residency rights, borders, and the disputed region of
Abyei. Adding to these cross-border challenges, both Sudan and South
Sudan continue to struggle with internal challenges to their viability
and stability as independent states. We also remain concerned about
ongoing violence, insecurity, and human rights violations in Darfur,
though I will detail some areas in which we have seen promise there.
the two areas
Mr. Chairman, since last June we have seen continued conflict and
an emerging humanitarian emergency in the Sudanese states of Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile, known together as the ``Two Areas.'' Fighting
has continued in this region between the Sudan People's Liberation
Army-North (SPLA-N) and the Government of Sudan's (GOS) Armed Forces.
This fighting has led to enormous suffering, displacement, and death.
The U.N. estimates that more than half a million people have been
displaced or severely affected by the ongoing conflict. The Sudan Armed
Forces also continues to engage in aerial bombings, often targeting
disputed border areas where civilians are located, and sometimes
spilling across the border into South Sudan. The administration has
strongly condemned these unjustified and unacceptable attacks.
Violations of international law create a human rights dimension to the
ongoing crisis in these areas. Such acts must be investigated and those
responsible must be held accountable. We continue to demand that the
Government of Sudan immediately end aerial bombardments of civilian
areas and immediately allow unrestricted humanitarian access to
civilians in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. All parties must
be held accountable for the human rights violations, war crimes, or
crimes against humanity they commit in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.
We will continue to push for an independent investigation of violations
of human rights that will contribute to efforts to bring those
responsible to account.
In conjunction with our demand to Sudan to halt aerial bombardments
of civilian areas, we have urged both governments to refrain from
providing direct or indirect support to armed groups in the other's
territory. The United States has repeatedly stressed to the Government
of South Sudan the need to end all support--military, economic, and
logistical--to armed groups aiming to overthrow the Government of Sudan
by force. Support to armed groups beyond the territorial boundaries of
each country further fuels the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue
Nile and destabilizes both nations.
The United States continues to call for the immediate resumption of
political talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N). We are working with our
international partners to increase pressure on both parties to return
to the table without delay. We believe a political solution is the only
path forward, to an end to human suffering, restoring peace and
security to the Two Areas, and addressing the needs of the people of
Sudan.
We remain especially concerned by the worsening crisis in Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile. As a result of the displacement of inhabitants,
disruption of planting and harvests, and loss of livelihoods,
humanitarian conditions and food insecurity have reached emergency
levels. The Government of Sudan has prevented international
humanitarian organizations from gaining access to provide relief to
vulnerable civilian populations in the Two Areas. According to USAID
food security partners, in Southern Kordofan, approximately 200,000-
250,000 people will face emergency levels of food insecurity beginning
in April, and in Blue Nile, approximately 125,000 people will face
emergency levels of food insecurity beginning in August. More than
130,000 people have made the difficult walk to cross borders into South
Sudan and Ethiopia in search of assistance. We are providing life-
saving medical care, food, health care, shelter and other emergency
assistance for these refugees, and we will continue to support them as
long as is needed. But for those 200,000-250,000 on the verge of
emergency conditions in Southern Kordofan, more must be done.
Since October of last year, we have relentlessly pursued
unrestricted humanitarian access to the Two Areas with the Government
of Sudan. I have told the Government of Sudan on numerous occasions
that we, as the U.S. Government, cannot stand by and watch a crisis
unfold. We have engaged AU Chairman Jean Ping, AUHIP Chairman Thabo
Mbeki, U.N. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan Haile Menkerios,
and U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos
who have all reached out directly to the Government of Sudan on this
crisis. We have demarched a number of countries and organizations with
influence in Khartoum asking them to raise this with the Government. We
have worked tirelessly to highlight the issue in the U.N. Security
Council and at high-profile events to impress a sense of urgency on the
Government of Sudan. We have also worked to raise awareness of the
crisis through briefing of the advocacy community and Members of
Congress. We will continue to press the Government of Sudan at the
highest possible levels to allow the needed aid to reach affected
peoples.
The U.N. Security Council released a press statement in February on
the crisis in the two areas which called for immediate and unhindered
access for humanitarian assistance. The Council reiterated this call
through a Presidential statement on growing violence along the Sudan-
South Sudan border issued just last week. It is important to applaud
the efforts of the members of the Security Council in issuing these
unanimous, consensus statements. I want to especially recognize and
thank our Permanent Representative Ambassador Susan Rice for
maintaining focus on this vital issue. Our intent is to build on the
international consensus around this crisis, working with international
partners to ensure that humanitarian access is granted, and perhaps
opening the door for peace talks to begin.
We remain hopeful that our diplomatic efforts and pressures on
Khartoum will soon yield progress. The U.N., Africa Union, and the
League of Arab States have made a joint proposal to the Government of
Sudan for a major humanitarian program in these areas. We very much
hope this proposal will be approved for it offers the most effective
means to reach the maximum amount of affected people. While there have
been some positive signals from the Government in Khartoum about this
proposal we have not yet heard that it has been approved.
Should Khartoum agree to allow access to international humanitarian
organizations across the lines of fighting, there must be swift
progress on implementation. If necessary, we will examine ways to
provide indirect support to Sudanese humanitarian actors to reach the
most vulnerable. We have monitoring and accountability tools to make
sure that civilians would be the beneficiaries of these activities.
Nevertheless, an international program, as proposed by the U.N. and its
partners, is the best means to reach the most people and we continue to
urge the Government to approve it.
Relations Between Sudan and South Sudan
Beyond the humanitarian crisis in the Two Areas, this ongoing
conflict has poisoned the negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan
translating into a lack of agreement on key unresolved issues remaining
from the 6-year Comprehensive Peace Agreement interim period. These
include oil, security, borders, citizenship and residency, and the
disputed region of Abyei. The African Union High-Level Implementation
Panel, under the leadership of former South African President Thabo
Mbeki, continues to facilitate dialogue between the parties on these
and other unresolved issues. We strongly support the AUHIP process and
have called upon both Sudan and South Sudan to redouble their efforts
and continue negotiations in good faith under the auspices of the
AUHIP. But the tensions between the two and the continued violence
along the border cast a pall over the process.
We are increasingly concerned that while both Sudan and South Sudan
publicly pledge a desire to avoid a return to full-scale war, they
could well stumble in to it. The growing tension along the undemarcated
border--reflected in accusations of cross-border attacks, aerial
bombings and proxy military support to rebel groups--between Sudan and
South Sudan, has the possibility of spreading into a wider war between
them and endangering peace in the entire region. Both sides consider
these border areas critical to their security. This is just one more
reason that resolution of the Two Areas crisis is urgent. Fortunately,
the Joint Political and Security Mechanism, a negotiating forum, agreed
upon by the parties last year continues to provide a vital and useful
venue to the parties to discuss security and related issues at a
bilateral level and thus communicate on how to limit provocations.
However, this mechanism is still maturing and has not realized its full
potential.
Economy/Governance
Since July 9, South Sudan has faced the enormous task of building
the foundations and capacity of its government and economy, finding
ways to provide necessary services and security to its citizenry, and
at the same time working to resolve outstanding issues with Sudan. The
Government of South Sudan has worked with the international donor
community to develop a strategic plan to meet the needs of its people
that was publicly unveiled during the December 14-15 South Sudan
International Engagement Conference here in Washington, DC, at which
you, Senator Kerry, spoke. I thank you for your continued support.
As the world's youngest country, South Sudan must find ways to make
economic progress while working to create strong governmental
institutions. We continue to encourage South Sudan to demonstrate its
commitments to democracy, good governance, and respect for human
rights, and we will continue to provide support and assistance for
these endeavors. We are happy to see legislative progress in a number
of areas, where the South has passed its investment laws, and granted
prosecutorial authorities to its anticorruption commission, to improve
both transparency and accountability. However, we are increasingly
concerned about repeated allegations of human rights abuses perpetrated
by the security services and the increasing reports of abuses by the
police. The police are a critical institution for establishing public
trust in the Government. They must not just respect human rights, but
also promote them. We will also need to continue our efforts to aid in
the professionalization of the South Sudanese security services which
will be key to establishing public trust in the Government.
South Sudan is one of the least developed nations in the world.
South Sudan must continue to build strong governmental institutions
while also promoting equitable economic growth and prosperity. Prior to
the December Engagement Conference, the United States modified our
licensing policy with respect to goods, technology, and services that
transship through Sudan to and from South Sudan to allow greater
investment. This step was designed to encourage additional
participation by U.S. persons not only in South Sudan's oil sector, but
in other South Sudanese sectors as well. We also committed to encourage
investment in South Sudan, promote trade, and coordinate assistance.
However, South Sudan faces a new economic reality due to the self-
imposed oil shutdown. The international community had built its
assistance programs on the assumption that the South Sudan Government
will be a partner in the development of South Sudan, with resources,
goals, and objectives that we support. The Government has proposed
austerity measures to address the budgetary shortfall; even with this
realignment, the proposed measures do not appear to be enough. In this
new reality, the Government must re-assess its priorities and recognize
the ramifications on their ability to achieve these goals. Likewise,
the United States, and the international donor community are
identifying how the funding gap created by the oil shutdown will affect
our own programming posture. We cannot--nor should we be expected to--
cover the deep funding gap caused by South Sudan's decision to halt oil
flows. In this atmosphere it is particularly alarming that OCHA
predicts that 4.7 million people in South Sudan, more than half the
population, will be in need of food assistance this year. This looming
food crisis will demand more attention to emergency measures and there
are simply not enough resources to accomplish everything.
South Sudan has to develop a clear short- and long-term strategy
for addressing this economic situation. It must have a negotiating
strategy that aims at agreement with Sudan in the near future, even if
it continues to look at alternate routes for oil exporting over the
longer term. It must be candid about its austerity plans, both with its
public and with donors. We have been clear with the Government of Sudan
that there must be no misplaced calculations about the potential for
donors to make up the shortfall from lost oil revenue. We have
similarly warned against unwise borrowing against future oil production
in ways that will cripple its ability to meet its obligations to the
South Sudanese people in the future.
The Oil Problem
Both countries are suffering from the lack of agreement and
dramatic negotiating tactics in the oil sector. An estimated 75 percent
of the oil produced prior to July 9 was located in South Sudan, and the
only pipeline to transport the oil to world markets transverse through
Sudan for export. Late last year, Sudan began diverting oil from South
Sudan to its own refinery and storage areas and blocking tankers from
loading South Sudan oil as a means of collecting the fees it claimed
were due. South Sudan President Salva Kiir accused Sudan of illegally
seizing 815 million dollars' worth of South Sudan's crude oil. In
response, South Sudan halted all of its oil production in early
February and cut off the flow of petroleum through the pipeline to Port
Sudan.
While the shutdown by South Sudan was in response to justified
concerns over Sudan's diversion of its oil, this action has serious,
and potentially dire, consequences for a country that depends on oil
for 98 percent of all revenues. The shutdown is already beginning to
impact both economies through food price inflation and pressures on
exchange rates, which will soon be seriously detrimental to both
populations.
For its part, South Sudan has announced an ``austerity budget''
with a 30-percent cut in expenditures, but it does not appear to have
feasible alternatives for funding the fiscal gap. This problem is
accentuated by the Government's decision that salaries for the army and
police will not be affected, items that account for as much as half the
regular budget. We are concerned that the loss of revenue will have
significant negative impacts in terms of the overall stability in the
South, not to mention serious impacts on the long-term development of
this new country. South Sudan, as I will detail below, will face a
number of pressing challenges particularly with security and conflict
that will require the full resources of the state. While South Sudan
has announced its intention to build a new pipeline to ports in Kenya
and potentially through Ethiopia to Djibouti, we believe that an
alternate pipeline does not provide a near-term solution to South
Sudan's budgetary shortfall.
In Sudan, food and fuel prices are rising and a foreign exchange
scarcity has also forced budget cuts. It is our assessment that neither
state can afford a long-term disruption of income from the oil sector.
Negotiations on the oil issue resumed in Addis this past week.
South Sudan has affirmed that it will provide substantial payment to
Sudan to ease the shock of Sudan's loss of oil revenue, and as part of
a package of matters relating to enhancing the mutual viability of both
states. But the two sides remain far apart on the amount of such
payment, on commercial aspects of an oil agreement, as well as ways to
account for the losses from the acts of last year. While we do not
expect a final resolution of the issue in this round, we hope there
will be enough progress that would give hope that the issue will be
resolved soon.
Citizenship
In early April, the agreed upon ``transitional period'' for South
Sudanese living in Sudan, and Sudanese living in South Sudan, to either
leave or regularize their status and obtain documentation to remain
legal residents of the other state, will end. We have urged the
Government of Sudan to extend this deadline given the imperative to
avoid a situation in which some persons will be stateless or living
without legal documents. Khartoum has not agreed to extend the deadline
and has sent mixed messages about the safety and continued hospitality
toward this group of southerners. On a practical level, the Government
of the Republic of South Sudan must urgently begin issuing nationality
documentation to its citizens living in Sudan, but to date it has not
established for adequate process for doing so in Khartoum or anywhere
else in Sudan. In Addis, negotiations to address this situation have
bogged down.
Abyei
In the disputed region of Abyei, the United Nations Interim
Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) is now fully operational with over
3,800 peacekeepers deployed throughout the area. I want to commend
Ethiopia for supplying these troops and for creating the security
conditions on the ground that have created the conditions to facilitate
negotiations on Abyei's final status. For the first time in 3 years the
nomadic Misseriya population has been able to migrate into Abyei with
some 2 million head of cattle without confrontation or violence. The
Ethiopian Force Commander was particularly skillful in working directly
with the communities to make this happen. The Abyei Joint Oversight
Committee (AJOC) is one of the most valuable agreements to come out of
the AUHIP negotiations, with strong assistance from Secretary of State
Clinton. AJOC provides for joint administration of Abyei by both Sudan
and South Sudan until its final status is resolved.
Nevertheless, neither side has fully lived up to the commitment to
withdraw all armed forces from Abyei. The continued presence of such
forces--elements of the Sudanese Armed Forces, and South Sudan Police
Services--threatens the peace and is inhibiting the return of the
displaced Ngok Dinka. Disagreement over one appointed position has held
up establishment of the Abyei Area Administration. Further, I urge both
Parties to fully implement the AJOC decision of December 2011 and
January 2012 to allow joint humanitarian access from both Sudan and
South Sudan in order to create the conditions necessary for the
voluntary return of displaced persons as well as provide for migrating
Misseriya through Abyei.
The AUHIP's engagement on all these issues has made dialogue
between the parties possible. However, given the dire conditions on the
ground--including the oil shutdown and the ongoing violence in the Two
Areas--the negotiations have not made significant progress in recent
months. We will continue to reach out to other international
stakeholders to support the AUHIP's ongoing efforts. Key partners, such
as China, Arab States, regional leaders, the EU, and our Troika
partners (U.K. and Norway), play a positive role already in engaging
with both states to help peacefully resolve outstanding issues. But a
more proactive effort is likely to be needed over the next few months.
Ethnic Violence
The economic challenge is all the more serious when one looks at
the internal problems of stability in South Sudan and the need for even
more attention to local development needs. Deep and longstanding ethnic
rivalries and patterns of mutual violence are posing major challenges
to the country. The most recent outbreaks of violence and reprisals
came to a head in Jonglei State late last year, when conflict between
the Lou Nuer and Murle tribes resulted in many deaths and injuries, the
displacement of over 50,000 people, and new humanitarian aid needs for
approximately 140,000. There are reports of further reprisal attacks
being planned and Lou Nuer refugees are showing up in Ethiopia. To
break the cycle of violence, it is imperative that the Government of
South Sudan take immediate actions to mitigate the violence, while also
finding ways to address the systemic causes of violence. This includes
conducting credible investigations so that perpetrators of the
violence, and other human rights abuses, can be held accountable,
providing alternative means to resolve conflicts, securing development
opportunities, and promoting a strong sense of South Sudanese national
identity. We encourage the Government of South Sudan to seek necessary
assistance from the international community in undertaking these
efforts.
The United States Government supports the U.N. Mission in South
Sudan's (UNMISS) efforts to address this violence. UNMISS is working
with South Sudan on the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive
peace and stability plan in Jonglei, as well as in other states
suffering from intercommunal and interethnic violence such as Unity,
Lakes, and Warrap. The international community has been focused on this
issue, and the United States believes it is critical that the
Government of South Sudan continues to avoid premature, forced
disarmament campaigns. Disarmament campaigns should be conducted in a
voluntary and simultaneous manner, as part of a broader peace and
reconciliation plan and in conjunction with the stabilization of
conflict regions, in order to avoid further conflict or severe human
rights abuses. All of these efforts will take time, high-level
attention, and resources from the Government of South Sudan.
sudan
In Sudan, there are many obstacles to improvement in relations
between our two countries from improving. There has been little change
in center-periphery power dynamics that have plagued Sudan throughout
its history. The development of the Sudanese Revolutionary Front, an
alliance of rebel movements throughout Sudan, is the latest symptom of
this dichotomy. We believe that the conflicts both in the Two Areas and
in Darfur cannot be solved militarily. Military action will only lead
to stalemate and prolonged suffering by the people of Sudan. We urge
these parties to refrain from conflict and state their political
demands clearly. The United States continues to support the aspirations
of all Sudanese. As part of the transition after the independence of
South Sudan, Sudan has committed to drafting a new constitution. We
urge the Government of Sudan to conduct an inclusive, broad-based
constitutional review process. Constitutional and other reforms should
ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including women's rights and freedom of religion.
We recognize that the Government of Sudan is responsible for
serious human rights violations, and enormous suffering for its own
people, and its actions against innocent civilians are unacceptable.
However, violent regime change is not the answer. With the
international community, we continue to press the Government of Sudan
to halt the use of force against its own people and the abuse of basic
human rights and to state our strong belief that accountability is an
essential component for achieving a durable peace for all of the people
of Sudan. We think that change in Sudan comes from within, by peaceful
and democratic means.
We are also working hard with the AUHIP to encourage resolution of
key issues between Sudan and South Sudan. We believe that only by
having two viable states can there be peace between and within the two
countries. This objective guides our approach to the oil, borders,
trade, and other issues under negotiation.
darfur
Mr. Chairman, allow me also to spend some time updating you on the
political, security, and humanitarian situation in the troubled region
of Darfur. As long as some 1.7 million people remain in camps in Sudan,
and over 280,000 refugees in neighboring countries, Darfur cannot be
seen as having recovered in any major sense from the destructive war of
the earlier period. While overall levels of violence are down, there
remains serious insecurity, human rights violations, inadequate social
services, and an uncertain political dispensation for the region.
The signing of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur in July 2011
between the Government of Sudan and the Liberation and Justice Movement
(LJM), one of Darfur's rebel groups, provides an opportunity to take
some much-needed steps forward in Darfur. We recognize fully the limits
of this agreement. Several of the major rebel groups have refused to
sign on to it, and the promises in it remain to be fulfilled.
Nevertheless, because the elements in the DDPD cover many of the basic
issues that had driven the conflict in Darfur, it is an opportunity to
make some significant progress if it is faithfully implemented. Since
the signing of this comprehensive agreement, we have called on the GOS
and LJM to implement the provisions faithfully and expeditiously. In
that regard, there has been some political progress, notably with the
establishment of the Darfur Regional Authority, the National Human
Rights Commission, the Special Court for Darfur, as well as the
nomination of a new Special Prosecutor. Other key bodies, such as the
Compensation Fund and the Land Commission, have yet to be fully
constituted or operationalized. More important than the establishment
of these institutions is whether they actually will be able to function
effectively to bring security, justice, basic services and economic
development to the people of Darfur. The Darfuri populace, particularly
the IDPs, will judge the agreement on these merits. The next year will
be a critical period to see whether this agreement can gather real
momentum and whether the Government of Sudan is seriously committed to
its implementation. We have been working closely with our international
partners and the U.N./AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) to press the
Sudanese Government and the LJM to follow through on their commitments
found within this detailed peace agreement.
While the implementation of the Doha agreement is gradually moving
forward, insecurity and conflict persist in Darfur, due mostly to
lawlessness and banditry but also to continuing clashes between
Sudanese Government forces and militias, and those rebel movements
which have not signed the Doha Document. Sudanese Armed Forces bombings
in civilian areas also continue. We have been particularly concerned by
recent fighting South of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, which
has led to ongoing displacement of civilians and to allegations of a
deliberate policy to target the Zaghawa population in that area.
Unfortunately, the Government of Sudan continues to rely on the Central
Reserve Police, or CRP, a paramilitary unit made up of former Janjaweed
members, for security in parts of Darfur, including in areas close to
IDP camps. UNAMID and local populations routinely reports on human
rights abuses committed by the CRP--a.k.a. Abu Tira. We urge the
Government of Sudan to rein in these forces by investigating their
abuses and prosecuting those responsible.
While the Doha Document is a step forward toward peace, only one
Darfuri rebel group has signed. Unfortunately, at this stage, an
inclusive peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and all of
Darfur's main rebel groups remains elusive. Since November 2011, the
political leadership of Darfur's rebel movements has made common cause
with the SPLA-North by forming the Sudan Revolutionary Front, an
alliance with the overt goal of overthrowing the Sudanese Government
through military action and a popular uprising. In December 2011, the
Sudanese Armed Forces targeted and killed Khalil Ibrahim, the Chairman
of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), one of Darfur's more
militarily significant rebel movements. This development contributed to
a hardening of the rhetoric on all sides. Darfur's rebel movements,
notably JEM, have increasingly participated in coordinated military
attacks with SPLA-North on Sudanese Armed Forces in Southern Kordofan.
In our dialogue with Darfur's rebel leaders, they appear
increasingly bent on regime change in Khartoum and reluctant to
negotiate with the Sudanese Government exclusively on Darfur. We have
urged them not to take military action in Darfur that would undermine
the Doha agreement; rebel groups JEM and SLA/Minni Minawi have agreed
and have said they would welcome any social and economic improvements
in the life of the Darfur people that the DDPD might accomplish. We
have also made clear to Darfur's rebel movements and to SPLM-North that
continued insistence on the armed overthrow of the Sudanese Government
will only lead to further conflict and possibly ethnic polarization. We
have urged the armed movements instead to articulate and emphasize
their political platform, and to be ready to engage in negotiations
with the Government of Sudan. Along with our international partners, we
continue to believe that Darfur's rebel groups which have not signed on
to the Doha agreement should articulate their demands on Darfur in
terms of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur.
Finally, we believe that a lasting peace requires justice and
accountability. We strongly support international efforts to bring to
justice those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity in Darfur. And we note that it is especially important for the
international community to show its support for accountability at a
time of mounting violence elsewhere in Sudan.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on the United Nations--
African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID). We see support for
UNAMID as an integral element of our policy to improve security for
Darfuri civilians, and UNAMID is doing an effective job in a
challenging environment. But we are concerned by a wave of fatal
attacks on UNAMID and restrictions imposed by the Government of Sudan,
and in some cases by rebel groups, on its operations. We are urging the
Sudanese Government to investigate these attacks and prosecute those
responsible, while also working with our international partners and
troop-contributing countries to improve UNAMID's overall performance
and ability to push back on these GOS imposed restrictions. UNAMID must
be given full access to the region in order for it to fulfill its
mandate. The Government of Sudan should see UNAMID as a partner in
facilitating the implementation of the DDPD. Fortunately, in some areas
of Darfur--particularly in West Darfur--the security situation has
improved considerably, to the extent that some refugees and internally
displaced persons have started to return to these areas. Two thousand
eleven marked the first year that there were more verified cases of
voluntary returns than new displacements.
As the situation develops, State and USAID are working together to
take advantage of these opportunities to meet the evolving needs of
Darfuris for sustainable livelihoods, where security and access permit,
and to reduce their long-term dependency on humanitarian assistance.
This approach illustrates the United States long-term commitment to
helping the people of Darfur overcome the destructive effects of 8
years of conflict.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, the challenges
ahead are great. We are gravely concerned that Sudan and South Sudan
are drifting away from the commitments of peace and collaboration that
each promised in the context of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The
immense challenges we face in both countries require hard decision and
difficult diplomacy. We are committed to two independent, viable states
at peace internally and with one another. We will continue to work with
both parties and our international partners toward that goal so that
the outstanding issues between these two states are resolved at the
negotiating table.
The Chairman. Indeed it does, Ambassador. Thank you very
much. Very helpful, and we look forward to following up with
questions.
Administrator Lindborg.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY LINDBORG, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
THE BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE,
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Lindborg. Thank you. Chairman Kerry, Senator Lugar,
members of the committee, thank you very much for having this
hearing today and letting us talk together about Sudan and
South Sudan.
I would echo your and Ambassador Lyman's sentiments on the
passing of our friend and colleague, Congressman Donald Payne,
and just note that Administrator Shah of USAID just launched
the Donald Payne Fellowship that will encourage members of
minority groups who are historically underrepresented in
development careers to join USAID. So, we are honored to help
foster his legacy through this fellowship.
As you noted, only 8 months ago we celebrated the peaceful
separation of South Sudan from Sudan in a moment of almost
euphoric hope. And despite the positive momentum of that
peaceful referendum, these two nations as we knew at the time
faced considerable challenges: a legacy of 50 years of
conflict, a set of unresolved issues from the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement, the stresses of severe underdevelopment in
South Sudan, which ranks as one of the poorest countries on
earth.
And while there has been progress, we are deeply concerned
that the reemerging conflicts in the region that are
undermining the peaceful pathway for both of these two nations,
and are creating grave new humanitarian crises.
We are very focused on the potential challenges and
solutions of the heightened crisis in each of the three areas:
Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Abyei; the intercommunal
violence in South Sudan; the challenges of shorting out
nationality and status after one country becomes two; and the
not yet resolved 8-year crisis in Darfur.
My written testimony has details on each of these
flashpoints, as well as some of the challenges resulting from
the oil revenue shortfall and austerity measures. But for
today, in the interest of time, let me just focus on two of
these critical issues, the Two Areas and the rising
intercommunal conflict in South Sudan. And I would be happy to
answer any other questions following.
In the Two Areas, heavy fighting between the Sudan Armed
Forces and the SPLM-North since last June has resulted in over
130,000 refugees that have moved into South Sudan and
neighboring Ethiopia. Inside South Kordofan, there are 300,000
displaced and severely affected, and another 60,000 inside Blue
Nile.
We have seen heavy aerial bombardment, long-range shelling
that has terrorized communities. It has cut off people's access
to food, health care, livelihoods, trade. The last planting
season was disrupted, and reports are indicating that the
coping mechanisms of these families and communities for
survival are being exhausted in certain parts of the region.
International humanitarian access has been largely blocked
since the beginning of this conflict, and the Government of
Sudan continues to prevent aid from reaching the many civilian
Sudanese who are desperately in need.
USAID's humanitarian partners are continuing their efforts
to provide assistance to those Government of Sudan-controlled
areas of South Kordofan, and reports are indicating some
progress there. However, for those who are in the areas
controlled by the SPLM-North, the outlook is worsening. Current
predictions are that up to 250,000 people in those areas now
face a serious emergency, which is one step short of famine, by
the end of April if the violence and the restrictions on
humanitarian access continues.
It is imperative to have immediate humanitarian access to
all the communities affected by the conflict in South Kordofan
to stave off an emergency situation for a quarter of a million
people in the coming months.
Similarly, Blue Nile is facing equally devastating impacts,
and as with South Kordofan, access will be very limited in May
once the rains begin.
As Ambassador Lyman said, we are very hopeful the
Government of Sudan will sign the tripartite agreement and
allow negotiated access as proposed by the U.N. and its
partners. If necessary, we will examine ways to provide
indirect support to Sudanese humanitarian actors to ensure the
most vulnerable receive assistance. Should the Government of
Sudan sign the agreement, we stand ready to immediately deliver
food and humanitarian assistance to those in need.
Let me briefly highlight the explosion of violence that
occurred recently in Jonglei state in South Sudan, along with
other intercommunal violence that has plagued the South,
because these incidents really underscore the fragility and
fledging nation of the new state, and the need for deeper
engagement for us to mitigate the instability and to continue
to promote accountability.
We were able to respond with emergency assistance in
Jonglei state with water, sanitation, food, and hygiene, and we
are standing ready to provide assistance to those needs across
the South. But resolving these issues and conflicts in the long
term will require sustained engagement with the Government of
South Sudan and from the Government of South Sudan. Without
their pledge to address security, corruption, and governance
issues, donor help will not be sufficient to achieve stability.
Coming so soon after the celebration from South Sudan, this
confluence of crises is very alarming to us. And there has been
progress. Just to note that with United States assistance and
the commitment of many of you on this committee, we have been
able to help transform the Government of South Sudan from a
concept to a government. And more than a million people now
have access to clean water. Children's enrollment in schools is
up from 20 percent to 68 percent. These are accomplishments to
celebrate. And the referendum on self-determination was itself
an extraordinary success.
And unfortunately, we are seeing how long it takes to
emerge from half a century of conflict, and with even a sturdy
peace agreement, the perniciousness that that will continue as
we look at what will be a long-term effort.
Thank you for the focus of this committee for your
continued attention. It is needed. This will be a long journey.
And we must stay engaged to enable success for these two new
nations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Lindborg
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, Members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to
speak before you today on the rising humanitarian crises in Sudan and
South Sudan.
Before I begin, I want to echo Ambassador Lyman's sentiments on the
passing of our friend and colleague, Representative Donald Payne.
Congressman Payne championed USAID's work around the world, while also
challenging us to always strive to do better. As a tribute to this
great leader, Administrator Shah has launched a fellowship, named in
Congressman Payne's honor, that will encourage members of minority
groups who have historically been underrepresented in development
careers to join USAID. There have been few greater friends of USAID,
and Congressman Payne's legacy of helping people around the world will
continue through this fellowship.
introduction
Only 8 months ago, we celebrated the peaceful separation of South
Sudan from Sudan as a sign of great hope for a people who have endured
war for the greater part of half a century. We also knew that despite
the peaceful referendum, these two nations faced considerable
challenges that would not be quickly surmounted, including severe
underdevelopment in South Sudan, ranking it at the bottom of most
development indices, and a series of unresolved disputes.
However, we are deeply concerned at the reemerging conflicts in the
region that are undermining hopes for a peaceful pathway for these two
new nations and that are creating grave new humanitarian crises.
Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, Abyei, Jonglei: each of these areas has
been plunged into uncertainty and suffering for a wide range of
preventable reasons and requires a wide range of assistance to meet the
needs of the people who live there. Unresolved conflict in Darfur has
made a permanent impact on the livelihoods of the region, and we still
see over 1\1/2\ million people displaced. In South Sudan, rising
intercommunal conflict, the steady and potentially increasing flow of
returns, and the Government of South Sudan's recent decision to cut off
oil production, effectively suspending the flow of 98 percent of state
revenues, have heightened our concern for the future stability and
long-term health of the world's newest nation.
the three areas
Amid the euphoric anticipation of independence for South Sudan,
fueled by an overwhelming and peaceful referendum vote for separation
in January 2011, we saw an alarming trend of troop buildups and an
interruption in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) along the contested border regions known as the Three Areas. The
downward trend ignited conflict just 1 month short of South Sudan's
independence, in effect halting the critical popular consultations to
resolve the political landscape of this region and triggering a fresh
round of humanitarian crises.
Southern Kordofan
In Southern Kordofan, a mountainous area in the southern part of
Sudan along the border with South Sudan, heavy fighting between the
Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudanese People's Liberation Movement-
North (SPLM-N) since June of last year has severely affected or
internally displaced an estimated 300,000 people. Heavy aerial
bombardment and long-range shelling have terrorized communities, ruined
the last cultivation season and harvest and, in addition to cutting off
livelihoods and trade, have cut off hundreds of thousands of people
from access to health care and basic services.
International humanitarian access has been largely blocked since
the beginning of the conflict, and the Government of Sudan continues to
prevent aid from reaching Sudanese civilians in need. Reports indicate
that in parts of South Kordofan, coping mechanisms are being rapidly
exhausted. USAID food security experts expect that 200,000-250,000
people in Southern Kordofan may face a food emergency \1\ by the end of
April if the violence and restrictions on humanitarian access continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Phase 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although lack of access has restricted our ability to do needs
assessments and gather precise data, we estimate that since the start
of the conflict approximately 300,000 people are internally displaced
or severely affected in Southern Kordofan, and approximately 55,000
people have made dangerous escapes into South Sudan or have sought
refuge elsewhere inside Sudan. In South Sudan, USAID and the State
Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration are working
with the United Nations (U.N.) World Food Programme (WFP) and the
Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that
adequate assistance is available to the Southern Kordofan refugees, who
are mostly congregated in Unity State, and currently number about
16,000. Concerns about the safety of refugees are growing, as cross-
border aerial bombardments by the Sudan Armed Forces are not abating.
The U.S. Government's humanitarian partners continue their efforts
to increase their ability to provide assistance to those in government-
controlled areas of South Kordofan. We have indications that access may
be gradually improving. One partner recently managed to reopen five
suboffices, out of seven planned before the conflict, and is able to
support a vaccination program in government-controlled areas to improve
coverage from 74 percent to 90 percent. That partner has reopened 15
nutrition centers, trained 200 volunteers to screen children and 80
health staff to improve the capacity of the nutrition centers, and
resumed training and providing supplies to village midwives. In late
February, the U.N. World Food Programme was able to provide 40 days'
worth of food rations to approximately 16,700 internally displaced
persons in Kadugli. The Government of Sudan has granted permission for
four international staff of U.N. agencies to return to Kadugli, but all
U.N. staff in Kadugli face strict restrictions on their movements and
activities and are precluded from assessing needs and delivering
assistance beyond the town limits.
However, for those who remain in areas controlled by the Sudan
People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), the outlook is worsening.
Immediate humanitarian access to all communities affected by the
conflict in Southern Kordofan is imperative to stave off emergency
conditions for a quarter of a million people in the coming months.
The United States is working with international partners to press
for access through an intensive diplomatic campaign that began last
September. Current efforts are focused on getting a positive Government
of Sudan response to the tripartite proposal of the U.N., the African
Union, and the League of Arab States on assessment, access, and
monitoring of humanitarian assistance to all civilians in Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile. Should the Government of Sudan sign this
agreement, USAID partners and the U.N. are ready to conduct assessments
and immediately deliver food and humanitarian assistance to those in
need. International staff of humanitarian organizations must be allowed
to enter and operate freely in Southern Kordofan in order to save
lives.
As we have said repeatedly over the past 6 months, the United
States cannot stand by and watch such a human tragedy unfold. Our goal
is to prevent this humanitarian situation from worsening any further,
and we are exploring options for providing indirect support in a worst
case scenario in which the Government of Sudan continues to refuse to
open humanitarian access. There is no fully effective humanitarian
option save for negotiated access, but again, I want to be clear that
doing nothing cannot be an option.
Blue Nile
Fighting in the Blue Nile area erupted almost 3 months after
Southern Kordofan. It has resulted in similarly disturbing levels of
displacement, with over 110,000 already in Ethiopian and South Sudanese
refugee camps. Approximately 60,000 people are estimated to be severely
affected or internally displaced within Blue Nile. Although USAID food
security partners have postponed emergency forecasts for Blue Nile
until August, that date is rapidly approaching, and we will continue to
work with the international community to find the best possible options
for getting aid to vulnerable people.
The rainy season, beginning in mid-May, will limit the ability of
vulnerable populations to exit Blue Nile and seek protection in
neighboring countries. Although a recent U.S. Government assessment
mission to Upper Nile/South Sudan confirmed that there is sufficient
food on hand to support the more than 80,000 refugees located there, we
are fully engaged in planning to make sure that the international
community can cope effectively with expanding refugee populations in
the coming months.
Abyei
Although key components of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
were implemented relatively smoothly in South Sudan, the Abyei protocol
is dormant. The final status of Abyei--whether it belongs to Sudan or
South Sudan--remains unresolved, and crisis erupted on May 20, 2011,
around this issue. A military operation conducted by the Sudan Armed
Forces and subsequent fighting caused 110,000 people--the majority of
the Abyei Area's population--and international NGOs to move southward
toward Agok and to destinations across South Sudan, yet again.
The Abyei Area had long been a site of conflict and tension and was
one of the key potential flashpoint areas during the referendum period.
In preparations made in advance of the South Sudan vote, USAID partners
had prepositioned supplies in key hubs to enable a rapid response if
needed. After the May conflict, USAID partners were able to distribute
plastic sheeting, blankets, water containers, soap, and other emergency
relief supplies to 68,000 people in need in a matter of weeks, while
USAID's partner, the World Food Programme, provided food to more than
100,000 displaced people. During the ensuing weeks, it became clear
that those who had fled the fighting would not return home for several
months and continued assistance would be necessary. Before Agok became
inaccessible by road during the rainy season that began in mid-May,
WFP--tapping into USAID-funded enhanced logistical capabilities--was
able to deliver large quantities of food to Agok to provide 3 months of
food rations for the displaced. The USAID-funded repairs to an airstrip
in Warrap State also proved critical, permitting humanitarian supplies
to reach a large number of displaced people throughout the rainy
season.
USAID's humanitarian partners continue to adapt to evolving
circumstances and are providing vital humanitarian assistance for the
displaced, most of whom remain in Agok town on the border between Abyei
Area and Warrap State, South Sudan. Our partners continue to run health
clinics, distribute food, provide nutrition assistance, and address
water and sanitation needs of the displaced population. USAID partners
have recently established a new primary health care unit, constructed
latrines in five schools, and provided hygiene training in three
villages.
Though the situation is tenuous, the Abyei Area holds more promise
for a return to stability and peace than its neighbors in conflict-
ridden Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Virtually all who fled Abyei
remain displaced in Agok, and they will not, and cannot, return until
the conditions improve: better security, land mine removal, and
assurances that civilians will be protected. However, the efforts of
Ethiopian peacekeepers have brought Abyei much-needed stability, and if
current diplomatic efforts bear fruit, our partners are poised and
ready to lay the groundwork for the resumption of basic services,
livelihoods, conflict mitigation and community peace-building
activities in Abyei.
Darfur
Nine years into the Darfur conflict, we continue to see violence
flare in hotspots like North Darfur and Jebel Marra. The U.N. reports
that approximately 1.7 million people currently reside in 99 camps
across Darfur--an 8-percent reduction from 1 year ago. Of this total,
70,000 were displaced during 2011 due to ongoing fighting.
The most vulnerable who were displaced by the conflict--including
the disabled, elderly, women, and children-headed households--remain
highly dependent on the basic services provided by the humanitarian
community. Those living in remote, rural areas are also vulnerable to
the effects of food insecurity, interrupted livelihood patterns, and
limited access to basic services.
USAID continues to respond to the emergency needs of the newly
displaced. Severe limitations on access, however, continue to constrain
our emergency relief efforts. Our partners still face bureaucratic
restrictions and other impediments to travel which, combined with
insecurity, reduce their ability to carry out programs efficiently and
where needed. The United States continues to advocate strongly for
regular access for all humanitarian agencies throughout stable areas of
Darfur.
However, while a political settlement to this crisis remains out of
reach and conflict persists, there are also a growing number of people
emerging from their dependence on humanitarian aid, and USAID programs
are evolving to address the needs of these new populations. We are
seeing more families returning seasonally to plant their fields and
test their ability to return more permanently. We are seeing more
permanent returns, where people are determined to move back to their
homes and villages. Last, more large camps on the periphery of major
towns are transforming into permanent perisettlements.
The prolonged crisis has dramatically altered the traditional
coping systems of Darfurians. Migrations to urban and periurban
locations have shifted livelihood priorities, disrupted markets, and
impeded access to agricultural land. At the same time, these conflict-
affected people have evolved their coping and livelihoods strategies in
a way that has reduced their need for emergency assistance.
USAID does not actively promote the return of individuals from
camps to areas of origin. Instead, we respond to the needs of
individuals who have already voluntarily returned where security and
access permit, and have been independently verified to have done so
voluntarily. Since January 2011, the U.N. has verified the return of
approximately 110,000 internally displaced persons and 15,000 refugees
from Chad. The great majority of verified returnees have returned to
West Darfur, where the security environment has markedly improved due
to joint Chad-Sudan patrols along the border and the relocation of some
armed movements to North and South Darfur.
All of these dynamics have shifted our assistance strategies from
emergency response to integrated early recovery programs that aim to
reduce dependence on humanitarian assistance and promote sustainable
livelihoods and self-reliance where security permits. Today, 44 percent
of USAID's funding in Darfur is dedicated to community-based early
recovery programs, up from zero in 2009--a powerful illustration of how
the needs have changed. USAID partners engaged in early recovery
initiatives recognize the need to support livelihoods programs that are
market-driven and economically feasible, conflict-sensitive,
environmentally sustainable, and built on local skills and capacities.
These community-based approaches strengthen local capacity and
resilience to food insecurity.
returns
Since October 2010, approximately 360,000 South Sudanese have
returned from Sudan to their new country. Armed with hope and
expectations for a new life in their homeland, many returnees arrived
to discover limited basic services and other challenges. As the
Government of Sudan's April 8, 2012, deadline for South Sudanese living
in Sudan to regularize their status looms, both governments must take
urgent steps to extend the deadline--which affects anywhere from
300,000 to 700,000 people--and make practical arrangements whereby
those who wish to stay in Sudan can apply to do so. Absent these
actions, we may witness up to hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese
stranded as they try to return without resources and security. We fully
support robust diplomatic efforts to press the Government of Sudan to
extend this deadline and parallel efforts urging the Government of
South Sudan to expedite the issuance of nationality documents to this
population.
On February 12, 2012, the South Sudanese Minister for Humanitarian
Affairs and Sudanese Minister for Social Welfare signed a memorandum of
understanding affirming the right of South Sudanese in Sudan to return
to South Sudan voluntarily, safely, and with dignity. However, the
memorandum makes no mention of the practical arrangements needed for
Southerners to regularize their citizenship and residency status in
Sudan, nor does it extend the April 8 deadline. It also excludes the
use of barges, the most cost-effective means, for moving people from
Sudan to South Sudan.
In South Sudan, support to returnees is complicated by a growing
range of humanitarian emergencies and restricted access due to
conflict, rains, and poor infrastructure. Overall the U.N. estimates
that 2.7 million South Sudanese will be food insecure in 2012, of which
approximately 1 million will be severely food insecure.
The U.S. Government is preparing contingency plans for the
potential movement of up to 500,000 returnees, as well as continuing
support to returnees in transit. In addition to bolstering resources at
transit sites and exploring options for new locations, USAID's programs
include flexible mechanisms like rapid response funds that enable a
quick response to emerging emergency needs, as well as support to
contingency planning efforts through prepositioning of life-saving
humanitarian supplies.
Once returnees reach their final destinations, they face the
challenge of reintegrating into host communities that primarily rely on
agriculture to meet their basic needs. To jump-start the returnees' new
lives in South Sudan, USAID programs are improving access to basic
services like clean water and health care and implementing market-
driven programs to help farmers improve their agriculture practices and
enhance families' food security and livelihoods opportunities.
In Unity State, which has received the highest number of returnees
in South Sudan to date, USAID provided farmers with seeds and
horticultural skills training to expand vegetable production and
increase their income. Small businessowners were provided cash grants
and training to enable them to hire more staff and to access community-
based credit. Enlisting the support of local government and religious
authorities and soliciting input from returnees and their hosts through
18 community mobilization meetings, USAID is building upon existing
agricultural potential and investing in market-driven livelihoods
opportunities to promote the peaceful reintegration of approximately
4,500 returnees in Unity State.
south sudan's intercommunal conflict
Unfortunately, in addition to the enormous human toll of conflict
within Sudan, and across the Sudan-South Sudan border, the past few
months have also seen significant loss of life and displacement from
intercommunal conflict within South Sudan. Recent violence in Jonglei
between the Lou Nuer, Murle, and Dinka ethnic groups has affected at
least 140,000 people since late December 2011. These and other clashes
are a product of unresolved interethnic and intertribal issues that
were sidelined to meet the common goal of South Sudan's independence--
and highlight the fragility and fledgling nature of the new state, and
the need for deeper engagement that mitigate instability and promote
accountability.
We are troubled by the lack of budgetary and political support by
the Government of South Sudan to state and local authorities on the
front lines of responding to the conflict. USAID has been providing
local and state authorities the equipment they need to communicate
quickly and effectively with each other in remote areas, as well as
building or rehabilitating county and other local administrative
headquarters buildings, which provides an administrative base and
meeting space to address community violence. For instance, high-
frequency radios and other equipment USAID provided to local and state
authorities have, in some cases, prevented violence when authorities
were able to warn communities about planned revenge attacks. We are
also working to engage at-risk youth in productive, income-generating
activities.
Unfortunately, significant, persistent violence continues to cost
lives. There is strong evidence that some political leaders have been
complicit in organizing, enabling, and coordinating the violence. There
are also reliable reports of security services joining raiding parties,
providing ammunition, and looting. The Government forces deployed to
conflict areas to mitigate the conflict lack resources and capacity.
These trends highlight larger issues of political will and government
capacity to genuinely address these intertribal and intercommunal
tensions. The Government of South Sudan must own and drive a peace
process and reconciliation initiative in Jonglei and other conflict
regions that will be anchored around direct engagement with the core
conflict catalysts in order to have greater effect.
To respond to urgent humanitarian needs in Jonglei State, USAID
water, sanitation, and hygiene activities have benefited 31,500 people
affected by the fighting, which damaged water points and forced
displaced and host populations to share limited water resources. In
addition to rapid response actions, USAID supports multisectoral
humanitarian programs in areas affected by recent fighting. For
example, one grantee is repairing the semiurban water system in Pibor
town and installing five boreholes in Pibor County, while others are
implementing health and nutrition initiatives in Akobo and Duk
counties.
We will continue to respond to humanitarian needs across South
Sudan, whether as a result of interethnic conflict, militia violence,
large-scale returns, or other urgent humanitarian needs, through our
ongoing programs and flexible funding mechanisms. However, resolving
these issues and conflicts in the long term requires recognition that
this will be a lengthy process requiring sustained engagement involving
political will from the Government of South Sudan, commitment from the
international community, and donor support. Without a pledge from the
Government of South Sudan to address security, corruption, and
governance issues facing South Sudan, donor interventions will not be
sufficient to achieve stability.
south sudan's revenue shortfall and austerity budget
The Government of South Sudan's decision in January to halt oil
production--the source of 98 percent of government revenues--has
triggered the implementation of an austerity budget that falls short of
addressing the overwhelming cut in revenues. It is not clear that the
potential impact of this decision on citizen services and other
government functions, livelihoods, food security, and the new nation's
currency has been sufficiently recognized and communicated to the
public. However, in the absence of alternative sources of funding or
resumption of oil production, it is very clear that it will soon be
impossible for the Government to pay for its current operations--
including salaries for public employees, the military, and police;
longer term capital investment; and block grants to South Sudan's 10
states.
Under this austerity scenario, the Government of South Sudan must
prioritize where its limited government revenues will be allocated,
while donors, including the U.S. Government, assess how it will impact
development programs over the short and longer term horizons. Any
progress expected from a productive partnership for development will
become much more difficult if the Government of South Sudan and the
United States and larger donor community are forced to shift back into
crisis mode. A greater emphasis on basic service delivery would come at
the cost of the longer term institution building that the U.S.
Government and others has supported in South Sudan since the signing of
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We are extremely concerned that this
enormous fiscal gap and potential shift in donor resources to cover the
humanitarian challenges resulting from it, could result in backsliding
on the institutional and state-building progress we have made over the
past 6 years, exacerbating this new democracy's fragility.
conclusion
Coming so soon after the hope engendered by peaceful celebration of
South Sudan's independence, this confluence of crises is alarming. But
we must remember that the remnants of a half century of conflict can
continue to reverberate, even after a sturdy peace agreement has been
established. The international community must act to ensure that these
discrete conflicts do not spiral into a greater confrontation and that
we do what we can to support the needs of the people affected by
crisis. With so much invested in the future of these two nations, the
United States, standing with many of our international partners, must
speak out when actions either do not support or outright threaten the
vision of peaceful coexistence and the economic opportunity that so
many have sacrificed to bring this far.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator.
Let me begin, if I may, by asking, Ambassador, first of
all, do you have a date or do you know when this visit of
Bashir to Juba will take place?
Ambassador Lyman. We are hoping it will take place within 2
weeks, that they would go back, that Juba would issue an
invitation to President Bashir. They do want to make sure--do a
lot of preparation so the summit produces concrete results, not
just general. So, they will have to do a lot of--Thabo Mbeki
and Pierre Buyoya will also do shuttle diplomacy during these 2
weeks to help the preparations for the summit. But we are
hoping it will take place in about 2 weeks.
The Chairman. And do you have, at this point--I know the
news only came out yesterday. But do you know what the agenda
will be, the specific topics and breadth of this discussion?
Ambassador Lyman. The idea is to ratify two agreements that
were signed in Addis, and one I was very particularly happy to
see signed, and that is on the nationality question; that is,
the protection of southerners living in the north, and
northerners living in the south, that they do not become
stateless. And procedures were set up and agreed to. And then
they signed an agreement on borders, how to deal with that
problem. Those will be ratified by the two Presidents.
But more important, they will give directions to their
negotiators to tackle the oil and other questions in a
different way, to recognize the needs of both sides, and to
reach an agreement in that context. How specific those
instructions will be is exactly what has to be worked on, but
it will deal with oil, but also how to deal with issues like
borders and Abyei.
The Chairman. And given that it is really a north-south
discussion. Obviously resolving the oil thing would be an
enormous step--a huge step forward.
Will the Blue Nile/South Kordofan access issue be on that
table, or is that going to be a separate track?
Ambassador Lyman. Well, it will be on the table in two
ways. One, because you cannot get to the atmosphere they are
talking about if we do not make progress in Southern Kordofan
and Blue Nile. It is simply poisoning the situation. In
addition to the terrible thing in itself, it is poisoning the
relationship. It is forcing them to clash on the borders
because both have a security concern in those areas. So, we
have to make progress before the summit to create the
atmosphere.
But then the two have to say, look, we are both working to
destabilize each other. How do we get out of that box? And
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile is part of it. If the
Government has opened up the area to international access, what
we are hoping is that will lead not only to a quieting of the
hostilities, but hopefully the atmosphere that political talks
can start. That will change the atmosphere.
The Chairman. So, what more could the international
community conceivably do to help convince the Sudanese
Government that preventing a full-blown catastrophe in Blue
Nile and South Kordofan more than it already has been, but
moving to this next starvation and nutrition crisis, that it is
in their interest to do that? I mean, is there a strategy
underway? Do you have a thought about what more could be
implemented?
Ambassador Lyman. You know, it has been a tremendous effort
on everybody's part to do just that because the Government was
so angry and bitter over this with their own perceptions of how
the war started and what it was about. It was very hard to get
through on those matters. So, we have urged the Africa Union,
Jean Ping, the chairman of the Africa Union Commission, China,
Arab countries, South Africa, other countries, Arab League,
Africa Union, everybody we could talk to, to send that message
to Khartoum.
The Chairman. Who do you think could have the greatest
impact?
The Lyman. Well, I think the Arab countries are
particularly important. I am very delighted the League of Arab
States is joining in this effort on humanitarian. China has
become more active. I was in Beijing last August when Vice
President Chi was here. Our two governments agreed we would
work more closely on Sudan. Their new envoy is now traveling in
Khartoum and Juba, and we have arranged to talk right after his
trip on how we can coordinate better our efforts. I think those
countries are important because they are important to both
sides, but they have particular importance to Sudan.
But I think another factor, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, is
the realization, the growing realization, I think, in Khartoum
that there is not a military solution to this problem, and that
simply going on with the fighting and facing the opprobrium of
a humanitarian disaster is not in their interest. And I think
all these efforts have contributed to that, and I am hoping
that we will get better news in the days ahead.
The Chairman. Just one other quick question and my time is
up. But when we chatted a number of months ago, and I
subsequently chatted with President Kiir about the oil shutdown
issue, one of the concerns which you raised, and others did,
was this question of what the cost of restarting up would be
and what the damage might be in the process. Have we been able
to assess that? Have you assessed that, and can you share with
us what our knowledge is about how difficult it might be to
bring that oil production back online?
The Lyman. The feeling now is that if you started
production tomorrow, by the time you got the pumps going, by
the time you sent the oil up through the pipeline, made the
contracts, sent the oil, it would be 4 months before the first
dollar would come in. And that is worrisome because both sides
are facing deep economic problems. But that is the latest
estimate.
The Chairman. Well, probably we may follow up on that. We
will see.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Ambassador, I just want to get some sense
from you as an experienced diplomat on these matters, as it has
been apparent in Khartoum for a long time that they would face,
as you said, the opprobrium of the rest of the world with
regard to starvation and the privation that is occurring in the
south.
But what would have to occur for the Government to actually
change its behavior? Efforts to this end have been based, for a
long time, on the statistics we have heard today of tens of
thousands, hundreds of thousands of people dying in the
process. And yet they have not been adequate to bring about
much of a change, although you give us hope today once again
some negotiations may occur, in part because the oil revenues
of Khartoum itself, quite apart from those of the south, are at
stake. And as has been suggested, a very large majority of
funds for both governments really come from this oil, which is
now stymied, as you say, at best for 4 months.
When we talk about international pressures, what are the
pressures that make any difference here? And how can we
anticipate any difference in the future as opposed to hearings
we may have next year at this time or the year thereafter and
so forth, detailing once again how many people have suffered
and starved?
Ambassador Lyman. Well, there is both the immediate
situation and the fundamental situation. The arguments and, I
think, the resistance that has come out of Khartoum has been
that they see the situation and the calls for international
assistance as a plot to get inside Sudan and eventually take
these areas south, and they see a repeat of the CPA; that the
international community will come in, then they will set up
camps, then they will send in the peacekeeping operation, and
pretty soon the Government will lose control of more of its
territory. I have heard that argument on many occasions.
So, there is a deep suspicion of the motives of the
international community, and they see this as we are not going
to go down that path again. We are going to keep our country
together, even if we have to do it militarily.
So, it has taken a lot of time and effort to say, look, you
are looking at it the wrong way, and you are looking at it in a
way that is going to hurt your own interests very greatly. And
to deal with this deep suspicion about motive, to have the
Africa Union and the League of Arab States joining with the
U.N. helps a great deal. So, that is part of it.
Part of it, too, is this fundamental question of how they
are going to govern the country. How do they treat areas around
the periphery, if you can call it that, different ethnic
groups, et cetera? And they have not got there yet. They have
not determined how to do that in a democratic open way. So,
they see a challenge, they respond militarily. And we have had
to work against that mindset frankly for a long time and with a
great deal of effort.
Senator Lugar. Well, our dilemma clearly is that we are
attempting to be of assistance in a lot of places. For example,
a big debate rages about our policy toward Egypt, which, after
all, has overthrown a dictatorship and is supposedly
transitioning into a democracy. And suddenly, just to pick up
Ambassador Lyman's thoughts, there is a great deal of rhetoric
arguing that we are interfering with the Government of Egypt,
the evolution of Egypt. So, despite the fact that the United
States has committed $1.5 billion in assistance to Egypt, which
is huge with regard to their current situation, we have this
debate over the efforts of Americans to be of assistance to the
Egyptians during this monumental transition.
I raise this not because we can solve it here today, but it
is so fundamental to what we are talking about in Sudan because
Americans do have a humanitarian impulse to help.
But again and again, I fear we are being stymied despite
encouraging cases of cooperation from other countries that tell
other, you know, the Americans are OK. Really you ought to let
them help you. Yet the situation is so dire that starvation is
actually being encouraged by Khartoum as another form of
warfare.
But this is really fundamental foreign policy problem we
are going to have to face, because despite our very best
attempts, we are now being rebuffed by those who say that our
actions amount to gross interference in their affairs. And they
say that if they are going to starve, they are going to starve
by themselves or starve each other.
Having made that pronouncement, I appreciate so much,
Ambassador Lyman and Ms. Lindborg, your work really on the
ground because you have to try to work through these challenges
I have mentioned, and we admire what you are doing and your
testimony.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, join
in thanking our two witnesses for everything you are doing to
make a difference in the lives of people who are being
victimized.
I also want to thank those on the second panel, George
Clooney, John Prendergast, and Jonathan Temin, for bringing the
spotlight on this issue that otherwise it is difficult. There
are so many issues in the world, and you are really helping us
focus on this humanitarian disaster.
You set this up with the three fronts in Sudan, which adds
to the complication. We are dealing not only with a few areas;
we are dealing with the Sudan and South Sudan issues, and we
are dealing with Darfur.
As I listen to the testimony as to what is happening in the
Two Areas, it reminds me of testimony 8 years ago on what was
happening in Darfur. And Darfur happened under our watch, which
was a failure of the civilized world to take appropriate action
and the disaster against innocent people.
Are we going to go through the same thing in the Two Areas,
basically talk about this for years and see thousands or
hundreds of thousands of people's lives ruined forever?
So, it is very frustrating, I know, for all of us. But is
there a lesson that we learn from Darfur that we can use to
prevent that happening in the Two Areas? What mistakes did we
make in Darfur that we do not want to repeat again? Can you
just help us on this?
I just do not--there is an urgency, and I understand
getting humanitarian aid in there, that is great, and we are
going to talk about it. But we talk about it and talk about it
and talk about it, while people are dying.
Ambassador Lyman. Well, Senator, you have really put your
finger on a very fundamental question of what do we learn from
these situations, and how do we prevent them from repeating
themselves?
I think that the echoes of Darfur and Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile are extremely, extremely upsetting and worrisome.
There is a pattern in the way the Government of Sudan fights
its wars that produces that kind of human rights violations,
and I have discussed that with them on many occasions.
The Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, could I ask you, could you
pull the mic a little closer to you, pull it down.
Ambassador Lyman. Sorry, Yes. I think that there is an
opportunity to bring this war in Southern Kordofan and Blue
Nile to a close. I think it is there. I think it is because in
part they cannot win a military victory. They do not want and
nobody wants huge camps of people who have moved from their
homes. But the Government sees this as threatening their whole
internal security, and it has taken long time to get them to
see it differently.
I cannot promise you that we are going to get out of this
war soon, but I think what we did learn from Darfur is that
organizing and mobilizing the international community early on
is getting concerted and united pressure.
Up until quite recently, the United Nations Security
Council was not united on Sudan. The statement that was made
just recently was a very strong united statement of all 15
members. It makes a difference. Having the League of Arab
States weigh in as well as the African Union makes a
difference.
So, I think/hope that we have learned some lessons are
going to make some progress on this. But I share your
frustration.
Senator Cardin. I would just point out that until we change
the way the Sudanese Government conducts its security issues,
there is little hope that we will not see a repeat of these
disasters. The failure to bring the Government to account for
their violations of international law, we are paying a heavy
price for that. Every time we take a pass on enforcing crimes
against humanity, it makes it likely we will see a repeat of
this in the future.
One last question. You mentioned the impact as it related
to Sudan and South Sudan, the impact in the Two Areas. Does the
conflict in the Two Areas also have an impact on what is
happening in Darfur?
Ambassador Lyman. It does in this way. The SPLM-North,
which is fighting the Government in Southern Kordofan and Blue
Nile has teamed up with three of the Darfur rebel groups to
form this Sudan Revolutionary Front, so that it has become a
wider coalition of antigovernment forces, and they are
cooperating more.
And what is happening with the groups in Darfur are
focusing more on national issues and, from their point of view,
a regime change than specifically on Darfur.
So, it is having an effect on the Darfur situation and
linking the two in the way I have described.
Senator Cardin. Well, I join with the chairman in thanking
both of you for your commitment on this.
Ambassador Lyman. I would just like to say thank you, and I
appreciate, as Nancy does, the personal thanks. But I have to
tell you that neither of us could do this job without the
extraordinary focus of President Obama and Secretary Clinton on
Sudan and South Sudan. They follow it very closely and are
heavily engaged, and that makes all the difference. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. There has been strong U.S. leadership in
this region for a long time, but still the humanitarian
disasters continue under our watch.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I think the witnesses'
testimony has been outstanding, and I really think the first
three Senators have framed this very well, expressed
exasperation and concern that all of us have.
I have limited abilities, but one of my strengths is math.
And I can see that if we continue this, our second panel, who I
understand have been through a pretty hairy experience in
getting here, are going to have a very disruptive session when
votes begin. So, I am going to pass on questions so that we can
proceed and hopefully get the testimony of the second panel
before this hearing is disrupted. And I thank you for calling
it.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator, for that
generous offer, and we will see where we wind up here. But,
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief, but I am not going to pass because I do not always have
the opportunity to have some of our experts here before this
committee.
I want to follow up where Senator Cardin left off. We say
never again, yet live time and time again through experiences
in which ``never again'' actually manifests itself.
So, I am wondering, what is it that we can do that we are
not doing to create the pressure so that, in fact, some of the
atrocities that are taking place can stop?
Sudan continues to turn to other countries--China, Russia,
Qatar--for assistance when they look at their Sudanese pound
depreciating more than 50 percent since mid-2011, that is an
opportunity, an economic opportunity, in which we can use that
necessity to try to change behavior. And I just do not get the
sense we are doing that.
So, what is it that we are not doing that we could do,
particularly with our allies, to change the course of events
that Senator Cardin talked about?
Ambassador Lyman. I think the opportunity is coming up as a
result of this agreement that was reached in Addis, because
what it focused on more specifically was the recognition on the
part of their negotiators from Khartoum that they face a very
major economic problem.
And the only way out of that is not just an oil agreement
with the south because the south can only provide so much out
of that. And, therefore, what matters is the kind of assistance
they will get from their friends in the Arab world, China, et
cetera.
And what now we can do, and I think it is important that we
do, is work with those countries on the kind of support they
offer to Khartoum; that is, to encourage Khartoum exactly in
the way you say, that they have to deal with Southern Kordofan
and Blue Nile. You cannot have a big investment and donor
program in the middle of that.
But also to give them encouragement that if they do do the
right things and do make the right kind of agreements that the
support would be there for them to deal with their major
economic problems.
That is what I think we have to work on a great deal more.
A colleague of mine is going to be visiting the Middle East
later this month to talk with the countries in that area. As I
said, I have been in close touch with the Chinese Government on
this. And I think we can do more to bring that part of the
international community together, because Sudan does face this
very serious economic crisis, and there is only one way out of
it.
Senator Menendez. And do you believe that they have the
interest, since they have been offering financial assistance,
to leverage that assistance to get the result that we want,
which is resolution to the dispute?
Ambassador Lyman. You know, they have some interest. Some
of the countries have stopped giving Sudan considerable
assistance. So, we have to gauge exactly how they perceive this
situation, and I think that is one of the tasks we have to
engage in the next few weeks.
Senator Menendez. Finally, Ms. Lindborg, let me ask you, in
the second panel Mr. Clooney and Mr. Prendergast are going to
speak about their Satellite Sentinel Project, which uncovers
threats to civilians using satellite imagery in order to
generate a rapid response. Does the State Department view this
as a model that can be used for monitoring conflicts in other
parts of the world? We have a list of several locations, Syria
to mention one.
Ms. Lindborg. Yes, thank you. You know, there is a lot of
focus in looking at how we can better predict and understand
the possibility of coming atrocities, and there is an
initiative that President Obama has put forth that has a focus
on identifying a whole array of ways in which we can gather
information that helps us prevent humanitarian crisis, so we
are very interested in this as one of the models.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Well, I am not about to not follow the
leadership of Bob Corker because I am well aware that long line
that began forming at 8 o'clock was not to see Johnny Isakson.
It was to see George Clooney.
[Laughter.]
But I would like to say this. Princeton Lyman and Nancy
Lindborg have done a phenomenal job. Bob Corker and I traveled
to Darfur and Sudan and have been engaged. But I also want to
acknowledge Special Envoy Williamson and General Grayson, their
work, great work they did leading up to the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement.
And with that, I will defer to Mr. Clooney.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator--you fell short.
I heard people out there saying, you seen Johnny Isakson?
Senator Isakson. No. No.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. I think I am going to follow the lead also
of our Republican colleagues here and try to move as quickly as
possible as we can.
Let me just thank the Ambassador and Ms. Lindborg for your
testimony and your leadership on this issue. And you have
mentioned that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have been
actively involved. We also appreciate their assistance there.
With that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have
bipartisan agreement. It is time to move on. Thank you very
much for your service. Thank you.
The Chairman. Wow. I think I am going to try to schedule
this kind of thing around a really controversial vote here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I would say, all of us, just
for the audience, we have the ability to ask questions of these
officials and get back, and so we will all take the opportunity
to do that. And that is why moving on makes sense.
The Chairman. Before we excuse you, I just want to ask, is
there anything, Administrator Lindborg, that you feel you
wanted to say that you have not had a chance to, or Ambassador
Lyman?
Ambassador Lyman. Just to thank the committee very much. I
do not think the crowds were out there to see us either.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, we are going to continue to work with
you as closely as we have. We will try to support you in every
way we can to try to approach this.
I do think that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, could
particularly play an increased role here, and I hope that over
the next days we can talk about how to perhaps leverage that a
little bit, and see if we cannot move on this.
I know everybody wants to move on, but I just have this one
last quick question. Do you believe that the signals you are
getting and this movement of yesterday, et cetera, is there any
indication in there of a greater willingness to try to provide
access of the humanitarian assistance and actually get to the
political solution on the Blue Nile, South Kordofan?
Ambassador Lyman. Actually Nancy and I were on the phone
this morning with the Minister of Social Welfare asking that.
She has said that they are meeting tomorrow on the tripartite
proposal. I am hoping we are going to get an answer as soon as
tomorrow on that front.
Once we open that door, once you have food going in, it is
going to have to affect the fighting that is going on, and you
have to protect the humanitarian workers. And that, we hope, is
going to create an atmosphere where political talks start to
happen. And we are hoping that--it has not been agreed yet, but
that is the direction we want it to go.
The Chairman. And this is a tricky question, but an
important one. Do you have evidence--are there indicators of
the South's direct support for proxy efforts in that area?
Ambassador Lyman. We have said to the Government of South
Sudan that supporting those fighting in South Kordofan, it is
very dangerous, and we can see the results already--the
retaliation, the bombing across the border. And we have had
very candid talks with them about it. And part of the reason
that they are going through this summit is to discuss that
frankly between the two governments. So, I am hoping that that
will be on the agenda.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. We are as
appreciative as everybody has said. You have come back to take
this on, and it is a tough task. And we are really happy to
have your expertise, and your skill, and the commitment of both
departments to this. We thank the Secretary and the President
for their focus on it. Thank you.
Let us try to move seamlessly if we can. I would ask George
Clooney and Jon Prendergast and John Temin if they would come
up so we do not interrupt here in the process.
Evidently moving is a very interesting thing.
[Laughter.]
Let alone sitting.
Folks, can we ask the members of the press if they would
give us room here to proceed? Thank you very much.
John, is there an order that you guys have? George. Go for
it, thank you. Again, we are really happy to have you here. I
know you traveled overnight to get here, and we look forward to
both your testimony, as well as, I think, you have a video with
you that you want to show. And we look forward to seeing that.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE CLOONEY, COFOUNDER, SATELLITE SENTINEL
PROJECT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Clooney. Thank you. Thank you, Senators. I thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you. I understand how busy
you are. I will try to brief and to the point.
The first thing I would like to do is I want to set some
boundaries and separate what is fact from what is fiction for
us. We will start with some of the facts.
The Government of Sudan, led by Omar al-Bashir, Ahmed
Haroun, and Defense Minister Hussein, the same three men who
orchestrated the atrocities in Darfur, have turned their bombs
on the Nuban people. Now, these are not military targets. These
are innocent men, women, and children, and that is a fact.
Three days ago while we were in the Nuba Mountains, 15
bombs were dropped on a neighboring village. When we got there,
we found children filled with shrapnel, including a 9-year-old
boy who had both of his hands blown off.
As we traveled further north, we were greeted by hundreds
of villagers carrying signs reading, ``Stop the Antonovs.'' And
as we met with their leaders, we were also met with three 300-
millimeter rockets fired overhead. And we witnessed hundreds of
people running to the hills to hide in caves for their safety,
and that happens every day.
These people are not the cave people of Nuba. They actually
live on farms, and they are the oldest society in the world,
and yet now they are forced to hide in caves. It is a campaign
of murder and fear and displacement and starvation, and that is
also a fact.
Religion is not an issue. In the camps you will find
Christians and Muslims hiding together. It is ethnic in nature.
The indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians is defined
as a war crime in the Geneva Convention. In January of last
year, I was in South Sudan with Senator Kerry for the
referendum that gave us the world's newest nation, South Sudan.
Amid all the excitement of self-determination, we warned the
world of the danger of leaving the four border regions out of
the referendum talks--Darfur, South Kordofan, the Blue Nile,
and, of course, Abyei. The Government of Khartoum accused us of
rhetoric designed to incite and anger the north or against the
north.
We visited Abyei in January, in January of 2011, and at the
time it was estimated to have 120,000 Ngok Dinka inhabitants.
Today there are none. They are either dead or they are refugees
all because they had the bad luck of being born on a border,
being born in oil rich land, or being born black. That is a
fact.
These three men, Bashir, Haroun, and Hussein, are all
charged with war crimes for their actions in Darfur, and now
they are proving themselves to be the greatest war criminals of
this century by far. So, the obvious question is, Why should we
care? What does this have to do with us? We have our own
problems. We have jobs. We have housing. We have debt, and now
we see our gas prices going up. As Senator Lugar said and as
President Obama said in the press conference last week, he
talked about three reasons why we are paying more at the pumps:
speculators, uncertainty in Iran, and South Sudan shutting off
its oil.
As you know, the south has all the oil and the north has
the pipelines and the refineries. And for years the north has
been taking the oil, keeping most of the profits, buying bombs
and rockets, and using them on Darfur, the Blue Nile, Abyei,
and the Nuba Mountains.
So, 6 weeks ago the south shut down their oil production.
They just stopped. And overnight China lost 6 percent of its
overall oil imports, which means they have to go elsewhere, and
that raises the price of oil. What happens in Sudan matters
very much to us now economically. That is also a fact.
But what can we do? We are not going to use our military.
We are not likely to see a NATO no-fly zone. That is probably
not going to happen. So, this is all where we all come in. We
need to do what we are best at, real diplomacy, starting with
China.
China has a $20 billion investment in the oil
infrastructure in the Sudan, and right now they are getting
nothing for it. We need to use this opportunity to work in
tandem with the Chinese to solve these cross-border issues, not
by using guilt, not by appealing to humanitarian interests, but
simply from good, solid economic reasons for both of us. Let us
send a high-level envoy to China to work together on this. Let
us use the techniques we have learned from chasing terrorists
and find and freeze the offshore bank accounts of these war
criminals. They are not buying these weapons in Sudanese towns.
Let us work with the international community to toughen the
sanctions, make Khartoum a very lonely place. There is a
lobbyist here in D.C. who is allegedly paid $20,000 a month to
lobby for Khartoum. Let us make sure he is paid in Sudanese
towns from here on in.
There is a bill in the House, the Sudan Peace Security and
Accountability Act of 2012, that addresses many of these
subjects, and we hope that the Senate will introduce an equally
robust bill.
There is a long list of things we can do that will not cost
lives or much money. There are no two sides to these core
issues. We cannot give the lives back. We cannot replace that
young boy's hands. But we can put an end to it if we work
together as a nation and as an international community, and it
can start here.
I know this. If we work together, all of us, we cannot
fail. And that last part is just opinion.
I thank you, and I forfeit the remainder of my time to
Senator Kerry.
The Chairman. There is a trend here. Exactly. John, are you
going to----
Mr. Prendergast. For better or worse, I am with him, so we
are good. I am just here for the Q&A.
The Chairman. Great. Jonathan Temin.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TEMIN, DIRECTOR, SUDAN PROGRAM, U.S.
INSTITUTE OF PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Temin. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and
members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you
today to present my views.
Let me also express my condolences to the family and
colleagues of Congressman Donald Payne, who was a great
champion for the people of Sudan and South Sudan.
I direct the Sudan Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace,
which has been working on the ground in Sudan for 18 years. The
views I express today are my own and not necessarily those of
the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not take policy
positions.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to focus my remarks today on two
broad issues that I believe are critical to the future of these
two countries; governance and economic viability. Let me
emphasize that the issues already addressed, especially
immediate humanitarian access to South Kordofan and Blue Nile
States, are vitally important and should be priorities for the
international community.
For decades, Sudan has lurched from one crisis to another.
Also for decades, Sudan's leaders have employed a model of
governance that is ultimately unsustainable. This is not a
coincidence. Rather, this model of governance is a central
cause of Sudan's continuous instability. It concentrates
wealth, power, and resources at the center of the country, to
the detriment of populous peripheral areas. It is exclusionary
and riddled with corruption.
Under the current government, this model has been
accompanied by an effort to impose an Arab, Islamic identity
throughout Sudan. The result has been a series of rebellions
from peripheral areas seeking more equitable sharing of
resources and resisting the imposition of identity or religion.
The Government has often responded to these rebellions with
brutal and disproportionate force.
The international community has spent decades working to
end these conflicts on Sudan's periphery, with some success.
But the international community continues to chase these
conflicts around the periphery while rarely making concerted
efforts to help Sudanese reform the flawed governance model at
the center. It is time for that approach to change. It is time
for a more comprehensive strategy for addressing Sudan's
challenges rather than the piecemeal approach too often
adopted.
This will not be easy. The Government of Sudan has shown
little appetite for self-reflection or reform. But given the
dire economic situation, mounting internal resistance, and
climate of change throughout the Arab world, they may have
little choice.
One opportunity for reform lies in the process of
developing a new constitution. That process is a natural venue
for dialogue about the nature of the Sudanese State and how it
should be governed. But the process must be inclusive,
participatory, transparent, and consensus-based.
The international community should draw attention to the
importance of that process and work to convince the wide array
of Sudanese political entities of its value. USIP has been
working to help Sudanese civil society organizations promote a
genuine constitutional development process.
Concerning South Sudan, it should be noted that the South
Sudanese leadership did an impressive job navigating their
country to independence. But since independence, there has been
growing concern about the Government of South Sudan's
commitment to good governance and tackling corruption, and
their ability to stabilize the fledgling nation.
The United States has an important role to play in helping
to arrest and reverse these trends before they are fully
ingrained. The United States has been a friend of South Sudan
for years, and that should continue. But it is now time for
South Sudan to be held to the same basic standards of
governance and transparency as any other independent nation.
While recognizing the limited capacity of the Government of
South Sudan, the United States should be clear in articulating
these standards, and candid with South Sudan when those
standards are not met.
Turning to economic issues, as the shutdown in South
Sudanese oil production continues, the economies of both
countries are under considerable strain. In Sudan, a key
question concerns whether Sudan will receive economic
assistance from friendly nations. This will be the sovereign
decision of other countries, but the United States should
encourage that any assistance provided be closely linked to
progress on key priorities, such as the type of fundamental
governance reform described earlier, and implementation of the
Doha Document for Peace in Darfur.
In South Sudan, the decision to suspend oil production has
been well received by the South Sudanese population so far. But
one wonders how it will be viewed in 6 months or a year if
there are substantial budget cuts that reduce already minimal
service delivery.
Talk of building a new oil pipeline through East Africa in
18 months is exceedingly optimistic. The Government of South
Sudan should be straightforward and candid with the population
about the implications of a continued shutdown in oil
production.
The silver lining is that the difficult economic
circumstances in both countries create leverage for the
international community. Both countries desperately need
outside assistance. International coordination of any economic
assistance will be crucial, so that it is clear, for both
countries that assistance provided is contingent on certain
steps each government must take.
I want to again express my appreciation for the opportunity
to address this committee. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Temin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon Temin
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today to present my views on Sudan
and South Sudan. Thank you for this opportunity.
Let me also express my condolences to the family and colleagues of
Congressman Donald Payne, who was a great champion for the people of
Sudan and South Sudan.
The views I express today are my own and not necessarily those of
the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), which does not take policy
positions.
I currently direct USIP's programs on Sudan and South Sudan. My
views are informed by my work at USIP, which conducts training and
field operations and provides tools to help prevent, manage, and end
violent international conflicts. USIP has been working on the ground in
Sudan (and now South Sudan) for over a decade, in the capital cities
and in remote, conflict prone areas, trying to build capacity to
prevent and manage conflict. We also work to increase understanding of
critical issues affecting Sudan and South Sudan and to identify
innovative solutions. I travel frequently to Sudan and South Sudan and
have a broad network of contacts across both countries.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to focus my remarks today on two broad
issues that I believe are critical to the future of these two
countries: governance and economic viability. Let me emphasize that the
issues addressed by the other panelists, especially immediate
humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, are
vitally important and should be priorities for the international
community. But I want to take this opportunity to address several
bigger picture issues that are sometimes set aside due to the urgency
of addressing more pressing demands. I will conclude with brief
comments on current relations between the Republic of Sudan and the
Republic of South Sudan.
governance in the two sudans
For decades, Sudan (and with it the international community) has
lurched from one crisis to another, from the two north-south civil wars
to the violence in Darfur to the recent fighting in Abyei to the
current conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Also for
decades, Sudan's leaders have employed a model of governance that is
ultimately unsustainable. This is not a coincidence. Rather, the model
of governance employed by the current Government of Sudan--and several
governments before it--is a central cause of Sudan's continuous
instability. This model concentrates wealth, power, and resources at
the center of the country, meaning in and around Khartoum, to the
detriment of populous peripheral areas. It is exclusionary and riddled
with corruption. Since the beginning of Sudan's oil production,
Khartoum has been a boomtown, while the peripheral areas have remained
generally poor and underdeveloped. The rich and some of the middle
class prosper, while many more suffer. Under the current government,
this model has been accompanied by an effort to impose an Arab, Islamic
identity throughout Sudan. The result has been a series of rebellions
from peripheral areas seeking more equitable sharing of resources and
resisting the imposition of identity or religion. The Government has
often responded to these rebellions with brutal and disproportionate
military force.
The Government has learned that it benefits from promoting
instability and division in peripheral areas, as it weakens the ability
of opposition forces based in the periphery to challenge the center.
The international community has spent decades working to end these
conflicts on Sudan's periphery, with some success, such as the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). But the international community
continues to chase these conflicts around the periphery while rarely
making concerted efforts to help Sudanese reform the flawed governance
model that is a root cause of instability. It is time for that approach
to change. It is time for a more comprehensive strategy for addressing
Sudan's challenges, rather than the piecemeal approach too often
adopted.
This will not be easy. Since the secession of South Sudan in July
2011, the Government of Sudan has shown little appetite for self-
reflection or reform, and the more they feel backed into a corner the
less likely they are to engage in any meaningful reform. But given the
dire economic situation, mounting internal resistance and climate of
change throughout the Arab world, they may ultimately have little
choice. It is important to keep in mind that Sudan's leaders value
self-preservation above all else.
One opportunity for reform lies in the process of developing a new
constitution. With the conclusion of the CPA and secession of South
Sudan, Sudan is required to develop a new permanent constitution. That
process is a natural venue for dialogue about the nature of the
Sudanese state and how it should be governed. But the process must be
genuine, meaning it must be inclusive, participatory, transparent, and
consensus-based. USIP has been working with Sudanese civil society
organizations to help them promote these principles.
Recent events and statements suggest that genuine constitutional
reform is a tall order. But sooner or later, the people of Sudan must
have a dialogue among themselves about the nature of the Sudanese state
and how it should be governed. The role of the international community
is to help them enter into that dialogue. The international community
should draw attention to the importance of that dialogue and work to
convince the wide array of political entities in Sudan of its value.
A second area of international focus should be the next elections
in Sudan, scheduled for 2015. The substantial flaws of the 2010
elections were largely overlooked because they were viewed as little
more than a box to be checked before the referendum. In hindsight,
those elections were a missed opportunity to promote democratization.
President Bashir has repeatedly promised that he will not run in the
next election, which may create space for a more open contest. If the
2015 elections are to be better than previous elections, technical and
political preparations cannot begin soon enough.
Turning to governance in South Sudan, it should be noted that the
South Sudanese leadership did an impressive job navigating their
country to independence. The peaceful and orderly referendum and
secession process was an important success for South Sudan and the
world. But since independence, there has been growing concern about the
Government of South Sudan's commitment to good governance and their
ability to stabilize the fledgling nation.
There are worrying reports of large-scale corruption in South Sudan
and little progress in prosecuting offenders so far. Journalists have
been harassed and detained on multiple occasions, defying explanations
that they are isolated incidents. There is widespread indiscipline and
sometimes little cohesion within the Sudan People's Liberation Army
(SPLA), hindering its efforts to respond to large-scale violence, as
witnessed recently in Jonglei state. There are major ethnic divides
within government and society as a whole. The Government has so far
failed to accelerate service delivery to a needy and expectant
population following secession. All these challenges will be magnified
by the revenue lost as a result of the shutdown in South Sudanese oil
production--one of many reasons it is critical that an agreement
between Sudan and South Sudan on oil sector management is reached soon.
The United States has an important role to play in helping to
arrest and reverse these trends before they are fully ingrained. The
United States has been a friend of South Sudan for years, and that
should continue. But it is now time for South Sudan to be held to the
same basic standards of governance and transparency as any other
independent nation--they should not receive special treatment based on
past relations. While recognizing the limited capacity within the
Government of South Sudan, the United States should be clear in
articulating these standards and accompanying expectations. As with
other nations, there should be consequences when these standards are
not met.
South Sudan also requires a new permanent constitution, and as in
Sudan, the process for developing it will be a unique opportunity to
convene a national dialogue about fundamental governance issues. It
will be a test of the Government of South Sudan's commitment to good
governance and genuine democracy. The recent appointment of a
commission to lead the process is a positive step. The international
community should provide South Sudan with the assistance it needs to
ensure that the constitutional development process embraces the
principles of inclusivity, participation, transparency and consensus.
Also similar to Sudan, it is not too early to begin preparations
for South Sudan's first elections as an independent country, scheduled
for 2015. This will be another test and opportunity. There is much work
to be done on both technical preparations and political party
development. South Sudan's opposition parties are weak and require
capacity-building assistance, which the Government of South Sudan
should welcome.
The single greatest challenge facing South Sudan is not one of
governance or economics, however, but a challenge faced by many African
countries: rising above tribal identities and embracing a national
identity. For many years, two forces have loosely unified South
Sudanese: the common enemy they perceived in the north and the shared
goal of achieving independence. Those forces are now diminished, and
left in their wake is the paramount question of what it means to be
South Sudanese. The process of developing a shared national identity
will be painstaking and require decades, but it should begin now. As
witnessed in various parts of South Sudan, most recently and tragically
in Jonglei state, tribal rivalries can take a brutal toll and escalate
out of control. South Sudan's tribal identities are deeply engrained
and not easily overcome, but they should at least be accompanied by a
stronger sense of South Sudanese identity.
economic viability of the two sudans
As the shutdown of South Sudanese oil productions continues and
negotiations drag on, the economies of both countries are under
considerable strain. The Government of Sudan is opaque in its economic
management, but is clearly struggling. The lost revenue from South
Sudanese oil cannot easily be replaced. There are efforts to increase
domestic oil production and gold exploration, but that will take time
and returns are uncertain. Meanwhile, the Government is due to make
significant investments in Darfur as called for by the Doha Document
for Peace in Darfur (DDPD). But at the same time it has been forced to
implement some austerity measures, with the possibility of more in the
future, and the massive debt burden remains.
It has been said that it is the price of sugar that will ultimately
bring Sudanese to the streets, and this may be true. Part of what has
kept the current government in place for so long has been significant
investment and development in the center (Khartoum) and extensive
patronage networks. But without funds to continue growth in the center
and maintain the patronage networks--as well as to pay generous
military and security salaries--the Government may be increasingly
vulnerable. This is part of the reason Sudanese negotiators are
striking such a hard bargain in the ongoing negotiations with South
Sudan.
The two greatest economic uncertainties for Sudan are the outcome
of those negotiations and whether Sudan will receive economic
assistance from friendly nations (such as fellow Arab States or China).
Some short-term economic assistance was received in recent months, but
it will not last long. Whether longer term assistance is forthcoming
will be critical. This is a question on which the United States should
be very much engaged. It will be the sovereign decision of other
countries whether they provide economic assistance to Sudan, but the
United States should encourage that any assistance provided be closely
linked to progress on key priorities, such as the type of fundamental
governance reform described earlier and implementation of the DDPD. In
particular, any economic assistance from Qatar linked to DDPD
implementation should only go to its intended destination, as described
in the agreement, in order to directly help Darfuris.
In South Sudan the economic outlook may be just as bleak. More than
90 percent of the Government of South Sudan's revenue comes from oil
production, which is currently suspended. There is no way to make up
much of that revenue in the short term. Furthermore, talk of building a
new oil pipeline through Kenya or Ethiopia and Djibouti in 18 months is
exceedingly optimistic. By most estimates it will take several years to
construct a new pipeline, and critical financing issues remain
unresolved.
There is discussion of austerity budgets, but it is difficult to
see how the accounting will work given promises not to cut SPLA
salaries and to give raises to the police. The decision to suspend oil
production has been well-received in South Sudan so far, but one
wonders how it will be viewed in 6 months or a year if there are
substantial budget cuts that reduce already minimal service delivery.
The Government of South Sudan should be straightforward and candid with
the South Sudanese population about the implications of a continued
shutdown in oil production. Popular expectations following independence
were already well beyond what could have been delivered; with the
temporary loss of oil revenue, the gap between expectations and reality
will be even larger.
The silver lining is that the difficult economic circumstances in
both countries create leverage for the international community. Both
countries desperately need outside assistance. International
coordination of any economic assistance will be crucial, so that it is
clear, for both countries, that assistance provided is contingent on
certain steps each government must take. Absent those steps, neither
country should be bailed out.
sudan-south sudan relations
Beyond the domestic challenges faced by Sudan and South Sudan,
relations between the two countries are deeply troubled. Despite heated
rhetoric in both directions and little progress in the ongoing
negotiations, I do not believe either country wants a return to full-
scale war. It would be economically disastrous on both sides of the
border. But the international community must be concerned that events
may escalate beyond control and pull the two countries back to war.
Each blames the other for instability that has much more to do with
internal factors than external interference. There is little, if any,
trust between Juba and Khartoum. These forces further complicate
already complex negotiations on post-referendum arrangements, most
notably management of the oil sector. But there must be progress in
those negotiations in order to deescalate tensions, especially around
the border. The African leadership provided by President Thabo Mbeki
and the African Union High-level Implementation Panel (AUHIP) has been
valuable, but it has to be backed up by, and coordinated with,
multilateral engagement. We know such coordination is possible because
it happened in the runup to the referendum, helping to make it a
peaceful process despite predictions to the contrary. But we also know
that the referendum and independence of South Sudan was not the end of
instability in the two Sudans. In many ways, it marked the beginning of
even greater challenges.
I want to once again express my appreciation for the opportunity to
address this committee. Thank you for holding this hearing today on
such an important and timely topic. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Temin. That is very
important testimony, particularly with regard to the equality
of accountability, and I think it is something we are going to
have to think about.
George, if I could ask you, we talked earlier about your
trip and what you observed. I know that you have brought a
video, I think, from that, but could you describe--give us a
sense of what you really saw on the ground, and what you see
perhaps from that as the most critical, immediate first step
emergency that we need to take.
Mr. Clooney. Well, what we saw--in general what we saw was
Nuban people who were incredibly vulnerable. The issues that
Ambassador Lyman was talking about are the biggest one, which
is there is a rainy season coming, and there is a great many
people who could starve to death. This has been done
intentionally. These people usually are farming and have
planted by now. They are hiding in caves.
What you see is a constant drip of sphere. Every single day
those Antonovs fly overhead. Now, these are not particularly
accurate bombs. These are big planes with bombs, and they open
up the cargo door, and they just throw them out. If they were
aiming for you, it would probably be the safest place you could
be.
But what it does is it creates this environment of fear.
Every time you hear the sound of those engines, and it takes
about 5 minutes for them to get there, and they circle. Every
time you hear the sound, everyone runs and runs to the hills.
It creates fear to keep them from doing anything really, their
ability to do anything.
And they are there without any protection. We went--one of
the roads we went up recently was taken by the north, and then
the SPLM fought their way through it. There were a lot of dead
bodies on the side of the road. We were in one village where we
heard the missile attack. They were standing there holding
signs saying stop attacking us, stop with the Antonovs. Stop.
These people every single day of their lives have to deal
with fear, not just of the future in terms of starving to
death, but actually actively being killed. And that is--that
was what the majority of what we are here to do. You know, I am
here to talk about the dangers of these people particularly,
and the specifics are that the exact same people who did this
in Darfur are the people that are doing this again. And these
signs, as the Ambassador said, are ominously similar to what
happened in Darfur. And that is the problem, and that brings us
cause to pause.
The Chairman. I gather you have a video. Are you going to
show that? I beg your pardon?
Mr. Prendergast. Time wise it is probably better to go
ahead and ask questions.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I think it is important. I heard
your description, and I think that it would be helpful to the
committee to--I mean, that is as firsthand as it gets. But it
is your choice. How long is it?
Mr. Prendergast. A few minutes.
The Chairman. Let us do that.
[Video Presentation.]
The Chairman. Well, I am glad we did share that. I am glad
you brought that, and I think it was an important part of the
testimony. And so, I appreciate very, very much your bringing
that before the committee. Those images are obviously powerful,
important. And I think it underscores what has been said here
today.
If I could just ask you, and then we will go around here,
you listed a number of things, George, that you thought were
immediate steps. What, if any--what do you think is the most
compelling, important, immediate step that either the United
States or together with the international community can do that
would have an impact?
Mr. Clooney. Senator, there is a fairly popular feeling
that this shutting off of oil by the south is damaging to both,
and there are very good arguments for that. You could argue
that if it was the United States and we were at war with Canada
and sending them oil, and they were buying bombs with it, we
would probably stop.
But the truth of the matter is, what we really need to do
is we can take this moment and engage with China, I think, for
the first time. I have gone to China and tried the version,
hey, you have got an Olympics coming, maybe it would not look
so good if you are supporting the--you know, the attacks in
Darfur. That does not really work. Guilting people often does
not.
There are economic reasons to do this for both of us, and
it seems to me that we could use this opportunity, this window
of opportunity before it gets too long, too late, by sending a
high-level envoy. And I do believe we should absolutely focus
on where their money is because they are spending a lot of it,
and they are hiding a lot of it. Even if we cannot freeze it,
the transparency itself. We have seen how that works in other
countries during this Arab Spring. When you find out how much
money they actually have taken from their own people and hid in
banks, that tends to create insurgence inside.
So, I think those are the two major steps that could be
done. That is our belief. There are many others.
The Chairman. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. George, I noted down as you gave your first
testimony your ideas about sending an envoy to China so that we
can address these issues together and using the banking
sanctions to impact the wealth of high-level Sudanese
officials. We are using similar measures with respect to Iran
and for good reason. We have had some experience with this with
North Korea. In those cases, it was because of nuclear devices.
They either had them or they were developing them.
But one could argue this is equally serious for different
reasons, and our diplomacy with China is, as you suggested,
unfortunately not just humanitarian, although humanitarian
issues are an important component of that. Access to oil is
extremely important for the Chinese, and they are prepared to
fight for it eventually if they cannot get it. And so, we have
somebody to talk to here, and I just wanted to endorse your
idea as a hope that the administration might pick up on the
testimony and some of the things we are discussing today.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, although it is, as you say, far-
fetched to think of an alternative pipeline in the shorter
term, perhaps it is not a pipe dream to think about it as a
longer term idea regard to South Sudan. This could be repeated
even if we move through one crisis, and it seems to me that for
the sake of our humanitarian effort it may be worth exploring
which investors may be willing to be involved in such an
alternative.
So, I just wanted to pick up that suggestion as one that
may be fundamental down the trail and strengthen the temporary
or immediate measures that we have to take.
So, I thank all three of you again for your testimony and
for these very practical suggestions of policy that I think are
very useful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all of you for your insights. Where you are, Mr. Clooney, in
terms of seeking a practical economic leverage for a worthy
result is, is what I was trying to elicit from our previous
panel.
How is it that we influence the behavior of others who can
influence Sudan? And in that respect, as someone who has led
sanctions here on Iran, I actually believe that we can, in
fact, use leverage in this case for a worthwhile humanitarian
purpose.
And when the Chinese have such an investment that is not
being productive, it seems we must work with the Chinese to
both get them to understand their economic interests, if
nothing else, and at the same time look at that as the
opportunity for how we ratchet down--you talked about the
accounts. We do that quite often. I hope the President might
even look at the possibility of an Executive order doing that
versus waiting for us legislatively to respond. It might be
possible under his abilities. We would have to look under the
Treasury Department.
But I would like to take some of your insights regarding
how we create the leverage to change the on-the-ground reality.
The Chinese have a multibillion dollar investment that is not
being productive, which can be used to create economic
consequences that will move people to a different course of
action out of pure necessity when they do not do it for a
higher calling, and I think those are the ways in which we are
going to actually change the realities on the ground.
So, as someone who has been a big advocate here on
sanctions for different purposes, I think they can work,
especially when we can multilateralize them. But often the
United States has to lead in order to get the rest of the world
to follow.
So, I appreciate those insights, and I hope our friends in
the State Department are listening, and that we can take it
into action. I certainly will be looking forward to doing that.
So, thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez.
I note that Ambassador Lyman and Administrator Lindborg are
still here and indeed listening, and I know that they also talk
to and work closely with John Prendergast and George Clooney,
so that hopefully--I am confident we will follow up on this.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. I just want to thank you again for the
attention that you bring to this issue, and certainly the
reality that we have seen here through this production this
morning. And those of us who travel to countries like this just
cannot bring the attention to it that people like you can, so I
thank you for that. I thank you for the suggestions that you
made not only here, but in the back room. And hopefully we will
follow up on those. But, again, thank you very much. It has
been very moving.
And to Mr. Prendergast, while you are here, since there has
been some discussion about the Satellite Sentinel Project, I
wonder if you might just take a minute or so to explain to the
rest of us and to the others here exactly how that works and
how that might be utilized in conflict areas like this.
Mr. Prendergast. Thank you, Senator. It is a partnership
between Digital Globe, which is a satellite imagery company,
Harvard, and Enough Project to take--it was George's idea
frankly that, you know, we wanted to try to drive attention to
deterring war crimes before they happen rather than bemoaning
the fact afterward, and to create a capacity to--and this is
what has happened over the last year. You find, OK, we have
soldiers mashing a particular area. We have air assets being
moved into position, attack helicopters, Antonovs, and other
things. I mean, those are targeting some of the signal
intelligence where areas are being targeted, and we can raise
the alarm bells that particular people are vulnerable, and we
need to have action.
And if there is not action taken and the attacks do happen,
at least we have the visual evidence, empirical evidence, to go
present to the International Criminal Court and the United
Nations Security Council and others for hopeful prosecution in
the future.
Senator Corker. I know the first panel acknowledged that
this was a useful tool. Are there ongoing discussions between
you and the State Department and other agencies of our
government to utilize this more fully?
Mr. Prendergast. You know, it is very important for us to
say just a footnote to George's testimony that the
administration's policy and strategy is the right one. You
know, we support very strongly Ambassador Lyman as a special
envoy, and think he is doing an extraordinary job. And so, we
are in touch all the time because we want to be supportive of
the administration, by the way, which is a very bipartisan
strategy, and it has been through the last three
administrations on Sudan. And, of course, Congressman Payne was
one of the sort of incubators of this bipartisan effort. So, we
wanted to note him as well, and raise.
But I think there are a few opportunities right now just to
put a little fine point on what this moment does present with
the cutoff of the oil. President Obama and President Hu are
going to meet very soon. This will be a chance to put this
issue high on the radar screen of the two leaders to talk about
how specifically the United States and China can forget this
kind of a partnership we are talking about.
Ambassador Lyman and others are already having
conversations, so, again, we are not telling somebody something
they do not know. But I think having that high level, real
strong endorsement of the need to deepen the partnership would
be really helpful.
And also, and you are going, Senator Kerry, very soon to
Qatar to talk to the emir. I mean, a number of countries are
bailing these guys out, you know. It is easier for them to
continue to be intransigent if they are getting credits from--
or soft loans, which they will never pay back, from the Middle
Eastern countries. So, for President Obama, for example, to
make a call directly to the emir of Qatar and say, this is not
the right time, hold it, and use it as leverage for a deal, a
comprehensive deal that addresses all these problems.
And then finally on the unilateral leverage that the United
States has, we have plenty of sanctions, you know, as everyone
knows, but we are not enforcing them. And so, giving the
Treasury Department, specifically the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, the capacity to enforce, having a couple of people on
the staff full time chasing those assets, as George said. Even
if we cannot freeze them or cannot get any other country to
freeze them, by exposing them.
What was the root of the explosion of popular sentiment
during the Arab Spring in Middle East and North Africa? It was
popular resentment against all this corruption. All these guys
have been packing the old wealth in the private accounts under
these companies--international companies that they are invested
in. Let us go find that money and expose it if we cannot freeze
it. It will put them in even deeper hot water with their own
people who at the end of the day going to solve the problem.
Senator Corker. Mr. Clooney, Mr. Prendergast, and Mr.
Temin, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin, I would just note that it is about 11:40,
and three votes started, so we have about 15 minutes, something
like that.
Senator Cardin. I will limit myself to 2\1/2\ minutes. Let
me just make this point.
First, again, thank you all for what you are doing. And let
me just underscore the point on sanctions. You are absolutely
right, sanctions are important if they can be enforced
internationally. The United States has to show the leadership,
has to have tough sanctions, and have to not only enforce those
sanctions, but use it as a high priority on their diplomacy
with other countries to enforce it.
But you are right on the asset issue. There the United
States can have a major impact because the world leaders are
hiding their money, and they come across U.S. banks. So, we can
have an effective remedy here. Some of us have joined together
what is known as the Magnitsky bill, which deals with human
rights violators in Russia that we believe should not get the
privileges of our banking system. And we think that would be an
effective way to bring them to justice.
Al-Bashir was indicted as a war criminal. There was an
arrest warrant issued for his arrest by the International
Criminal Court in March of 2009. He is a known abuser of human
rights and has violated international standards. Defense
Minister Hussein, an arrest warrant was issued this month for
his arrest. So, these are criminals. So, I think we are on a
very high authority to impose the type of financial sanctions
which could have a major impact.
The Government should not be afforded the legitimacy of the
international community when their leaders are scheduled to be
at The Hague to stand up for the crimes that they have
committed.
So, I just really wanted to urge us to keep this focus. We
cannot allow under our watch another Darfur humanitarian crisis
to emerge in this same region of the world.
So, thank you again.
The Chairman. Senator, before--I do not want you to feel
rushed. And what we are going to do is Senator Coons has gone
over. I am going to go over quickly and vote, come right back
so we will be able to keep the continuity. So, take your full
time.
Senator Cardin. Well then, would you like to respond to
what I said?
[Laughter.]
I will give you a chance to respond. I think your message,
Mr. Clooney, about the importance of international respect for
sanctions and denying the banking, the individual is what make
the decisions. So, we can deny al-Bashir the opportunity to
hide his wealth, it will have a major impact.
Mr. Clooney. I think it would, Senator. I think that the
secret to this is just tightening this noose around Khartoum,
around the people who are charged with war crimes. They should
not be allowed to have a ton of money stuffed in a Malaysian
bank, which is what is going on. We need to be able to track it
down and find it.
They are also using that money to buy weapons to hurt
innocent people. It is a cowardly act what we saw while we were
there. These are not--these are not acts of war. These are war
crimes. And they are funding it, and they are not funding it
simply with Sudanese pounds.
So, I think chasing the money is a very big issue, not just
to stop the actual acts themselves, but to put pressure on them
internally.
You know, Omar al-Bashir in his home has five tanks
surrounding and pointed out. That is not a very secure, you
know, leader quite honestly. And so, we feel as if the more you
expose his corruption, the more inclined the people in Khartoum
would be to perhaps have someone else lead their country.
Senator Cardin. As Senator Lugar pointed out in his opening
statement, the transparency bill the two of us worked on to
require that oil companies, mineral companies, to disclose
their contracts so that we can at least try to track the money.
We know that the Sudanese Government has received a lot of
income from oil wealth over the years, and we know a good part
of that has been diverted. It is not going to the people. So,
tracking that money, tracking that wealth, would have a major
impact on the comfort of their leaders. And it is something
that the United States can do. This is something that--it does
not require a lot of countries to work with us. We are the
major banking center in the world. We have got London to go
along with us. We can do an awful lot in this area without
worrying about China, or worrying about Russia, which at times
does not always follow our lead on the human rights front.
Senator Isakson, I will hand it off to you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I will be brief
also. I have got two questions.
Mr. Clooney, when I went to Darfur 3 years ago, one of the
tools that had been used to cause the disruption, and the fear,
and the intimidation was gender-based violence against women,
primarily rape. Is that going on the mountains as well?
Mr. Clooney. In the camps we were visiting, that was a very
big issue still. Again, these are the exact same patterns we
saw in Darfur. We saw it happen last year when we were in
Abyei. We saw it used in--employed again here in the Nuba
Mountains in South Kordofan. Absolutely. There was no question
about it. John, you might have----
Mr. Prendergast. Only to say that it is still happening in
Darfur. Even though the attention has gone away, there still
are massive atrocities being committed against the civilian
population. So, we need to--when we talk about a holistic
solution in Sudan, we need to talk about dealing with all of
these problems comprehensively that we have been coming back to
this committee over and over again to talk about rather than
stove piping them individually and playing into the hands of
Khartoum, which wants to divide the international community
about these various problems.
Senator Isakson. On that point, Ms. Lindborg mentioned the
possibility of a tripartite agreement in the U.N., the Arab
League and I think the African Union proposed. If al-Bashir
signed it, is there any fear he would do the same thing in
Kordofan that he has done in Darfur about just kicking NGOs out
indiscriminately and trying to disrupt the aid that we do get
in?
Mr. Prendergast. Well, I think that the Government of Sudan
learned its own version of a lesson in Darfur by allowing
international aid agencies to come in early on into the crisis,
and then become, in fact, the witnesses. So, they basically
said at the outset of their military operations in the Nuba
Mountains and Blue Nile, we are not allowing any witnesses in.
So, there are no aid groups operating now, so it is an
access crisis for all those people as the clock ticks
inexorably toward the rainy season.
So, on the first instance, and Ambassador Lyman and USAID
and others have worked very hard at trying to get an access
agreement so that working behind the African Union and the Arab
League and U.N. proposal. And so, that is really where the
attention needs to be on, and it is to stop the use of
starvation as a weapon of war. It is a war crime, and it just
must be ended.
Senator Isakson. Thanks to all of you for your advocacy,
and I will turn it over to Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
Isakson.
I cannot tell you how important it is, I think, for George,
for you and John to have gone over there and brought these
images back. And I think Chairman Kerry was right in saying we
should play them and have them up on the screen because I think
as painful as they are to see them, the thing that this does is
allow all of the American people and people around the world to
really get engaged with us, and say we do not want this to
happen again.
And one of the things that you have mentioned is, and that
is what I wanted to question a little bit on, and I think John
mentioned this, but I am willing to hear from both of you. The
idea that Satellite Sentinel could be used by prosecutors--I
was a former prosecutor, so I kind of relish the idea of having
bad guys that know something is going to be done to them. I
mean, something at The Hague. It is going to come down on them.
Have you visited with prosecutors at The Hague? Are they
interested in your technology? Have you talked to them about
the kinds of things that may be--could be utilized to
strengthen cases and those kinds of things, because if there is
anything out there that is going to prevent this from happening
again in other places in the world, is that people know that we
have an international justice system that is going to work and
eventually bring people like you described, George, the just
terribly murderous individuals, bring them to justice.
Mr. Clooney. Well, I will let you talk about The Hague for
a second.
I do want to say one thing. There is an interesting thing
that happens when you get involved in these. You think that the
minute people know, then it will stop. Your assumption is that
everyone just does not know. And the truth is even when you
know, it does not stop. It requires a constant drip of
information. It requires you to keep piling it on. And
sometimes that means that it is not going to be effective in
stopping it, but at the very least it is going to be used later
as evidence in a trial.
We are trying to continually--you know, we would like to
use this information at the Security Council because a lot of
the times what happens at the Security Council is someone, we
know the players, will veto any raising of the mandate of
protection because they will say, well, this is just rebel
infighting. Well, we have imagery that shows--we got images
yesterday that show an Antonov flying over the top, plumes of
smoke where it has bombed innocent villagers.
Well, that is not rebel infighting.
So, our hope is not just to use it at The Hague, but our
hope is to try and use it as something to pry the Security
Council toward raising the mandate from a six to a seven, you
know, trying to move that along. And John can speak about
talking with The Hague.
Mr. Prendergast. Yes. The current International Criminal
Court mandate is only--involves Darfur, crimes committed in
Darfur. So, basically as the arrest warrants have been issued
for three of the key regime leaders, they are greeted
internationally with a lot of skepticism. Like, there are still
a number of governments that believe a lot of this evidence is
manufactured, and there are still a lot of divisions
internationally about whether the crimes were as terrible as
they were alleged to have been.
So, part of the purpose of having this Satellite Sentinel
Project is to create airtight evidence for future arrest
warrants and prosecutions based on the crimes that are being
committed now, which are the same kinds of crimes by the same
people orchestrating them, as were the--as is the case in
Darfur. So, it is creating that evidentiary base for future
prosecutions, and we hope that at least the three that have
already been indicted will actually come to justice someday.
Senator Udall. Yes. Could you--I know that there are others
that are involved with you that are your partners in this, and
you may want to just mention them in terms of who has worked
with you and who is----
Mr. Clooney. On the Satellite Sentinel Project?
Senator Udall. Yes, Satellite Sentinel.
Mr. Clooney. The biggest gift we got was the satellites
themselves. Digital Globe really out of--for no other reason
than the goodness of their heart donated millions of dollars'
worth of imagery. It is hard to explain how important that is
because there is only really on satellite company that is in
that area that can do this for us. So, they have been an
incredible partner to us, and continue to be. The evidence that
we picked up, we have gotten shots of mass graves. We have
gotten shots of tank movement and troop movement and all those
things.
Remembering and understanding that part of the reason this
can work is because of the topography, you know. This would not
be as effective in the Congo because it is harder to see from
the sky, you know, with all the trees, Harvard.
Mr. Prendergast. Harvard, and then, of course, once you get
the imagery you have to have analysis of it. And so, there is a
team at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative that is dedicated
to in real time analyzing the imagery, producing independent
nonpartisan reports about what they are seeing and what they
are assessing these images to mean, and then those reports get
put out, and then we try to generate attention around them in
order, again, to act as a deterrent to the crimes.
Mr. Clooney. And they stay up all night working. They are
young people and they are just doing--it is all heart, those
kids. They are great.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. It has been very, very
helpful.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall. I think you have
got time to get over there.
Senator Udall. I hope so.
The Chairman. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Kerry, and thank you for
your disciplined and engaged leadership on Sudan and for
calling this hearing today, and for all you have done to help
continue to sustain attention and engagement on the challenging
issues around Sudan and Darfur.
I would like to thank Special Envoy Lyman and Assistant
Administrator Lindborg for your testimony and for your very
hard work in this area. And to George, to John, and to
Jonathan, thank you for what you have done to get so much
focus, engagement, and effective attention on the challenging
humanitarian issues in Darfur, in the Nuba Mountains as your
video so poignantly demonstrates, and in the ongoing and
strategic challenges that we face in engaging people in paying
attention to sustainably the very real challenges in bringing
peace and development to South Sudan and to the whole region.
Later today, Senator Isakson and I, as the chair and
ranking minority on the Africa Subcommittee, will be joined by
Senators Durbin and Wicker in introducing a resolution for
consideration by the Senate that specifically supports the
efforts that all of you have talked about today. And it calls
for the Government of Sudan to allow immediate and unrestricted
humanitarian access to South Kordofan, Blue Nile, and other
conflict areas, and calls on Sudan and the SPLM-North to reach
a mutually beneficial agreement to end their conflict. That is
just one of many things that we in the Congress can and should
be doing to continue what has long been a bipartisan tradition
of engagement leadership on these issues.
George, you closed by referencing the folks who stay up all
night, the energetic young people who process the images from
the satellite project. Just in the past few weeks, we have seen
a flood of interest in Joseph Kony through the Kony 2012
Campaign, and, John, the Enough Project has been one of the
central partners working with Resolve and with Invisible
Children to drive that.
You have both been very effective in getting Americans and
folks around the world to pay attention to a great humanitarian
crisis in a fairly remote corner of the world. What advice do
you have for all of us who want to sustain and engage Americans
and folks more broadly in actually continuing to be concerned
about a humanitarian crisis such as exists in Darfur, such as
we see emerging in the Nuba Mountains, such as continues in the
jungles of the DRC and Central African Republic with Joseph
Kony. How do we keep young people, people of all ages excited
and engaged? It is rare we have millions of people calling for
more American engagement with Africa. What do we at this
moment?
Mr. Clooney. Well, John will have some ideas. He has been
doing this a lot longer than I have.
I would say that, you know, we are going to fail a lot.
You know, we are going to fail in our attempt to help
people in these very difficult regions, and we are going to
fail a lot in trying to keep attention in a certain area
because other news stories are going to bump us off. You know,
there is going to be an Arab Spring, and we are not going to be
paying attention to what happens. And a lot of these people use
that as a moment to do some pretty terrible things.
The trick is going to be in sustaining it is to be able to
find moments that are--that you can point to and say, this is a
turning point, good or bad, and let us amplify it. And finding
several of those a year to be able to keep it up, you cannot
have a constant drip every day on television because no one
would care quite honestly. There is not just donor fatigue.
There is misery fatigue, and people get tired of it at some
point.
So, what we--our job is to find those moments. It is 100
days before these people vote for their own--for a referendum
for their own state, so let us make it a--let us focus on that.
There is an election; let us focus on that. There is a brand
new state. There is a good possibility of people starving to
death in the next couple of months, so let us focus on it.
So, part of our job is to try and pick through all of those
news cycles, find areas that we can keep it up. But young
people and church groups have been the real--they have been
doing all the hard work for us. They have been carrying this
thing for years. They were driving Darfur forever. They have
been keeping the message out. They have been fundraising. They
have been keeping the pressure on, quite honestly, all of us in
this room.
And so, I would not worry too much about the sustainability
inside the hearts of all of these young people and all of these
church groups because that just continues. It is just more
about finding moments that we can draw attention to try to move
the pin forward a little bit, and I find that to be the issue.
Mr. Prendergast. And the only footnote I would add is that
the good news is this is such a bipartisan venture. And,
therefore, we do not have real opponents here except for just
indifference of often ignorance. People just do not know.
So, the thing that I find exciting about the first 10 years
of the 21st century of activism is the chance through social
media and other fora to create real partnerships between all
these wonderful nongovernmental organizations that are working
so diligently on these issues. They partner with groups in
Africa, because, remember it is on the front lines where
Africans in places like Sudan and Congo and Northern Uganda
have been doing most of the work to try to resolve these
problems, so we can only just come in on the margins and try to
help them. So, the coalitions and the partnerships they create.
Then the partnerships that are created here in Washington
between those NGOs and Members of Congress like yourself,
Senators who have taken a stand one time after another in
supporting positive engagement in the world by the United
States. That helps stiffen the spine and give political support
to the administration, whatever party is in power.
And for President Obama, the way he engaged in advance of
the referendum in the latter half of 2010, every Sudanese,
South Sudanese person we talked to said that was perhaps the
most important, along with China's support, the most important
aspect--international aspect of getting a free and fair and
peaceful referendum in 2011.
So, it is that chain that starts on the ground in the
region with African human rights activists and others, women's
group and others, struggling to try to get the word out about
their situation, partnering with NGOs here in the United States
who partner then with you guys, who then give support to the
administration, Republican or Democrat, to then actually engage
positively.
And that, I mean, when I started in the 1980s in doing this
kind of stuff, that kind of thing did not happen. So, it is a
very exciting moment. And having George frankly can make that
larger. Having the Invisible Children video, despite all the
different opinions about it, it just makes this kind of a
partnership even more real and possible.
Senator Coons. If I could just in closing, Mr. Chairman,
George and John, I am grateful for your sustained engagement in
this. There are lots of faith groups of all backgrounds. There
are lots of nongovernmental organizations in Africa, in the
United States, and around the world who keep doing the hard
work on the ground engaging, bringing information to the light,
helping make the world aware of these crises. And this has been
a bipartisan effort across the Bush administration, the Obama
administration, folks on both sides of the aisle.
The one challenge here is sustaining support for America's
use of diplomatic and developmental resources around the world.
The United States has a lot of power--military, diplomatic,
developmental. But sustaining the investment that makes
possible what Assistant Administrator Lindborg is doing, what
Special Envoy Lyman is doing, making sure that they have the
resources for us to be engaged in Northern Uganda, in South
Sudan, in the region, delivering the sort of sustaining
investment in providing the framework for peace, for progress,
and development. That is something that has been very hotly
contested here in Congress just in the past year, and so I
would urge folks who may be paying attention or tuning in to
these issues for the first time to realize that that is
something on which there are sharp disagreements. I think we
should continue to invest 1 percent of America's total budget
in making sure that we have got the resources to be an
effective voice for justice and for progress in these parts of
the world. And I am grateful to you for bringing these things
to light and for sustaining our engagement in these parts of
the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coons, and I want to thank
you--as chairman, I really want to thank you for your
tremendous commitment and your diligence as chair of the
Subcommittee on African Affairs. You have really been terrific.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you all very much for
being here.
I want to just follow up a little bit on Senator Coons'
questions about how to sustain the interest and get action that
will help bring that international pressure to make a
difference in South Sudan, and whether you are contemplating,
or anyone you know of is contemplating, a stop Kony-like video.
I know that you have referenced that, or whether there are
other ways to get young people more engaged in this issue
because clearly that kind of energy can really make a
difference. Any of the three of you.
Mr. Clooney. It was funny. We landed yesterday and we were
gone for 8 days, and did not have time, the Kony video sort of
hit. By the time we landed everyone was asking us about it, and
I did not really know what had happened.
It is an incredibly effective tool, like John was talking
about. Social media can really be a very big deal now, and
YouTube, and Twitter, and all those elements are a way to keep
young people involved. We are going to put the videos and the
things that we got that we put together, we will make it
available to people.
There is a--the Sudan in general has an infrastructure that
is a lot stronger than most places for charitable
organizations. There have been church groups and student groups
for a long time who have been working in these areas. So, in
some ways it does not go away, you know. In some ways there is
that sustained--already sustained. Our job is to amplify it as
much as we possibly can, and we will continue to do that.
Understanding that in an election year, political will is
probably the most important thing you can get. What I think is
so terrific about being here today is that this is truly one
subject matter that both sides not only agree on, but have
actively worked hard on, and have had some success on, and have
had some failures on, and understand one another.
So, this takes a little less political will. This one is
one where you do not come up on the wrong side doing the right
thing. And so, we feel as--we feel heartened by the idea that
it is Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, and that both of them
have worked very hard on this subject matter. We feel heartened
that this is something that is not polarizing.
And so, yes, you need political will, and we will continue
to push as much as we can to get as many people as we can get
involved because the louder it is, the harder it is for these
people to commit atrocities. But we also thank you here for
your sustained involvement and know that not only do we
appreciate it, we are also very well aware that you will
continue.
Senator Shaheen. You know, I think you have all, including
the first panel, made a very important point about the fact
that this is a bipartisan effort, and that it needs to be, and
that that has been very important. I do think, as Senator Coons
pointed out, that the public support for international
assistance and our foreign aid budget, which is important to
addressing what happens on the ground in Sudan, is not always
that bipartisan and not always as robust.
So, I guess I would urge us to be thinking about social
media that is getting people to act, thinking about how to
address that foreign aid piece as part of that action because
that is clearly going to be critical as we sustain the efforts
that we need to make on the ground.
So, thank you all very much.
Mr. Clooney. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
A couple of quick questions, and I think we will close out.
But, Jonathan, what--you have talked about the political
reforms in the north and the potential of, you know, elections
in 2015 or something, trying to make a difference. Just very
quickly if you can, how do you see that--I mean, these guys are
not exactly reformers, number one, and they are not exactly
listening to anybody. How do you envision that?
Mr. Temin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an uphill battle,
and I don't want to be Pollyanna about this. But it is also an
unprecedented time in Sudan's history. A quarter of their
country just voted almost unanimously to leave. They are under
unprecedented economic stress right now. There are signs of
internal dissent within the leadership that we have not seen
much in the past. And so, those are things that could add up to
some sort of change.
But as I said, there is not a lot of evidence of it so far,
and I am not certain there is going to be. But I also think
that the alternatives are ugly, and particularly some of the
talk about regime change through violence would be quite
violent.
The Chairman. Well, I agree with you, and certainly in the
conversations that I have had in Khartoum with members of the
Government, we have tried to make the point that this really is
a major opportunity for them to kind of move in a different
direction. I worry that the threesome that has been well named
here linked to Darfur that has sort of asserted power for the
moment seems to be moving in a totally different direction. But
that, frankly, makes all of this much more compelling. And so,
we really need to refocus in a lot of ways.
If I could ask both John and George quickly, you have made
it very eloquently clear here today and compelling about the
need to deal with the food supply to avoid a disaster. But in
the long run here obviously, Blue Nile and South Kordofan need
a political solution. What did people share with you, and what
is the vision that you come back with or that they expressed to
you about that political solution for those Two Areas?
Mr. Prendergast. Well, I think that the difference is that
the people of the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile learned from
Darfur that if they allow their region to be sort of isolated
and stove piped for a bilateral deal between the Government of
Sudan and them for some kind of regional autonomy or something,
in the long run that is unsustainable. There needs to be a deal
that addresses the problem, the big root cause of the problem
in Sudan, which is the problem, as John was talking, is the
problem of governance in the center.
And so, for the first time we have really seen in the north
in Sudan a broader effort, armed and unarmed because you have
the Sudan Revolutionary Front, which has sort of formed an
association with a number of these armed groups. And, by the
way, for the first time, all the Darfur actors who were so
divided during the Darfur specific negotiations, are now under
the same umbrella and working together. And then a number of
unarmed groups who have their own objectives.
But the bottom line is people want to see a democratic
transformation just like they do throughout North Africa and
Middle East. And that is where--I think that is one of the
things that the United States can be helpful in quietly in
providing support to some of the unarmed groups that are
struggling every day to try to figure out a way--civil society
groups, and faith-based groups, and community groups, and
women's organizations, who are struggling to find a way to help
build for that democratic transformation. That kind of support,
and I know that the discussion is internal in the
administration. They have not resolved it, like how can we be
helpful here? And I think there would be a lot of things that
we could do in that regard to be able to help foster and
facilitate and empower some of the Sudanese groups themselves
to assert more definitively their democratic rights and their
future.
The Chairman. Well, we are now started on a second vote,
and this is only a 10-minute vote, so we are going to be
compelled here I think in this round to try to wrap up. But I
think we are at that point anyway.
Let me say to you, John and George, how much we really
appreciate what you have done here. I think this is a
tremendous example of the best citizen activism, and obviously,
George, you have lent your celebrity and stardom to this
initiative, which has its risks. But it also is critical to the
ability to be able to get to focus sometimes. We all wish it
were otherwise, but it is not. And we thank you for being
prepared nevertheless to just in case, spontaneously, take 8
days and go over there, and, you know, not without its risks,
might I add.
I was an activist before I came here to be a Senator, and I
vowed that I am going to stay an activist Senator. And I am
proud to have people on this committee who feel the same way.
So, I can tell you that we are going to absolutely stay focused
on this, continue to work with you, do everything we can to try
to leverage the outcome that we would all like to see.
I am an optimist, but I have, you know, learned around here
not to be naive about it. But I still do believe as intractable
as some of this looks, and I think Ambassador Lyman believes
this, too, or he would not stay at it. There is a pathway here.
There is an avenue. But we do need to increase the leverage. We
do need to reach out to China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others,
and get them to share some of this sense of urgency and,
frankly, humanitarian compelling rationale that is not always
high on the agenda in some parts of the world.
I think we can have greater impact here, and to a large
measure I think your sense of timing about when those moments
are that you need to kind of push again is important and well
taken.
So, I express the gratitude of a lot of people, but I do
not want to get gushy about it because we have got a lot of
work to do. And there is a long way to go. But this has been
helpful. And I just would say to you and others who follow this
and are interested in it, I hope the Sudan Embassy, I have no
doubt, is following it, and I hope Omar al-Bashir realizes that
there is no easy out. There is no way here that we are going to
not continue to stay engaged and to be involved. We had a
roadmap. We thought we could have moved on some components of
this. And regrettably Blue Nile and South Kordofan evidenced
behavior that made it impossible to do that.
So, it is really his choice, their choice. They will decide
to some measure where we are going to go. We are prepared to
offer open opportunities to go in a different direction, and I
know that President Obama and his security advisors and others
are--and Secretary Clinton--are greatly focused on this. You
will have an opportunity to meet and talk with them in the next
day. And all of us just need to work as we have in a very
cooperative way, I think, across party lines, across branches
of government lines, just in a constructive way to try to get
the job done.
So, thank you for helping us today to do our job better,
and we appreciate your efforts.
If everybody could just let the witnesses sort of come
back, Ambassador and Administrator. But we thank you all for
coming. We will keep the record open until one week on the
close of business Wednesday, March 21.
The Chairman. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Ambassador Princeton Lyman to Question Submitted
by Senator John F. Kerry
Question. I have been told that UNAMID may be downsizing the number
and seniority of personnel working on sexual and gender-based violence
and human rights. I know that the U.N., like all of us, must make
budget cuts, but that is not where I would begin. Protection of women
and girls and of human rights is especially important if the peace
process is to go forward. Is this downsizing taking place and if so,
what do you expect will be its potential effect?
Answer. The U.N. Secretariat assures us that senior staff human
rights positions are guaranteed under an interagency MOU between the
U.N.'s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Office of
the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). It is therefore not
possible for the mission to reduce the number or seniority of these
leadership positions without amending the MOU, which DPKO does not
intend. Ambassador Susan Rice and Ambassador Dane Smith, U.S. Senior
Advisor for Darfur, have repeatedly raised the issue of improved human
rights reporting from UNAMID with Joint Special Representative Ibrahim
Gambari and with the U.N. Secretariat. The civilian components of
UNAMID must be adequately staffed to interact with the broad range of
stakeholders in Darfur so that they are able to produce quality
reporting and to integrate these stakeholders into the broader peace
process. To that end, UNAMID is currently finalizing an internal matrix
on how it can support the signatories of the Doha Document for Peace in
Darfur (DDPD) in implementing the agreement. The Gender Advisory Unit
and the Human Rights Division have both contributed to this process, as
there are a number of provisions related to women and human rights more
broadly in the agreement. We will provide you with more details as they
are available.
______
Response of Assistant Administrator Nancy Lindborg to Question
Submitted for the Record by Senator John F. Kerry
Question. A problem is emerging in South Sudan in which
international NGOs, supported by USAID and other donors, are having
trouble securing work permits for their necessary staff. I understand
that the South Sudanese Government wants to encourage the hiring of
South Sudanese staff, but the capacity gap is immense. International
staff, many from neighboring countries in Africa, are essential for the
work and oversight of these projects. What is the extent of the
problem? Should the United States consider conditioning our aid based
on access?
Answer. The U.S. Government has been tracking closely the issue of
work permits and visas issued by the Government of the Republic of
South Sudan (RSS) since the country's independence in July 2011, as a
growing number of implementing partners of USAID-funded programs are
encountering problems renewing or extending existing permits and
obtaining new permits necessary for their expatriate staff.
Difficulties have included delays in processing of work permits (more
than 3 months to process and up to 1 year until completion),
arbitrarily enforced nationalization of positions previously allocated
to international staff, and inconsistent application of rules. An
informal survey of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in October 2011
indicated that nearly three-quarters of NGOs had experienced
difficulties when applying for work permits during the previous 6
months. Because the issue has affected the NGO community at such a
large scale, the United States and international bilateral and
multilateral partners have been working collectively to raise the issue
with the RSS in order to ensure that NGOs can continue to deliver
humanitarian and development assistance in South Sudan.
In December 2011, U.S. Charge d'Affaires Chris Datta and USAID/
South Sudan Mission Director Kevin Mullally met with Republic of South
Sudan Vice President Riek Machar Teny, Minister of Interior Gen. Alison
Manani Magaya, and the Acting Minister of Labor to discuss the
challenges that international NGOs, including U.S. Government
implementing partners, are facing regarding visa and work permits. The
outcomes of the meeting were as follows:
The ministers indicated that visas would no longer be issued
for just 1 month, but rather for 3 months, until such time as
an individual's residence situation was regularized.
The need to pay for a visa in Washington and again in Juba
was an error and will be stopped.
The Acting Minister of Labor said that only one
international NGO had contacted him regarding difficulties in
obtaining work permits, and that the issues were quickly
resolved to everyone's satisfaction at the meeting. The
ministers indicated that a formal policy to clarify procedures
would be issued in the near future. However, as of the end of
March, this policy has not yet been issued.
U.S. Government representatives committed our implementing
partners to working collaboratively with the RSS and making
every effort to employ qualified South Sudanese. All emphasized
work with implementing partners to employ qualified South
Sudanese before recruiting non-South Sudanese. In addition, the
U.S. Government and our implementing partners are making strong
efforts to develop local capacity by training South Sudanese
staff and preparing formal procedures to transition positions
and people to ensure maximum South Sudanese representation on
our staffs.
In some recent cases, work permits for some USAID partners have
been granted in a very short time. We expect this is a result of U.S.
attention to the issue and cooperation with the RSS to align
procedures. We believe that part of the problem has been a lack of
sufficient or clear visa processing procedures and systems or their
consistent application following independence last July.
We hope that a recent letter sent from the American, British, and
the Norwegian Embassies, the Delegation from the European Union, and
the United Nations Development Program, which outlined policy
recommendations for visas and work permits, will help lead to a
permanent solution on the issue. We believe that the South Sudanese
Government intends to resolve the problem with clear and consistent
procedures. For this reason, we do not believe that the United States
should consider conditioning our aid based on international access to
visas and work permits at this time.
We will continue to closely monitor developments, and coordinate
with our donor partners to advocate for the wide dissemination and
consistent application of clear appropriate, written, and respected
policies. These policies will ensure that the necessary capacity is
available in the country to provide uninterrupted delivery of
humanitarian and development assistance at the present time and in the
future to the South Sudanese people during this fragile post-
independence period.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
