    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             AFRICA'S NEWEST NATION: THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHERN SUDAN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
                                AND HUMAN RIGHTS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 16, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-90

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    66-903                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California             Samoa
    DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    RON PAUL, Texas                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             DENNIS CARDOZA, California
    TED POE, Texas                       BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    DAVID RIVERA, Florida                FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             KAREN BASS, California
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
    RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
    VACANT
                       Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
                 Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights

                   CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                KAREN BASS, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala, bishop, Diocese of Tambura-Yambio...    14
    Mr. John Eibner, chief executive officer, Christian Solidarity
      International--USA.............................................    23
    Ms. Dana Lyons Wilkins, campaigner, Global Witness...............    29
    The Honorable Roger Winter (former Special Representative on
      Sudan, U.S. Department of State)...............................    36
    The Honorable Princeton Lyman, Special Envoy for Sudan, U.S.
      Department of State............................................    45

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Frank Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virgnia: Letter to President Obama submitted
      for the record.................................................    11
    Mr. Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala: Prepared statement..................    17
    Mr. John Eibner: Prepared statement..............................    25
    Ms. Dana Lyons Wilkins: Prepared statement.......................    31
    The Honorable Roger Winter: Prepared statement...................    39
    The Honorable Princeton Lyman: Prepared statement................    49
    Ms. Rajakumari Jandhyala, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau
      for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development: Prepared
      statement......................................................    70

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    90
    Hearing minutes..................................................    91

             AFRICA'S NEWEST NATION: THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHERN SUDAN

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
                                       and Human Rights
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are holding today's hearing
    for the purpose of focusing on the creation and showing our
    solidarity with the creation of the new nation on the African
    continent, but also of assessing its myriad of challenges in
    transitioning successfully to independence.
        Recent brutal attacks by the Khartoum government on
    disputed areas in the North-South border area have raised
    alarms about renewed violence in this country that already has
    suffered far too much. For decades, the Government of Sudan in
    Khartoum has waged war, genocide against the people of Southern
    Sudan and facilitated the enslavement of its people. Even as we
    meet today, the regime of President Omar al-Bashir is seizing
    territory, causing the displacement of more than 100,000 people
    and killing countless other Black Sudanese.
        Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa, has
    been ravaged by civil war intermittently for 4 decades. The
    first Sudanese civil war occurred during the period of 1955 to
    1972 and the second ran from 1983 to 2005. More than 2 million
    people have died in Southern Sudan over the past 2 decades
    alone due to war related causes and famine, and millions have
    been displaced from their homes.
        Since 1989, the United States has maintained multiple
    sanctions against the Government of Sudan because of human
    rights concerns in Southern Sudan, as well as the western
    region of Darfur and Sudan's support for international
    terrorism.
        I have had face-to-face meetings with General Bashir in
    Khartoum pushing for lasting peace and an end to the abuses of
    his government. Unfortunately in that meeting he was far more
    interested in discussing the end of U.S. sanctions than he was
    in discussing how to end the suffering that his government and
    the rebel groups it sponsors have inflicted on countless
    innocent lives.
        Beginning in 1995, human rights organizations have raised
    the issue of kidnapping of African Southerners by Arab elements
    from the North in conjunction with the second civil war between
    the North and the South.
        I would note parenthetically that right here in this room,
    in 1996, I actually held the first hearing on chattel slavery
    in Sudan, with the focus also on Mauritania, but we did focus
    primarily on Sudan. And we heard from men and women and mothers
    who had had their children kidnapped and sold into slavery. It
    is now estimated that between 11,000 and 35,000 Sudanese are
    being held against their will and subjected to vicious
    exploitation and violent abuse in the North.
        The Khartoum government claims that slavery is the product
    of intertribal warfare, which is not under its control.
    However, credible sources indicate that the Government of Sudan
    was involved in arming and otherwise backing numerous militia
    groups involved in kidnapping and enslaving these Southerners.
    Regardless of who initiated their enslavement, their freedom
    must be secured as part of the South's declaration of
    independence.
        One Sudanese slave, Simon Deng, escaped and is now living
    in freedom in the United States. Deng said that every night
    while he was in captivity he would go to sleep thinking maybe
    tomorrow someone will come to my rescue. He now goes to sleep
    thinking of those fellow slaves left behind, knowing that they
    are thinking and dreaming the same thought, living on that same
    hope that tomorrow someone will come to rescue them.
        These people enslaved in the North must not be forgotten in
    the celebration and the inauguration of a new country. The
    United States and the rest of the international community must
    not let their suffering continue.
        On January 9th, South Sudan, as we all know, held a
    peaceful and transparent referendum on Southern secession as
    called for in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. According
    to the South Sudan Referendum Commission, 98.8 percent voted
    for secession. In early February, Sudanese President Bashir
    officially accepted the result of the referendum. The United
    States, the African Union, the European Union, the U.N., and
    others endorsed the result as well. On July 9, 2011, the
    Republic of South Sudan will officially declare its
    independence.
        Unfortunately, a mutual military buildup, occasional
    clashes and unresolved issues from the CPA led to a tense
    atmosphere in the Abyei region. On May 19th, according to the
    U.N. report, a Sudanese Armed Forces Joint Integrated Unit
    convoys, accompanied by U.N. peacekeeping forces, was attacked
    by the SPLA outside of Abyei. The Northern military unit was
    being moved to a newly agreed upon position. The Sudan People's
    Liberation Army denied deliberately attacking the Northern
    military unit as retaliation for an earlier SAF attack on an
    SPLA Joint Integrated Unit, but that May 19th attack took place
    in an area controlled by the Southern Sudan police force.
        As usual, the Khartoum government has vastly overreacted.
    Northern military forces invaded Abyei, displacing as many as
    100,000 people and began moving Arabs into the area. This ethic
    cleansing of the Abyei area will have a far reaching impact on
    the resolution of this dispute. The indiscriminate bombings in
    Southern Kordofan, attacks in the Nuba Mountain area and
    reported door-to-door murders of non-Arab Africans is creating
    a scene as horrific as any during the civil wars.
        We are nearly on the eve of independence for South Sudan,
    yet many issues remain unresolved. There is the undefined
    border, citizenship questions regarding Southerners living in
    the North, governance issues for the post-independence nation,
    equitable sharing of oil revenues, the question of liberation
    and repatriation of Sudanese still held in bondage and, of
    course, the continuing Northern military attacks.
        The United States, one of the guarantors of the CPA, has a
    great deal at stake in South Sudan's successful transition to
    independence. Since 2004, the U.S. has spent $9.8 billion in
    humanitarian and other assistance. But that monetary investment
    is far outweighed by the moral commitment to see this
    transition through to a successful conclusion. Now we must do
    all that we can to help this new nation come into being in
    peace and help its government to safeguard the life, liberty
    and fundamental human rights of its people.
        I would like to now yield to my friend and colleague, Mr.
    Payne, for his opening comments.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this important hearing. This is a very critical moment
    in the history of Sudan. Many of us have been dealing with
    Sudan for many, many years. And I see my colleague, Mr. Wolf,
    who has been on the battlefield for this issue for so many
    years. And I want to also express my deep appreciation to the
    witnesses who certainly are among the most knowledgeable people
    on Sudan. Ambassador Lyman, the Honorable Roger Winter, former
    Special Representative on Sudan, USAID Deputy Assistant
    Administrator, Ms. Rajakumari Jandhyala, have all been deeply
    engaged in the intense international struggle to bring justice
    and peace to the people of Sudan. I would also like to thank
    the private panel witnesses whose engagement is vital in
    bringing peace and development to the people of Sudan and the
    individuals who for many, many years NGOs have made a
    tremendous goal in working toward a solution to the problems in
    Sudan. And we appreciate all the work that they have done over
    the years. I would like to thank all of you for your commitment
    and selfless determination to make peace in Sudan a reality.
        I spoke to President Salva Kiir yesterday. He told me that
    he is committed to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Later,
    I will mention some other issues we discussed. But he is
    determined to withhold any retaliation because he wants to see
    a peaceful transition and the new independent state go into
    being without disruption.
        Today Sudan is at a crossroads. In less than 23 days, on
    July 9, 2011, the world will witness the birth of a new nation,
    the Republic of South Sudan. With independence day rapidly
    approaching, a myriad of issues remain unresolved. Yet, let us
    not forget that the referendum that facilitated this secession
    is a sign of tremendous progress, the peaceful nature of the
    referendum in which a stunning 98.8 percent of South Sudanese
    voted for independence was a testament of the great hope and
    excitement that lies in the hearts of the people of South
    Sudan.
        Unfortunately, recent violence in Abyei and Southern
    Kordofan also remind us of the important work that remains to
    be done to ensure a peaceful transition to statehood.
        My first visit to Sudan was in 1993, when the SPLA
    controlled a town near the Ugandan border. That was the
    frontline at that time. I saw the suffering of citizens
    firsthand. Since then, I have visited liberated areas over a
    dozen times, but never to Khartoum. I refuse to go to Khartoum
    because I refuse to recognize an illegitimate government and I
    will never step my foot into that city.
        With deep sadness, though, I remember visiting Abyei in May
    2008 just after the town had been attacked and burned to the
    ground by Bashir's forces and pro-government militia. And we
    have some photos that we took. And this was 3 years ago. And
    the same thing happened several days ago. The people of Abyei
    have suffered and suffered. And the suffering should end. It is
    wrong. It is absolutely wrong. These pictures from that sad day
    depict the physical and human devastation caused by the
    bombing. The atrocity displaced more than 40,000 people. And
    upon return, I introduced a resolution to highlight this
    heinous act of violence. We must remember the human cost of
    such acts of aggression.
        The people of Abyei have suffered severely after prolonged
    civil war. For many of the displaced, the right to return home
    is increasingly becoming more and more difficult. We do not
    want to see Abyei turn into another longstanding dispute like
    Kashmir.
        Compounding this is the recent fighting in Southern
    Kordofan, the latest flash point in this conflict. Humanitarian
    organizations on the ground have reported that just 2 days ago,
    northern forces detonated as many as 52 bombs, leaving as many
    as 7,000 people without access to food, water and shelter.
    There are disturbing reports of Northern forces going door to
    door to find and kill SPLM supporters, as well as denying and
    manipulating humanitarian assistance and aid.
        The new violence is by no means an isolated or localized
    incident. Bashir has done this before; many, many times.
    Remember Darfur. The people of Darfur are still suffering and
    many remain in displaced camps on the border of Darfur in Chad.
        South Sudan's President, Salva Kiir, has shown considerable
    restraint thus far because he does not want to go to war and
    seeks a peaceful resolution to the crisis. As I mentioned, I
    spoke to President Salva Kiir yesterday. He confirmed the level
    of violence and aggression by the Bashir regime in Southern
    Kordofan and Abyei.
        The U.S. must support the people of Southern Sudan by
    providing support in the security sector so that they can
    better defend themselves. In 2008, President Bush approved a
    request by the South for an air defense system. To this day,
    this pledge has not been fulfilled. The South purchased tanks,
    but the Obama administration has not allowed the tanks to be
    delivered from Kenya to South Sudan.
        We cannot stand by idly as Bashir continues his aggression,
    brings in his weapons, brings in his planes, brings in his
    tanks, and the U.S. Government said that the South Sudanese
    cannot have a few tanks to try to protect themselves. It is
    wrong.
        Ambassador Lyman, I look forward to hearing the latest
    update on Abyei and Southern Kordofan. The outstanding issues
    seriously endanger the viability of peaceful relations between
    the North and the South. We must use all available diplomatic
    and political tools, including possible sanctions and other
    accountability measures, to ensure progress in the remaining
    CPA negotiations.
        Despite recent fighting, the U.N. has continued to provide
    vital aid in the region. In order to ensure an effective
    peacekeeping mission after July 9th, the new UNMIS mission must
    include a Chapter 7 mandate to adequately protect civilians.
    Looking past July 9th, the governor of South Sudan will need
    our support in order to meet the demands of the people.
        South Sudan continues to have some of the worst human
    development indicators in the world. In a country ravaged by
    decades of war, the challenges are daunting. The U.S. and
    international community must help the Government of South Sudan
    provide its people with health care, education and prosperity
    in order to ensure peace. South Sudan will need to build
    infrastructure and to provide employment opportunities.
        In an emerging country where oil deposits account for
    roughly 98 percent of the region's revenues, we must also work
    to ensure the new developing economy will be diversified and
    include sustainable land use, agricultural development and
    conservation, thus ensuring stability and shared benefits for
    the South Sudanese people. Let us not forget that peace will
    depend not only on troops, but on development.
        The United States Government, backed by the steadfast
    support of the American people, have long been a critical
    partner in the Sudan peace process. We must reinforce our past
    investments in diplomacy and development to ensure that the
    current progress evolves into stability and continued growth.
        In less than 23 days, South Sudan will become the newest
    nation in the world. Like any newborn, the country will be
    fragile and weak and they will need our continued support for
    decades to come. We must remain engaged and commit our support
    to democracy, rule of law, justice, and peace for the people of
    South Sudan.
        Thank you very much, And I look forward to hearing from the
    witnesses.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I would like to now yield
    to Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
    this hearing. Mr. Chairman, my home State of Nebraska has the
    largest number of Southern Sudanese refugees in the United
    States. And the independence of Southern Sudan was closely
    followed back home and it is a true testament to the character
    of Nebraskans that they supported their neighbors before,
    during, and after that referendum. I have been particularly
    impressed by the civic engagement of local youth in particular
    as I hear frequently from students wanting to better understand
    Sudanese history and circumstances and how they could actually
    help themselves.
        I met recently with a young Nebraskan, 24 years old, who
    returned to Southern Sudan to bring needed access to clean
    water to his former community. I learned of a local Omaha
    church's work to bring portable hospital equipment and medical
    supplies to underserved areas of Southern Sudan as well. The
    Southern Sudan diaspora is strong in Nebraska and refugees, as
    well as their neighbors and new friends, want to help ensure a
    stable and successful independent state in whatever capacity
    they can.
        I wish, Mr. Chairman, the story of Southern Sudan's
    independence could all be good news as well, neighbor helping
    neighbor, the great humanitarian capacity of the human spirit,
    the extraordinary event of people realizing their highest
    democratic ideals. But sadly, it is not that easy.
        The grave conflict in Abyei and the resulting refugee
    spillover will finally receive much needed attention in this
    hearing. Knowing that Abyei would be the hotspot of any
    conflict, we have been watching this area very closely. And I
    know Ambassador Lyman has been working with painstaking care to
    broker peace.
        I look forward to learning more about a new temporary DA,
    Demilitarization Agreement, between the North and the South as
    the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, according to media
    reports, just said hours ago that it was readying for more
    fighting. Furthermore, in the last several days my office has
    received numerous alarmed reports from advocacy groups of
    imminent chemical warfare bombing, executions and ethnic
    attacks in the Nuba Mountains. Southern Sudan's Vice President
    has reported to the U.N. Security Council that ethnic cleansing
    was underway in the South Kordofan state, especially against
    Southern sympathizers in the Nuba Mountains.
        While this area is just north of what will be the North-
    South border, I am intensely concerned that the scope of
    violent oppressive action against those with ties to the South
    is very real. While the extent to which these attacks have been
    perpetrated by the Sudanese Armed Forces or militia groups does
    remain unclear, the violence is a violation of the
    Comprehensive Peace Agreement and warrants immediate
    investigation.
        I am also concerned about the potential areas of conflict
    that are outside the current scope of international attention
    in the Upper Nile. Concerns have been expressed that certain
    breakaway groups, including the Nuer, haven't fully been
    absorbed into the emerging southern culture. Nascent conflicts
    in other lesser known areas could also threaten potential
    stability. The potential sources of ethnic conflict, including
    any imbalance of government power in Southern Sudan's dozens of
    ethnic groups, does loom.
        Sudan, of course, has many sad experiences with this. A
    major source of North-South conflict stems from colonial time
    when Northern groups were given preference in government
    positions over Southerners.
        I am keenly interested in hearing from our witnesses, in
    particular Ambassador Lyman, about the steps that the
    Government of South Sudan is taking to create a government
    inclusive of ethnic minorities, also women, to mitigate the
    risk of conflict that has historically marred too many post
    colonial independent African states.
        And importantly as we discuss the future of a healthy and
    vibrant Southern Sudanese state, we must also be clear that we
    want a future, stable and viable North. However, China's
    relationship with Northern Sudan is of particular concern. Just
    today China announced it would be welcoming President Omar al-
    Bashir with an official state visit later this month to deepen
    ``their deep and profound friendship,'' according to China's
    foreign ministry spokesman.
        Sudan is China's third largest trading partner in Africa,
    and China has been its largest arms supplier, as well as a
    major oil investor. Will China's unrestrained, mercantilistic
    agenda deepen this geopolitical conflict? It is an important
    question.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing
    that is of personal importance to many of my constituents, many
    of whom have suffered and sacrificed so much to have their
    chance to realize their democratic hopes manifested in an
    independent Southern state. I look forward to relaying the
    proceedings of this hearing to them.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Payne. Thank you for holding this hearing on the situation in
    Sudan. As the anticipated July 9 date of the South Sudan
    independence quickly approaches, I hope that we work toward a
    meaningful way forward in an important and conflict torn
    region.
        I have watched with growing concern as the deteriorating
    security situation has come to a head with recent violence in
    oil producing border regions. Where there have been reports of
    aggression attributed to both sides, it is clear that the
    North's Sudanese Armed Forces invasion of Abyei violated the
    terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and has inflamed
    further security and humanitarian crises and warrants measured
    reevaluation of our policy toward Khartoum.
        The Sudanese people have endured many years of ethno-
    religious violence, state-sponsored oppression and genocide
    that has resulted in the loss of as many as 2.5 million lives
    with millions of others displaced. With recent crises in Abyei
    and South Kordofan, these numbers continue to rise.
        It must remain a U.S. priority to support viable security
    agreements that advance implementation of the CPA. We look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the status of
    our diplomatic and development efforts to these ends. We also
    hope to hear more about the work of the international community
    to complement our interests in Sudan.
        With the mandate for the U.N. mission in Sudan set to
    expire next month and the Sudanese Government maintaining that
    it will not allow an extension, I am particularly interested in
    hearing what role you think a U.N. mission could and should
    play in either the North or the South. I am also interested in
    hearing what role you think the African Union should have in
    any negotiations and peacekeeping.
        While improvements are certainly needed, UNMIS and other
    peacekeeping missions address some of our most challenging
    security situations and directly impact U.S. national
    interests.
        In closing, I would like to thank the panelists for their
    testimonies and presence here today. I hope that your answers
    and opinions will help us realize avenues toward stability and
    peace between the North and the South.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes the
    gentlelady from New York, Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all
    you do on behalf of human rights throughout the world.
        The future of South Sudan is of great importance to me
    because of the Sudanese presence in the Syracuse area. Syracuse
    has been home to over 500 of the Lost Boys of Sudan. In fact,
    my district office has a graduate student interning with us by
    the name of Pierre Anthony, who is one of those Lost Boys.
        I am also pleased and very honored to have with us today in
    the hearing room a very prominent member of the Sudanese
    diaspora and a constituent of mine, Father Darius Makuja.
    Father is a professor of medieval theology at Le Moyne College
    in Syracuse. He holds master's and doctoral degrees in
    historical theology from St. Louis University. He has published
    work on the situation in Sudan, including an article in the
    journal Encounter entitled, ``Religious Fundamentalism and
    Political Hegemony: A Case of Islamic Fundamentalism and
    Conflict in Sudan.''
        Father Makuja is originally from Torit, near the Ugandan
    border. He is an important advocate for the South Sudanese in
    America, not only in assisting them but also in helping call
    attention to the challenges the South Sudan faces and will
    continue to face in the aftermath of obtaining its
    independence.
        In a referendum in January 2011, the Southern Sudanese
    people overwhelmingly voted in favor of independence from the
    North. South Sudan is due to gain its independence on July 9th.
    Tragically, bloodshed along the ill-defined border between the
    North and the South Sudan over the last 3 weeks has raised
    fears that the two longstanding rivals will return to open
    conflict. A number of sensitive issues between the North and
    the South remain unsettled, how to share oil revenues, where to
    draw the common border, and how to split the national debt.
        Moreover, Khartoum government forces seized the disputed
    region of Abyei, tanks and troops, on May 21st, causing tens of
    thousands of people to flee and drawing an international
    outcry. Despite the United States, the United Nations and
    Southern Sudanese officials calling on the North to withdraw,
    the North seems to be further entrenching itself. And it
    remains to be seen whether an agreement cannot only be reached,
    but also be abided by.
        The security situation remains grave with intense fighting,
    sporadic artillery fire, and a continuing military buildup
    along the contested border between the North and the South.
        For several years, the United States has engaged in
    humanitarian development and peacekeeping work in Sudan and has
    participated in efforts to resolve the civil war between the
    North and the South. The United States of America has a stake
    in seeing that the Republic of South Sudan becomes a
    successful, a stable, and a secure state.
        I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look
    forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Buerkle. The chair
    recognizes Congresswoman Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you once again, Chairman Smith.
        For the past several years, the world has watched as
    conditions in Sudan have continued to deteriorate. Despite the
    hopeful passing of the peace referendum decision in January,
    the road to independence for South Sudan has not been easy.
    Recent government assaults on innocent civilians have increased
    the humanitarian and refugee crisis throughout Sudan and the
    region and destabilized the delicate balance of peace. My
    deepest condolences go out to the people of Sudan that have
    been affected by the recent violence. To those who were
    displaced, have lost family members or were wounded during the
    attack, my thoughts are with you.
        In addition to the violence of the Sudanese Armed Forces,
    the Sudanese Government continues to delay the implementation
    of aspects of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and has taken
    steps to impede its progress. We must do all we can to ensure
    the peaceful transition of governments and the equitable
    division of resources to guarantee the safety and well-being of
    all Sudanese people.
        A good demonstration of democracy is a willingness to
    embrace change for the overall betterment of a country and the
    human rights of its citizens. I believe we must assist in the
    implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by urging
    both sides to end the violence and cease all military actions.
    We must continue providing U.S. assistance to promote stable
    governance in South Sudan, strengthening multilateral
    international engagement, and preventing terrorists from having
    a safe haven in Sudan.
        I support President Obama's statement yesterday insisting
    that both sides must be held accountable to their international
    obligations and agreements. The United States must remain
    active and expand our diplomatic engagement in Sudan, along
    with our United Nations partners. We must have the opportunity
    to play a key role in advancing a healthy democracy, economic
    growth, and a peaceful and prosperous future for the Sudanese
    people in the region.
        I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today
    and learning more about the current conditions in Sudan, as
    well as how the U.S. can promote the peaceful independence of
    the Republic of South Sudan. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. I would like to
    now recognize Congressman Frank Wolf, who is chair of the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies on the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I want to thank you
    for your actions on this issue and so many others, but being
    the first out of the box to deal with this. And I also want to
    publicly thank Congressman Payne for his faithfulness over the
    years on this issue in good times as well as bad times.
        I remember reading Samantha Power's book, ``A Problem from
    Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.'' Her frustration at the
    lack of U.S. action in the face of human suffering was palpable
    and understandable. She examined cable traffic and State
    Department press guidance, which eliminated any doubts that the
    horrors taking place in countries like Rwanda were not unknown
    to policymakers like U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
    knew what was taking place in Rwanda, and former Secretary of
    State Warren Christopher, who also knew what was taking place.
    Bill Clinton had the good sense of going to Rwanda and
    apologizing for the lack of action by his administration.
        Have we learned nothing yet? Are we ready to see another
    Rwanda? Today in Sudan we see unfolding before us what can only
    be described as a recurring nightmare in that country, a
    genocidal government hell-bent on maintaining its grip on
    power, treating civilian populations as mere collateral damage.
    And in the face of these murderous policies in Abyei and
    Southern Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains, the White House can
    hardly muster more than a Friday night 7:45 press statement by
    the Press Secretary and not by the President of the United
    States to come out and in the Rose Garden and say what should
    be said. Press statements released at 7:35 Friday in this town
    communicate to me volumes about the priority, or the lack
    thereof, of the matter at hand.
        Last week, with news reports of a rapidly deteriorating
    situation in Sudan, I wrote President Obama urging him to act
    swiftly to dispatch former Secretary of State Colin Powell to
    Sudan to attempt to secure a peaceful resolution of the crisis
    and salvage the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in the weeks
    remaining before South Sudan can become an independent nation.
        Don Payne was there at the signing. Secretary Powell was
    there at the signing. Roger Winter was there at the signing.
    Secretary Powell, given the opportunity and given the sticks,
    may very well be able to deal with this, and yet the response
    from the White House is zero, zero, zero.
        I submit a copy of that letter for the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Wolf. Not only is engagement at the highest levels
    needed, but the engagement must include sticks. We have seen
    time and time again that dangling carrots before an indicted
    war criminal, Bashir, will never yield the desired results.
        My sense of urgency is even greater today. This week, I had
    the opportunity to meet a young man who was an intern in my
    office. He has been living in Sudan for the last 2 years
    engaged in humanitarian and development work. He is back in the
    States briefly but remains in close contact with folks in
    Sudan, including in areas that are presently cut off from the
    rest of the world. What I heard from these sources is bone
    chilling. Door to door targeted killings of the SPLM
    supporters, mass graves, Antonov bombers indiscriminately
    shelling civilian populations; in short, an unfolding tragedy
    of the highest order right before our eyes, and the
    administration knows it.
        And when we look at this and Samantha writes her next book,
    the cables will show what we now know and what no one is doing
    anything about.
        The committee has before it today several distinguished
    witnesses, including my friend Roger Winter. These panelists
    will undoubtedly urge the administration to consider a variety
    of policy options to stem the killing and avert a mass
    humanitarian crisis. I pray they will be given every
    consideration.
        And the thought that China is welcoming Bashir--I did not
    know it until Congressman Fortenberry said it--is incredible.
    What more do you need to know? China has been aiding them with
    regard to the Antonov, with regard to the Soviet Hind
    helicopters, with the AK-47s, and supporting the genocide in
    Darfur, the number one supporter of the genocide in Darfur that
    many people are so concerned about, the Chinese Government. And
    keep in mind, Hu Jintao, the President of China, was the
    architect of the policies to really bring about the destruction
    of Tibet. And you had the 2009 Nobel Prize winner, President
    Obama, holding a steak dinner for Hu Jintao when the 2010 Nobel
    Prize winner was in jail and his wife was under house arrest,
    and now we find that they are welcoming Bashir. What more do we
    need to know? Lives hang in the balance.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having these hearings.
        Mr. Smith. Chairman Wolf, thank you very much for your
    statement and for your leadership on human rights. Let me just
    note that originally Special Envoy Princeton Lyman was
    scheduled to testify first. He was called to the White House.
    So we have reversed the order and we will invite what was Panel
    2 to become Panel 1. I would like to--if they could make their
    way to the witness table--just recognize Bishop Andudu Adam
    Elnail, whose diocese actually represents the Nuba Mountains,
    among other areas, and Bishop Abraham Nhial Yel, whose--these
    are both Episcopal bishops whose diocese includes Abyei. If
    they wouldn't mind standing. I know they are here. And thank
    you for your tremendous leadership.
        I would like to now introduce our very distinguished and
    knowledgeable panel, beginning with Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro
    Kussala, who is originally from Southern Sudan. When he was
    just 9 years old, his mother was killed in a Northern
    government military raid on his village. His family fled Sudan
    and eventually settled in neighboring DRC. Bishop Hiiboro's
    family eventually returned to Sudan and he became a priest in
    1994. After serving refugees in the Central African Republic,
    he returned to Sudan where he has been an outspoken and totally
    courageous advocate in demanding protection for his people. We
    welcome the bishop to our panel, and thank him for being here.
        We will then hear from Dr. John Eibner, Christian
    Solidarity International. He is the CEO for CSI in the United
    States. He has traveled to Sudan over 100 times since 1992,
    often working in frontline situations to document slavery and
    other gross human rights abuses. Dr. Eibner played a leading
    role during the last civil war to raise awareness of these
    human rights issues among the public and policymakers. Dr.
    Eibner also served as CSI's main representative at the United
    Nations in Geneva and has written extensively on human rights
    issues for a range of well-known publications. I would note
    parenthetically that both Chairman Wolf and I have traveled to
    many human rights abusing countries around the world with CSI,
    including China in the past. So we welcome you, Dr. Eibner.
        Then we have Ms. Dana Wilkins, who is a campaigner for
    Global Witness, an NGO that works to prevent natural resources
    from fueling conflict and corruption. Ms. Wilkins recently
    returned from Southern Sudan where she did extensive advocacy
    and information exchange with government officials, local civil
    society, and members of the donor community. Ms. Wilkins has
    been working to ensure that there is transparency and
    accountability in Southern Sudan's oil sector after
    independence to help prevent a return to war and also to
    provide equity and fairness to the people from those reserves.
        Then we will hear from Ambassador Roger Winter, who first
    went to Sudan in 1981 to do humanitarian work for a nonprofit
    group, which we all know and respect on this committee, the
    U.S. Committee for Refugees. Ambassador Winter continued his
    work until early 2001, when he became Director of the U.S.
    Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID. While at the
    office in that role and subsequently as Assistant Administrator
    at USAID, Ambassador Winter participated on the U.S. team--led
    the team--to what then became the 2005 Comprehensive Peace
    Agreement. Ambassador Winter has served as the U.S. Special
    Representative on Sudan from 2005 to 2006, when he retired.
        I would just note that all of our witnesses have very
    extensive biographies, which will be made a part of the record.
    But to allow maximum time for your testimony and questions,
    they will be made a part of the record. So, Bishop, if you
    could begin.

     STATEMENT OF MR. EDUARDO HIIBORO KUSSALA, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF
                             TAMBURA-YAMBIO

        Bishop Hiiboro. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for calling this
    important and timely hearing concerning the Sudan and for
    giving me the opportunity to testify before this committee on
    behalf of the people of South Sudan. I also would like to thank
    the ranking member, Mr. Payne, and all the members of the
    subcommittee for their longstanding commitment to the welfare
    of my people.
        With the committee's permission, I would like to enter my
    full written testimony for the record, and I will summarize it.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered. And that goes for
    all of our distinguished witnesses.
        Bishop Hiiboro. My name is Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala.
    I am the bishop of the Catholic Diocese Tambura-Yambio in
    southwestern Sudan. And I am very grateful to have come from my
    native Sudan to share with you the gratitude, the hopes and the
    concerns of the new nation. The Sudanese church in her
    prophetic role has accompanied the Sudanese people in times of
    peace and war. The church has been building peace, providing
    basic services and serving millions of Sudanese people across
    the generations.
        As international aid actors come and go, it is an
    indigenous church sharing the hopes, the suffering of the
    people, giving voice to those often who are not heard. I have
    come here definitely to thank you, the American people, and
    express to you the hopes of the people of South Sudan. We thank
    you for the efforts you did in order to get for us, with our
    own collaboration and yours, the referendum successfully done.
        Our hope in South Sudan is that we are going to have a
    nation of our own since time immemorial, a country that would
    hope to be a country of dignity, peace, freedom and human
    prosperity. The achievement of the referendum was a collective
    effort for which we thank you and ask you then that the
    homework is not finished. We are seeing the responsibilities
    that come to us as people of South Sudan to be accountable,
    transparent and consistent in building a nation of dignity and
    peace. And we can all do this very well with your
    collaboration.
        And my visit here, definitely, is to invite you, the
    American people, the American Government to be consistent, to
    persevere, and to remain focused on the cause of the people of
    Sudan. You all have very well expressed and discussed the
    problems that we have gone through. I want to recommend an
    immediate stop to the violence that is going on within Sudan at
    the moment. I would like to recall what we have gone through
    and to ask you that it is time to stop it. If we do not stop
    this war, it is quite clear that it will spread and go beyond
    control. There is a possibility that there is this intolerance
    within South Sudan. Let us seize this opportunity and stop this
    war and give Sudan what it has lacked for decades.
        And I would like to express what has been missing on the
    accord that was signed in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace
    Agreement. Many of the things that have not been implemented
    remain a stumbling block. If we can remain focused and have
    those things realized, we can save South Sudan the possibility
    of enjoying its future. And we can also guarantee a stable
    Northern Sudan that can protect the regional members from going
    into conflict.
        I want to underline the importance for the support of the
    displaced and refugees. The humanitarian support has to
    continue. And as much as we know, under the name for peace and
    development, the hope for the people of South Sudan is that
    July 9th will be the end of the decades of suffering and pains
    of our people and is a moment in which we can say the past is
    gone and now we can have a new life.
        The fear that grows around us can be stopped if this House,
    if the Congress, if the American people can be consistent, I
    repeat.
        I want to conclude with a special appeal that July 9th
    should be an opportunity for the Government of the United
    States and our friends to guarantee peace in that part of
    Africa and that the peace will serve as a balance rod for the
    rest of the countries in the region.
        Having ended Africa's longest war, Africa's largest country
    is at a crossroads. The road after the violence and suffering
    of our past has been a long one. But with the continued support
    and ongoing commitment of the Congress, we can all help bring
    millions of South Sudanese a chance to enjoy the hope and the
    freedom of justice and peace it sorely deserves and has long
    awaited.
        I was born into this war. I lost my mom in the war and I
    have grown as much as I am in the refugee camps in the most
    difficult areas. And I represent millions of orphans in my
    country who have gone through the same history. My story is a
    story of the people of South Sudan and the people of the Sudan.
    Sudan must not return to war again so they will not lose many
    mothers and children due to this war. And that is my interest.
    And I pray that this House will continue consistently to extend
    and to get Sudan stable and into freedom.
        Thank you and God bless you.
        [The prepared statement of Bishop Kussala follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Bishop Hiiboro, thank you so much for your
    eloquent testimony and thank you for the blessing. We know that
    South Sudan is in all of our prayers. And there is a lot that
    divides the House and the Senate and Congress these days, but
    we are--we will be praying very hard for peace and
    reconciliation and that has been led by the church. So I thank
    you so much.
        Dr. Eibner.

        STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN EIBNER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY INTERNATIONAL--USA

        Mr. Eibner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the
    opportunity to testify about slavery. I am particularly pleased
    that my anti-slavery colleagues, Diane Gooch and Joe Madison,
    are with us today.
        Slavery, an internationally recognized crime against
    humanity, continues to blight the lives of tens of thousands of
    Southern Sudanese. It furthermore darkens the prospect of a
    genuinely comprehensive and sustained peace and threatens the
    security of Africa's newest nation.
        May I begin by introducing Achol Deng, a liberated slave?
    For about 15 years, Achol served a master in Northern Sudan.
    She was threatened with death. She was gang raped, genitally
    mutilated, forced to convert to Islam, renamed Mariam and was
    racially and religiously insulted. She lost the sight in one
    eye when her master thrashed her face with a camel whip for
    failing to perform correctly Islamic rituals. This mother of
    four said she saw two of her children beaten to death for minor
    misdemeanors. She lost the use of one of her arms when her
    master took a machete to it because she failed to grind grain
    properly.
        As Sudan enters a new era of crisis on the eve of Southern
    independence with fresh waves of violence, it is timely to
    revisit the slavery aspect of what Francis Deng calls Sudan's
    war of visions, a cultural conflict that transcends the late
    North-South civil war, a battle that continues today.
        Senator Danforth, a Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan,
    understood the true significance of slavery. In his report to
    the President, he rightly identified progress on the
    eradication of slavery as one of his four tests of the
    willingness of the belligerents to embark on a course of peace.
        In accordance with the Danforth recommendations, the U.S.
    Government sponsored an investigation by the International
    Eminent Persons Group on slavery. Their findings largely
    corroborates CSI's. They observed that slave raiding in Sudan
    was government sponsored and ``commonplace.'' Slavery, they
    also noted, included a disturbing pattern of abuse very much
    like that endured by Achol Deng.
        The Eminent Persons proposed a comprehensive policy for
    eradicating slavery and stated,

            ``Eliminating the abuses described in this report will
            require major political initiatives on the part of both
            the Government [of Sudan] and of the SPLM/A. The
            initiatives we propose can only succeed with assistance
            from the international community. This assistance must
            be substantial, long term, carefully conceived and
            above all rigorously monitored.''

        Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, neither have major political
    initiatives nor significant long-term carefully conceived
    assistance been forthcoming. While the CPA created the historic
    opportunity for ending the civil war, it failed to include a
    mechanism for the liberation and repatriation of slaves.
        Some bold efforts were made following the signing of the
    CPA to restore slavery to the peace agenda of Khartoum, Juba
    and the international community. I have mentioned several of
    them in my written submission, including H.R. 3844 of 2007,
    sponsored by Mr. Smith and co-sponsored by Ms. Watson. But
    these constructive initiatives failed as a result of lack of
    political will in Congress and in Washington generally.
        The signing of the CPA did, however, have a beneficial
    anti-slavery byproduct. It produced an end to slave raids in
    Southern Sudan. But those already enslaved during the war and
    their offspring remained in bondage. According to Southern
    members of the Sudanese Government's former showcase anti-
    slavery organ, the now dissolved Committee for the Eradication
    of the Abduction of Women and Children, over 35,000 slaves from
    Northern Bahr El-Ghazal alone remain in bondage. In addition,
    slavery is used as a weapon of war against black Africans in
    Darfur. The enslavement and horrific abuse of Sudanese tactics
    of the Lord's Resistance Army in Equatoria, which I am sure the
    Bishop can speak a very long time about, is another appalling
    and neglected facet of Sudan's slavery problem.
        I would encourage members to search for ways to implement
    the constructive proposals set forth in the report of the
    Eminent Persons, in particular the need for a financially
    transparent and functional Sudanese national institution for
    locating and liberating slaves, a program of research on all
    aspects of Sudanese slavery, an institution with international
    and indigenous components to monitor slavery and its
    eradication, and finally an American or international mechanism
    to follow up the Eminent Persons' recommendations.
        Twelve years ago, Ambassador Susan Rice came face to face
    with liberated slaves in Marial Bai, Southern Sudan. She
    pledged then that the United States would work tirelessly to
    stamp out slavery in Sudan. Let us strive to achieve the goal
    established by Ambassador Rice. Failure to eradicate slavery
    with all its overtones of racism and religious bigotry will
    leave in Sudan a deadly cancer destroying possibilities of
    reconciliation and undermining chances of sustainable peace and
    stability for the new state in Southern Sudan.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to
    testify and also for all you and your colleagues do to achieve
    the eradication of slavery in Sudan and elsewhere.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eibner follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Dr. Eibner, thank you very much for your
    testimony and your leadership and for ensuring that we try to
    stay focused on this horrific issue of slavery. Thank you so
    very much.
        Ms. Wilkins.

    STATEMENT OF MS. DANA LYONS WILKINS, CAMPAIGNER, GLOBAL WITNESS

        Ms. Wilkins. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
    honored to appear before you today to discuss the importance of
    the responsible management of natural resources in what will
    soon be the world's newest and most oil dependent state.
        In order to support stability and development in South
    Sudan, the U.S. must ensure that explicit transparency and
    accountability requirements are included in both the new legal
    framework governing the country's oil sector and the new North-
    South oil deal. South Sudan is currently crafting its new
    petroleum law with a hope to complete it before July 9th. The
    development of this new legal framework is a critical
    opportunity for the country to demonstrate its commitment to
    democratic principles and to the responsible governance of its
    most important sector.
        With more than 98 percent of its budget derived from oil,
    as Congressman Payne pointed out earlier, South Sudan will be
    the most oil dependent country in the world. Many analysts are
    suggesting that for this reason and because of limited
    capacity, weak institutions, and alleged widespread corruption,
    the country will be born a failed state.
        Global Witness has repeatedly documented how this state
    failure occurs elsewhere--in countries where natural resource
    wealth is not managed in a transparent and accountable way, the
    results can be not only entrenched poverty and failed
    development efforts, but political instability and even large-
    scale conflict.
        However, this does not have to be the case in South Sudan.
    If the legal framework developed now is robust and
    comprehensive, South Sudan has the potential to become a best
    practice example of a post-conflict country where oil revenues
    are governed responsibly and transparently.
        During my most recent trip to Juba at the start of this
    month, I had an opportunity to speak with many of the central
    figures involved in the development of this framework, and I
    believe the political will to institutionalize transparency is
    there. However, given so many competing priorities and
    distractions, and a limited drafting timeframe, the detailed
    legislative language necessary to guarantee the publication and
    verification of data may be overlooked.
        In order to support good governance in South Sudan's oil
    sector, the United States must prioritize technical and
    institutional capacity building through its foreign assistance
    and push hard for transparency and independent verification in
    the management of the sector through its diplomatic efforts.
        Transparency is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to
    allow ordinary citizens to see exactly how their natural
    resources are being managed, which in the case of South Sudan
    will be paramount in helping build public confidence in the new
    state.
        The publication of oil sector information also helps to
    prevent corruption and avoid the resource curse, thus driving
    development through a country's own natural resource wealth.
        The new law must explicitly require that detailed
    production, revenue and cost data, as well as the fiscal terms
    of contracts be published. But publication alone is not enough.
    For the oil sector to be sufficiently accountable, it must be
    independently monitored. For this to happen in South Sudan,
    there must be an office created independently from the Ministry
    of Energy and Mining whose sole responsibility is to monitor
    and verify the petroleum sector. While I was in Juba last, the
    Auditor General expressed his intention to establish a
    Petroleum Directorate which will do exactly that, and the
    United States must support him in this effort. This support
    should include funding if needed, technical assistance and
    training and, importantly, political backing for the new
    directorate to be guaranteed independence and access to
    information.
        So what else can the United States do? The U.S. could also
    have a significant impact on the ground by supporting local
    civil society groups. The establishment of a strong civil
    society watchdog will be critical for the accountable
    management of oil revenues and for combating corruption. The
    U.S. should also support South Sudan in signing up to and
    implementing the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative,
    which would put many of the reforms I have spoken about on
    stronger institutional footing.
        Before I close, I would like to take this opportunity to
    emphasize the importance of transparency in the new North-South
    oil deal. The current deal, a 50/50 split of southern oil
    revenues has been managed almost entirely by the government in
    Khartoum and does not contain any transparency mechanism
    enabling either the government in the South or the public to
    verify that the revenues are being shared fairly. This lack of
    transparency and accountability has led to much mistrust and
    tension between the North and South, repeatedly threatening the
    fragile peace of the CPA. Given the North and South's shared
    reliance on oil revenues and the fact that more than three-
    quarters of the oil is in the South but the major pipelines and
    ports of export are in the North, a fair and transparent oil
    arrangement which supports the economic viability of both
    parties would be a powerful incentive for sustained peace.
        As a member of the Troika and one of the main guarantors of
    the CPA, the USA should be putting pressure on the negotiating
    parties to ensure that transparency and independent
    verification are included in the new deal. We strongly
    recommend that the U.S. take a more active role in pushing
    publicly and privately for these crucial provisions.
        South Sudan faces a huge struggle in the months and years
    ahead. But with the help of the U.S. and other donors, that
    struggle can lead to peace and prosperity for all citizens.
    Responsible oil management and transparency in the new North-
    South oil deal will very much be at the center of this success.
        Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
    answering any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkins follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much and for the work that
    your organization has done so well over the years.
        I would now like to welcome Ambassador Roger Winter and ask
    him to proceed.

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROGER WINTER (FORMER SPECIAL
           REPRESENTATIVE ON SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE)

        Mr. Winter. Thank you. What I want to do is to give just a
    brief summary of my analysis and recommendations that are in
    the written testimony. It will be very controversial, and I
    urge you to try to take a look at the entire document.
        I am rather disturbed that what I hear so often these days
    is a comment like we need to make sure that ``both sides'' do
    thus and so. And I think if we look at the record, we will find
    there is no moral equivalence between the two sides here. None
    whatsoever. I think that kind of commentary that has been
    picked up by our media and others is a very damaging thing.
        There is Khartoum and there is Juba. They both have
    problems, but the consequences of their problems are light
    years away from each other. And one, that is Khartoum, has the
    potential for affecting all that happens from here on out,
    whether there is a contentious, bloody relationship between the
    two countries after July 9, or something that approaches
    cooperation. So let me try to dispel a little bit that what I
    think is misguided ``moral equivalence.''
        We know from consistent experience with Khartoum that
    Khartoum's commitments, its formal or informal agreements, are
    not reliable. They regularly use agreements as a tactic to buy
    time or to get people to get off their back; but, in fact, they
    ultimately do what they want to do. It doesn't make any
    difference what the agreement said. And we have seen that over
    and over again, because it is a very rich record of
    prevarication, of lying, and deception. And we see it in so
    many ways. Signing a piece of paper doesn't ever seem to
    actually result in them doing what they said they would do.
        So, in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, many, many of the
    really key provisions of the CPA were never pursued to
    implementation by Khartoum. That is also true of the decision
    of the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding the boundaries
    for Abyei. They have been entirely disregarded, and Khartoum
    has obviously, by their current actions, no interest whatsoever
    in going by that court's decision; but rather, they will do
    what they choose to do.
        It is also the case, for example, that the things that
    foster violence right now are things that Khartoum chose not to
    do.
        The issue of demarcation of borders, which is a factor in
    the current bloodshed that is going on, the failure to
    demarcate borders that is required by the CPA, it has over and
    over again been raised as an issue. And nothing--there has
    never been a consequence to penalize Khartoum for the things
    they don't do that they promised they would do.
        Also, I would like to say it is very clear, my second
    point, that Khartoum does not at all hesitate to kill its own
    nationals and destroy their property and livelihoods. That is
    obvious if you have followed what has happened with respect to
    the South and the so-called ``three areas.'' Over and over
    again, we see the kind of bloodletting that we are seeing right
    now in Kadugli and Kauda and in Dilling and other locations.
    This is a pattern that we have seen over and over again: 3
    million dead civilians.
        If you add up what is documented on the South, if you add
    what is from Darfur, from Nuba Mountains, from all of these, 3
    million bodies is not something that we can just write off. And
    almost all of them were civilians; and, frankly, almost all of
    them were children. This is not the moral equivalent of the
    SPLM and the SPLA. The SPLM and the SPLA have huge problems,
    absolutely, but they don't rise to this level. Khartoum is used
    to getting away with murder, in Darfur, in the South, in Abyei,
    and in Southern Kordofan and elsewhere. And I must tell you,
    with the way they are behaving right now, I fear a great
    liquidation of population in Southern Kordofan, in Abyei, and
    potentially in Southern Blue Nile after the separation of the
    South. I think we are seeing the beginning of that right now.
        I think it is terribly important to not--I love the South,
    I spend all of my time working to support the South, but the
    people of Southern Kordofan, the people of Abyei, and the
    people of Southern Blue Nile are the same people, basically;
    they just happen to be on the Northern side of the border
    between North and South and, therefore, will not become part of
    the independent country. What does that mean? That means that
    they are locked in there for the long haul, at least right now,
    and it is not a pretty thing to think about.
        Thirdly, I would say there is no reason to believe that
    what I am talking about right now will change. The track record
    of an unrepentant National Congress Party in power is, I think,
    clear and scary.
        I would like to say, there is no moral equivalency between
    these two parties. And I recommend, and I have never done this
    in my life, okay, I have never recommended something like this
    before, I think the possibility of massive liquidation of
    populations north of South Sudan that are basically the same
    people as in the South, I think they are at risk and I think
    our talking has not paid off and we are almost out of time. I
    suggest that it is time, as radical as this may sound to you,
    it is time to take, I would argue, a military action. I am not
    talking about going to war; I am talking about a military
    action against a military installation of the Khartoum
    government, and do that now as a warning to them that the end
    of the playing around with this peace agreement is over and
    they must improve their behavior toward the people not just of
    Darfur, but most particularly now I am talking about Southern
    Kordofan, Southern Blue Nile, and of Abyei.
        I would like to suggest that this is important because it
    seems--there are at least reports about the potential for using
    what I will call illegal weaponry against the civilians in
    those locations that I just mentioned. So that is one thought.
        The second is that the U.S. take steps to strengthen the
    Sudan People's Liberation Army in meaningful ways and to
    escalate our efforts to prepare them to at least defend their
    new homeland. This is, I would suggest, something that is
    important to deter violence against civilians and the potential
    for war.
        Why? Why am I saying this? I am saying this because the
    post-independence timeframe, because the borders have never
    been defined adequately in the controversial areas, because
    they have never been defined, there are going to be continuing
    issues between the North and the South until they are sorted
    out. I think it is very important to have a capable Southern
    capacity.
        I would say thirdly--and this is on the issue of the
    casualties of civilians and what has happened in the last few
    weeks--it should tell us something about what is immediately in
    the future. Almost all of the substantive humanitarian
    assistance that goes to assist the people in Southern Khartoum
    and in Abyei and in parts of Southern Blue Nile are delivered
    through the South. They are delivered from South Sudan and the
    issue is that starting on the 9th of July, that border is not
    an internal border of a single state, it is going to be a hard
    border between two separate countries. And you can bet your
    boots that Khartoum is not going to allow humanitarian
    assistance into Abyei, into Southern Kordofan and into Southern
    Blue Nile. So all of these people who have been damaged and
    affected by the most recent violence, there needs to be a
    recognition that Khartoum will not allow humanitarian
    assistance in the same way the government in the South does for
    those people who are currently affected.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Professor Winter, thank thank you very much for
    that very sobering assessment.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Winter follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Let me ask you--you mentioned illegal weapons--
    are you talking about chemical weapons and those reports?
        Mr. Winter. Not that I know anything, but a lot of where
    this comes from is what has appeared over Kadugli and other
    locations that have been being bombed and so forth, was an
    unusual, very large plane that some people suggested was a
    Hercules that was escorted by MiGs, the MiGs that are usually
    attacking and doing other things, and the Antonovs are bombing
    and so forth. What people saw and reported was this large,
    different kind of plane that was being escorted by MiGs, and
    that has triggered some of this speculation is my
    understanding.
        Mr. Smith. If I can ask, obviously to the lead-up to the
    full declaration of independence, every day is a day in which
    all of us are holding our breath. What is your sense as to what
    happens after July 9th, assuming that these terrible incidents
    that we have seen, the bloodletting that has occurred, do abate
    and hopefully there will be an ability to get resources to
    those who are suffering?
        And your point, I think, Ambassador Winter, is very well
    taken. But when the lights go out, so to speak, and the
    international community takes some of its focus off on July
    10th and beyond, what huge risks then portend for South Sudan
    in terms of what Khartoum and Bashir might be hatching?
        Mr. Winter. I would suggest that Bishop Hiiboro may know
    something about this from his own country.
        Let me say this. Take, for example, the Nuba people, people
    of the Nuba Mountains which are an important piece of Southern
    Kordofan. We are talking about an area that in the early 1990s
    was under a fatwa. The population there of Nuba are visually
    determinable pretty much from other aspects of the population.
    The Nuba are Christian, Muslim, and traditional kinds of
    religion. The fatwa applied to all of those. It was in fact, by
    professionals, determined to be genocide.
        Now, it is the Nuba in particular that are being attacked
    now in Southern Kordofan. They have suffered really
    tremendously over time, and it is they where you hear most of
    the difficult stories right now about people who are being
    pulled out of their hovel and shot, or even having that done in
    the presence of people from UNMIS, soldiers and that kind of
    thing.
        Why I am suggesting some of these actions that I am
    suggesting now, you can't just let it happen. Something has to
    happen before independence to try to--you know, try to provide
    some deterrence for that kind of action.
        Mr. Smith. Let me just ask a process question with regards
    to your time.
        Special Envoy Princeton Lyman was at the White House, and I
    know he has to be out of this room by 4:30. I am wondering if
    our distinguished witnesses have flexibility in their time so
    that he can come and present, some questions will be asked of
    him, and then we would bring you back. I hate to do that to
    you, but when the President calls, the Special Envoy had to
    respond to the White House. Would that be okay?
        Mr. Winter. Within limits, yes.
        Mr. Smith. Within limits, okay. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
        Mr. Winter. I have another commitment, too.
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry.
        I would then ask Ambassador Princeton Lyman, U.S. Special
    Envoy to Sudan, who has served in that position since March
    31st of this year to come forward. Immediately prior to that,
    he served as U.S. Senior Advisor on North-South negotiations
    where he led the U.S. team focused on supporting ongoing
    negotiations between the parties to the 2005 Comprehensive
    Peace Agreement.
        Ambassador Lyman has held a number of positions in the NGO
    sector and academia, in addition to a multitude of diplomatic
    assignments throughout Africa, spanning a decade. Mr.
    Ambassador, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PRINCETON LYMAN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR
                    SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ambassador Lyman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Payne, and
    other members of the committee, thank you so much for holding
    this hearing and for the great interest I know you have for
    this situation.
        As you well know, and you know it from the testimony so
    far, we face a very serious situation right now. I would ask
    that my full testimony be put in the record because it has a
    great deal of information on the background to these events
    that I hope will be helpful to the committee. But I want to
    focus in this presentation on where we are.
        We were relatively optimistic after the referendum of
    January 9; but in fact in recent months there has been more
    tension between the parties and we could see that coming in a
    number of ways.
        In Abyei, there was a growing frustration by the
    population. There was a blocking of the migration. There were
    forces introduced contrary to the agreement, forces from both
    sides. And tension was building up there.
        We have been working nonstop on these issues all through
    this period and that includes the more recent events in
    Southern Kordofan. From the time that the Sudanese forces moved
    into Abyei, we have been working around the clock to mobilize
    international opinion in support of the withdrawal of those
    forces. And from the President, from the Secretary of State,
    from others in the administration, we have urged people--you
    know that we don't have direct contact with President Bashir,
    but we urged many, many leaders from around the world who do,
    to call him and to say that they are risking a great deal by
    doing this.
        I came just this morning, I had just this morning a meeting
    with President Obama where we discussed this situation. He is
    deeply concerned. He follows Sudan events daily; and of course
    is very concerned not only about the situation in Abyei, but
    about what has happened in Southern Kordofan.
        The Secretary, as you know, was in Addis Ababa just this
    week in meetings with the parties. And let me say where we are
    and what has happened in response to this crisis.
        On Abyei, we recognized that the situation was growing very
    dangerous at the beginning of May. And I and former President
    of Burundi, Pierre Buyoya, and the Secretary General's
    Representative, Haile Menkerios, immediately flew to Juba and
    we worked with both parties to resurrect an agreement for the
    withdrawal of forces from both sides that both had signed but
    had not been implemented.
        We were moving that process forward when a second incident
    of attacks from the SPLA on a Joint Integrated Unit triggered
    what we feel is an extraordinarily disproportionate response by
    the government to move its forces into Abyei.
        Our efforts on Abyei have been to get an agreement as
    quickly as possible on the withdrawal of forces from Abyei. To
    do that, we needed to strengthen the U.N. force in Abyei, which
    had been ineffective in both monitoring fully the introduction
    of forces that violated the agreement and in preventing the
    events that took place when the Sudanese forces came into the
    territory. To do that, we have asked Ethiopia to bring their
    troops in to the U.N. force because they are willing to enforce
    the mandate that that U.N. operation has.
        There has been long and sometimes painstaking negotiations
    on that. But I can tell you, particularly thanks to the
    Secretary's intervention earlier this week, we are fairly close
    to an agreement that would have the Sudanese forces withdraw
    from Abyei, reinforcement of the U.N. voice, and a new
    administration in Abyei. It is not sealed yet, but it is close
    and we are hoping it will be signed.
        Now, on Southern Kordofan, you have heard a great deal of
    testimony on that, and you know we face an extraordinarily
    serious problem there. The fighting has broken out. There are
    reports of very serious human rights abuses, which you have
    heard about, and there is a serious humanitarian situation
    where anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 people are displaced as a
    result of the fighting.
        I have been to Southern Kordofan several times in recent
    months in the lead-up to the election there, and have been in
    regular contact by phone with Abdul Aziz, who is the former
    deputy governor and the leader of the SPLM in South Kordofan,
    trying to avert the kind of situation that broke out.
        Under the auspices of the African Union High Level Panel,
    negotiations to resolve this immediate crisis have been going
    on also in Ethiopia, and an agreement is being put together but
    yet it is not as close as the one on Abyei.
        A delegation just flew by helicopter into Southern
    Kordofan, in spite of the fighting, a U.N. helicopter carrying
    members of the SPLM and a member of my staff and the AU panel
    to meet with Abdul Aziz and to work further on the agreement;
    and, in particular, to get an agreement that covers several
    things.
        First and foremost, we want a cessation of hostilities and
    full access for humanitarian assistance to those who have been
    displaced.
        Second, and this has been worked on, an agreement that the
    political grievances which are at the source of the conflict
    there get fully aired and negotiated between the NCP and the
    SPLM in an organized way in the future.
        And, third, an issue which in part touched off this
    conflict in Southern Kordofan, a committee to look at how you
    eventually integrate the SPLA forces inside Southern Kordofan,
    which as Roger Winter noted, and others, are people who come
    from Southern Kordofan. They are not Southerners, and they are
    looking for their place in that state.
        Abdul Aziz, as a result of this mission, has agreed to a
    30-day cease-fire on certain conditions, and now we and others
    have to work to see if we can get that done.
        These are the efforts we have been making throughout the
    administration over the last several weeks to arrest what has
    been a deterioration in the whole process of the Comprehensive
    Peace Agreement. And there are outstanding issues that need to
    be resolved by July 9.
        First, of course, is Abyei, the future of Abyei, a most
    contentious issue, and I know members are very familiar with
    that.
        There is the second question of how the proceeds of oil
    from the South will be apportioned during a transition period
    and the conditions under which that would take place. There are
    issues of citizenship that have to be resolved, issues of
    disputed border areas, and a few others.
        There have been lots of discussions on these issues, a lot
    of technical work has been done; but what we haven't gotten to
    are the political decisions that will resolve many of these
    issues. Those negotiations were supposed to start this week,
    but of course all of us have been diverted to dealing with the
    crises in Abyei and Southern Kordofan.
        Let me take a moment also to deal with Darfur, because as
    consumed as we are with these current crises and the CPA in
    general, we are also deeply engaged on the problems of Darfur.
        We decided in the administration to put a very intensive
    diplomatic effort in the peace talks going on in Doha in the
    country of Qatar. Those talks have been going on for 2\1/2\
    years without results. My colleague, Dane Smith, Ambassador
    Dane Smith, who works full-time on Darfur, practically camped
    out in Doha for several weeks with his staff to try to improve
    that agreement. We worked very hard to get a second armed
    movement, the JEM, into those talks with the Government of
    Sudan, and they did engage in talks. The result of Doha is a
    draft agreement which is better than the one that came out of
    Abuja, but it is not signed yet by the government or any of the
    armed movements.
        The question is where we go next from there. We have to do
    two things. We have to try to work more with the armed
    movements on getting them into the peace process. It is not
    that they don't have grievances, but many of them have said
    what they want to negotiate is the whole constitutional
    restructuring of Sudan. They don't want to start with Darfur,
    and that makes for a very complicated process when you are
    talking about Darfur.
        On the government side, we have constantly worked on
    questions of access and respect for human rights. There is a
    desire, and a legitimate one, for a peace process that engages
    many more of the people inside Darfur. But to do that, you have
    to have conditions in which you don't have a state of
    emergency, in which people are free to talk, not worry about
    harassment afterwards. You need security, et cetera.
        So what we have said to the U.N. and the African Union that
    want to lead this process, ``Not until these conditions are
    present, you can't have a process that would be legitimate or
    credible.'' So we continue to work on all of these aspects of
    the Darfur problem.
        It is complicated, also, I might just say in passing, by
    what is happening in Libya. I think you are aware that Libya
    had been assisting at least one of movements--the head of that
    movement, JEM, is still in Tripoli--and what happens in Libya
    could have an impact on the situation in Darfur, something we
    are watching very closely.
        Let me stop there, Mr. Chairman. There is much, much more
    to go into. But I just wanted to give you a quick view of the
    efforts that we have been making for the last several weeks
    throughout the administration, with the President, the
    Secretary, the National Security Council, myself and others,
    our Embassy in Khartoum, our consulate in Juba, to get at these
    issues. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ambassador Lyman follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, what do you think might be
    the next flash point after Southern Kordofan, Abyei, and the
    Nuba Mountains? Have we identified something that is building,
    some pressure that is building?
        Ambassador Lyman. I think the other flash point is the five
    disputed areas of the border, some more significant than
    others. One on the Darfur-Abyei side. The two sides have not
    yet agreed on how to resolve those border disputes.
        There has been a good deal of technical analysis by the
    British and the African Union on those five areas which could
    be the basis for a settlement. But again, we don't have the
    political leaders having come to an agreement. So there is a
    potential flash point if either side tries to occupy those
    areas and assert a military control.
        Mr. Smith. With regards to the U.N. peacekeepers, both you
    and Ambassador Winter, Ambassador Winter was very strong on how
    while the U.N. humanitarian efforts have been extraordinarily
    helpful, the other efforts by the U.N. peacekeepers fall far
    short, particularly with regard, I would suggest, to their
    rules of engagement, which you might want to speak to.
        My understanding is that after July 9, some 7,000
    additional U.N. peacekeepers are envisioned. This is a time
    when financial restraint cannot be held up--we would do more if
    only we had it--this could mean the difference between an all-
    out new genocide and fighting a war, or not. It seems to me
    that if there is not a sufficiently robust deployment, there
    could be serious, serious problems. What are your thoughts on
    that?
        Ambassador Lyman. There is work, very advanced, going on
    with the Security Council and with the parties to set up by
    July 9 a new U.N. mission in South Sudan. It would be a mission
    devoted to building state capacity, conflict prevention,
    protection in emergency situations of civilians, a very broad
    mandate that I think will be approved soon in the Security
    Council. I don't have in front of me the exact number of troops
    involved; I think it is 7,000. That would be just strictly in
    the South.
        Now, what the Government of Sudan and Khartoum have said to
    the U.N., we don't want the U.N. in the North after July 9. But
    there are several areas in which this is now coming back to
    discussion. One, of course, is the peacekeeping force that we
    are talking about in Abyei which right now is above the 1956
    line, and both sides recognize that they must continue a
    peacekeeping operation in Abyei.
        Then there is the question of a role for a third party in
    assisting in border monitoring after July 9, and in these two
    very important areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. The
    discussions so far on those, the borders and the two areas,
    have not reached conclusion, whether a third party should be
    the U.N., whether it should be AU, or whether it should be
    someone else. And that will shape the response of the U.N. to
    what is needed north of the line between the two countries. So
    it is much more advanced on the force going and the broad
    civilian mission going into the South than it is in the North.
        Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, Bishop Hiiboro made a very
    important appeal that the church and civil society be included,
    and he noted that the latest establishment of the structures--
    and this is post-referendum--and the absence of church, civil
    society and other actors' participation in them could lead to a
    lack of transparency and inclusiveness. What assurances can you
    give that the U.S. is pushing very hard that the church and
    civil society are truly partners and are not left out,
    particularly in the provision of humanitarian assistance?
        Ambassador Lyman. It is a very important objective. I have
    been disappointed, as have others, that the negotiating process
    itself has not been more open to women, to civil society, to
    religious groups. It has been two parties, really, negotiating
    between themselves. There has been some effort to reach out to
    civil society, but it has not been satisfactory.
        The work on a transitional constitution has largely in the
    South been kind of an in-house operation. It is among the
    politicians more than it is civil society. Right now the
    religious institutions play a major role in the delivery of
    services. Without them, many people wouldn't be receiving
    health care and other things. We have urged the Government of
    South Sudan to--as it develops its permanent constitution--to
    make it a very broad process of consultation and participation
    throughout the country. We think that it is extremely
    important. They have committed themselves to that in principle,
    and we will be working with them through NDI, IRI, and other
    organizations that we have, to make sure that that happens.
    Because it hasn't happened sufficiently now, and that is doubly
    important, Mr. Chairman, because in the South there is a lot of
    considerable unrest, some of it sparked by militias, but some
    of it inherent in the communities themselves. And you can't get
    at that simply by government or military means, you have to get
    the churches and you have to get civil society involved.
        Mr. Smith. One last question. I have many questions, but
    because of your time constraints, I will just ask one more.
        Dana Wilkins has testified that the U.S. should be more
    involved with the oil transparency issue, and she makes a very
    strong appeal that we do so, and notes that we are not. Since
    wars are fought over oil, land, demarcation of boundaries,
    obviously these are inextricably linked, are we going to be
    more involved in that?
        Ambassador Lyman. We have been heavily engaged in
    discussions with the Government of South Sudan about this. We
    recently had a Troika mission--that is the U.S., U.K. and
    Norway--headed by our USAID Administrator, that raised this
    issue very seriously with the South. The IMF has been there to
    talk about this. We are now with the Norwegians, putting 10 or
    12 people into the Oil Ministry of South Sudan to help develop
    their capacity, and we are working with their finance
    department to ensure that there is transparency in this area.
    The Norwegians are also being very helpful in this regard.
        It is an extremely important issue, as you have heard from
    the other witnesses, and we have said over and over again that
    for the Government of South Sudan, this is going to be one of
    the major tests of their ability as a new state to manage their
    resources well and to earn the support and credibility of the
    international community.
        Mr. Smith. Ambassador Winter it would appear, if we were to
    sum up his view on this, is very much concerned about the
    duplicity on the part of Bashir, which we have all seen, but he
    has lived it. He saw how we would think something was going to
    happen and it wouldn't. It reminds of what Slobodan Milosevic
    always did in Serbia. He would sign a peace agreement or a
    cease-fire, and 2 days later he would break it. We would have
    that false sense of hope over and over again.
        Is there something dramatic that the U.S. and our partners
    need to be doing to ensure that this man who has committed
    genocide is not perhaps looking to develop another crisis where
    he will use force and use it with impunity?
        Ambassador Lyman. What we have to do in a case like this,
    Mr. Chairman, at least to the best of my ability and others, is
    to get the people in Khartoum to recognize that it is in their
    own interests to have a successful peace process with the
    South; not preaching to them about being good guys, but telling
    them that there are big consequences to their not doing so.
        Mr. Smith. And what are those consequences?
        Ambassador Lyman. Well, the North, after July 9, will lose
    about 60 percent of their revenue. They will be shouldering a
    $38 billion debt. They will have very serious economic
    problems. They already are experiencing some of those. The only
    way to resolve these or deal with them is to come back into the
    good graces of the international community. That means dealing
    effectively and properly with the CPA and with Darfur.
        It is not just our condition, it is the condition of all of
    our Western allies and others who are major creditors to Sudan.
    They risk all of that if, for whatever reasons, they take a
    military solution or otherwise violate the CPA. And we have
    made that crystal clear. They have lots to gain if they do it
    right. They have lots to lose for the people of Sudan if they
    don't.
        I think, to be perfectly honest, you have to look at what
    they see as their own interest. And what we have said to them
    is, being isolated in the world, facing all of those economic
    consequences, having an unfriendly relationship with the South,
    all of those things are bad for Sudan. It is to see it in their
    interest not because they are good guys or bad guys, but that
    this is the only way that they can produce a viable, stable
    society in Sudan.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Ambassador, I commend you for your many years of
    distinguished service. I do feel, though, that we got off to a
    late start with the Obama administration and the Special Envoy.
    I think that the focus might have been misdirected and I think,
    unfortunately, time was lost and we find that you have an
    impossible--almost impossible situation you have inherited.
        Having said that, though, it does seem that the Bashir
    regime would recognize that time is running out, that they
    really have serious problems after July 9th. But the fact that
    they continue to behave the way that they do, it is almost
    incomprehensible about the thought process, their tendency to
    overreact in Darfur. It was some soldiers or civilians that
    went into a barrack and the next thing you know, thousands of
    villages are bombed in retaliation. I mean, you talk about
    moral equivalency, you couldn't even use the word.
        The alleged attack by SPLM on a U.N. convoy, once we
    finally got down to the common denominator, it was perhaps a
    gunshot really, not intentionally or did much damage or
    whatever, but then the overwhelming response by once again the
    Government of Sudan, using their overwhelming power, no kind of
    moral equivalency. And so I just wonder whether this regime in
    Khartoum can ever be reformed. It just makes no sense.
        And then the arrogance of President Bashir that he is going
    to go to China, and Amnesty International has requested that
    China arrest him since they are a permanent member of the
    Security Council and not a member of the Rome Statute. Or at
    some point if he is an indicted criminal--and it is a long way
    from Sudan to China or other places--that he does. I think at
    some point in time, we need to empower some kind of
    international special forces to intercede and to arrest him or
    to have some serious kind of intervention to bring him to
    justice, because this is never going to work with the manner of
    impunity that he goes around the world and does what he wants
    to do.
        However, let me just ask, the situation in Abyei, is there
    the possibility, or even in South Kordofan, the SPLM want to
    have a transition from that into the police or military or
    something, and others being deployed out of military. There has
    to be some time to do this.
        In your opinion, do you think that the plan that has been
    laid out before, what they laid out as a plan, do you think
    that there is time for that to work; where, like I said, the
    SPLM, because they are not going anywhere, could demobilized,
    but there has to be someone in between to try to be there to
    enable it to happen? What are the prospects of that happening?
        Ambassador Lyman. Thank you very much, Congressman. And
    again, let me thank you for all that you do on behalf of
    Africa.
        Let me distinguish three aspects of that. In Abyei, the
    understanding in the CPA, which we need to go back to, is that
    there should be no militarized forces in Abyei, only a U.N.
    peacekeeping force and local police. That was the objective
    that we were working on so desperately at the beginning of May,
    called the Kadugli agreement, but it fell apart in the matters
    that we discussed. But that is the essense of the agreements
    being worked on. You have a local administration and you have a
    local police force, but security is with the U.N. peacekeeping
    force; and, as I said, an enhanced one with the support of
    Ethiopia.
        When it comes to South Sudan, I think South Sudan faces an
    extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances with regard to
    the SPLA. Part of their strategy of achieving unity, of coming
    to terms with various militia that have fought in the past
    against the SPLM in the South, has been to bring them in, and
    their soldiers, into the government and into the Army. The
    result is a force that is really much too large. And as they
    face some of these other militias, those deals might continue
    to be necessary, but you get the force even larger.
        On the other hand, many of these people are not trained for
    civilian life. They don't have the skills. There is a high
    illiteracy rate. So what the chief of staff, General Holt, has
    said and what we have agreed and what I think the U.N. has
    agreed, you don't start immediately a demobilization program.
    What you do is take several years to build this force more into
    a professional lineup, provide a lot of skills training for
    people, doing things for the society, whether it is agriculture
    or construction or other things, and then go into a
    demobilization process where you are putting skilled people
    back into society.
        If you do it too soon, if you send people back with no
    skills, they are easily recruited by militia. So it has got to
    be not a quick demobilization, but a process where you get
    bigger first and then down. I think we all now understand this
    is how it is going to have to be.
        Inside Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, you have a
    situation where you have both in those states and in the South
    but from those states, tens of thousands of soldiers who fought
    in the civil war. Eventually they should be either integrated
    into a single army in the North or demobilized. But the point
    is that they are not prepared to do that unless they know that
    the political rights for which they fought are going to be
    protected. That has been the issue behind the current conflict
    in Southern Kordofan.
        So what we are hoping will come out of these negotiations
    is an agreement that these political grievances and concerns
    have to be addressed, and that any plans for integrating or
    demobilizing those forces have to be related to an assurance
    that the political issues are being resolved.
        It is a touchy kind of issue for both sides to work on, but
    that is what is going to be necessary before you can get to a
    demobilization in those areas. I hope this is okay,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. My time has expired. But I
    would ask very quickly, if the chairman would indulge me, about
    the tanks, the tanks that the South Sudanese have paid for that
    are on tracks still in Kenya.
        Is there any possibility that those assets that belong to
    the Government of South Sudan can be released by the U.S.?
        Ambassador Lyman. I have to ask you if we can deal with
    that in classified session. I am happy to come up and do that.
        Mr. Payne. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ambassador, for being here today. My first
    question has to do with North Sudan and the fact that currently
    their behavior--they are violating the Comprehensive Peace
    Agreement protocol. Now, in your testimony you talked to us
    about the fact that written agreements are being put in place
    for Abyei and also for Kordofan. We heard from Mr. Winters that
    apparently the North Sudan doesn't adhere to these agreements,
    that there is concern that even if you have the best agreement
    on paper, if they don't pay attention to it and they don't
    adhere to it, it doesn't do any good.
        My question to you is: Is there a contingency plan? Is
    there an understanding by the administration that we are going
    through this step here, but more than likely it may not work?
        Ambassador Lyman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        You know, to go back to now the very familiar phrase of
    President Reagan, ``trust but verify,'' in the Abyei agreement,
    you have to have a U.N. force capable and willing of enforcing
    the mandate. If you don't have that, either side could break
    it, and the North included, of course. What we have been
    working at is to make sure that we have a U.N. force that is
    not only mandated but willing to go to every part of Abyei.
        I don't want to get into the argument of moral equivalency
    because I understand that. But the fact is in Abyei, both sides
    blocked the U.N. from fully inspecting the amount of forces
    that they had brought into the area. It only works if the U.N.
    not only has the mandate but is willing to enforce it. That has
    been at the heart of this discussion, to bring in a better
    force into Abyei.
        Now, when it comes to Southern Kordofan, what I think has
    been demonstrated at terrible cost is that the Government of
    Sudan can't come in and militarily just disarm those SPLA
    soldiers. That you get into a terrible fight at great human
    cost, but it is not a walk-over. And hopefully out of that
    comes--again this is mutual interest, not anything else; the
    only way to deal with that problem is to negotiate with parties
    that have some wherewithal.
        I am hoping that in the discussions that are coming out now
    on Southern Kordofan, there is a recognition you can't do it
    militarily. You might want to, you might have people who say we
    ought to, but you can't. And if you can't, then you need to
    find another way. So that is what I think is going to happen in
    Southern Kordofan, or at least I hope so; that people realize
    that the military solution is not going to work.
        Ms. Buerkle. Just as a follow-up couple of questions, and I
    would like your opinion as to whether or not you think what is
    going on in Abyei is really tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
        Ambassador Lyman. Well, what has happened in Abyei is that
    when the Sudanese forces moved in, the population, remembering
    what happened in 2008, left. And understandably so. And what we
    have said is, until those people are allowed to go back and as
    soon as possible, you have what could be called ethnic
    cleansing because you can't just remove people from where they
    are and then not allow them to come back.
        But for the government to say they are free to come back
    any time, of course they are not going to come back while it is
    occupied by Sudanese armed forces.
        So the reason, one of the reasons that we have pushed so
    hard to get an agreement on withdrawal as fast as possible is
    so over now 100,000 people can come back to their homes, and we
    get away from any thought that you could change the ethnic
    composition of Abyei through military means. And that is
    clearly part of the objective. It has to be.
        Ms. Buerkle. Lastly, what leverage do you think the United
    States has to contain the events you are talking about prior to
    July 9?
        Ambassador Lyman. I smile because we debate that all of the
    time in the administration.
        Look, I think there are a number of things that give us an
    important role. One is that Sudan--and it is not just us, but
    we are a major player--Sudan, and by that I mean North Sudan,
    cannot come out of its economic isolation without the agreement
    of the United States. They can't get the debt relief, they
    can't get to the World Bank, they can't get to the IMF, they
    can't get off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The
    relationship between Sudan and the United States is critical to
    all of that. It is a point that we make, and sometimes they
    recognize it and sometimes they are angry about it, but it is a
    reality.
        The second thing is in the negotiations that are overseen
    overall by the African Union High Level Panel, it is important
    that the United States be participating and be able to talk to
    both sides about the substance of those agreements, and we have
    been able to play a very significant role in that regard.
        It is that, and it is working very closely with a number of
    our allies so that we speak with one voice. I mentioned that I
    traveled recently with my colleagues from Britain and Norway,
    the Troika, but we also traveled with the European Union
    Special Envoy, as well, and we try to mobilize as much united
    as we can.
        And the Africans. Look, Prime Minister Meles has played an
    extraordinarily important role. And we work closely with him so
    that we multiply, if you will, the leverage by bringing more
    parties to the table.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. A couple of questions. You mentioned
    people returning, that people should be able to go back. But
    what would they actually be returning to? Are there villages
    intact, was the housing destroyed?
        Ambassador Lyman. What happened in Abyei and we are seeing
    in Southern Kordofan is a great deal of looting and destruction
    of property. I saw one estimate that something like 20 percent
    of homes or building in Abyei towns were destroyed. I don't
    have verification on it, but it wouldn't surprise me. A
    tremendous amount of looting. So when people go back home,
    obviously there is going to have to be a lot of help in
    rebuilding. Now, we haven't worked out the details and the
    financing of that. But we have a coalition of humanitarian
    agencies that are working with them now, with displaced people
    that will go back into Abyei and work with them on
    reconstruction. But you put your finger on one of the terribly
    devastating costs of this conflict. Many have lost everything
    and they have to have their lives reconstituted when they go
    home. I think we are going to find that in Southern Kordofan as
    well.
        Ms. Bass. And one of the previous witnesses had mentioned
    that he believes that if things don't go well after the 9th,
    that we really could be looking at a virtual genocide. And I
    wanted to know your thoughts on that. And I have a question
    following that that was asked actually by one of my
    constituents who e-mailed it to me: What is the administration
    doing to stop the atrocity in Khartoum and how will the
    administration work to stop the violence toward civilians?
    Distinguishing that from what could potentially be a genocide.
        Ambassador Lyman. It depends a lot on why or where such
    would happen. Obviously, as Roger Winter pointed out, that
    danger in many people's minds could happen in Southern Kordofan
    or Blue Nile if there isn't the kind of recognition of rights,
    et cetera, that I talked about earlier. In the South, it is a
    different story. You are not talking about, I don't think,
    genocide as much as you are talking about ethnic differences,
    cattle rustling, militias, et cetera, a lot of fighting and a
    lot of dislocation. But I don't think that borders on genocide.
        So I am not clear that that is immediately the problem as
    it is in this continued level--you know, many people say if we
    don't get these things settled, the two sides will go back to
    war. What I fear, because I don't think either side really
    wants to go back to full-scale war, is that you get a
    relationship that is not even a cold peace. It is a very
    unfriendly relationship between two countries that try and
    spoil each other. ``I will help Darfurians because you are
    helping the rebels and so and so,'' and each side is trying to
    upset the other with great loss of life for people caught in
    the middle. I worry about that.
        Now, it could get worse than that. But that disrupts the
    lives of everybody because a very large portion of the people
    in the North and South live very close to the border. Their
    lives depend on an open border. They trade. They migrate with
    their cattle up and down, et cetera. If you get into what I
    call not even a cold peace but an unfriendly hostile
    relationship, those people are going to suffer a great deal on
    both sides. That in my mind is the bigger threat.
        I hope a bigger war is not on the horizon, but I see that
    as a pattern that would be very destructive if they don't come
    to the kind of understanding between the two countries, as I
    often say to them, you don't have to kiss on the cheeks but you
    have got to shake hands, you have got to recognize that your
    lives are intertwined. You don't have to like each other, you
    do have to recognize that you have mutual relationships that
    you have got to develop.
        Mr. Smith. Chairman Royce.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a leaked United
    Nations report that says that the Sudanese Armed Forces'
    invasion of Abyei was, in the words of the U.N., tantamount to
    ethnic cleansing. So I was going to ask you what is the
    administration's response to that report and what consequences
    are being considered? And then the other aspect of this is the
    new report, the June 1st attack by the LRA. It has been 25
    years now that we have dealt with Joseph Kony, and he has been
    abducting children and brutalizing them in such a horrific way
    that he turns them into killing machines. But the last report
    cites that escaped child soldiers have reported Sudanese Armed
    Forces trucks during their time in activity delivering
    munitions, delivering weaponry, also bringing uniforms to LRA
    commanders. This is pretty problematic, especially when you
    consider that the latest attack on June the 1st had to repeat
    the modus operandi that Kony often uses where he gathered a lot
    of children, had some of the people massacred in front of their
    very eyes and had some of them identify and kill their parents
    and then have them boiled, dismembered them and boiled them in
    water. The fact that we have not been able to get across to the
    Khartoum government that this kind of support, this kind of
    using the LRA to destabilize South Sudan--and this was on the
    South Sudan-Ugandan border where this occurred--the fact that
    we haven't been able to drive that home means that just
    explaining this to them may not be working. So what is the
    administration prepared to do in light of this in order to get
    some results? And we have given the authorization, myself and
    Congressman McGovern on that legislation, you have got the
    green light on taking Kony out. What is being done to take Kony
    out?
        Ambassador Lyman. Thank you, Congressman. I couldn't agree
    more about the horrific character of the LRA. There was a
    meeting just in Addis while I was there of the countries of the
    region and the United States and others on how to implement
    exactly what you are talking about, to eliminate the LRA. We
    have a task force in Washington following up on the
    legislation. Very good legislation has come out of the Congress
    actually. Actually a member of my staff is taking over the lead
    of that in July. So I think the plans are being formulated by a
    coalition of countries in that area along those borders to go
    after the remnants of the LRA. We have made it very clear to
    Khartoum that any support of the LRA is a threat to any kind of
    normal relations.
        I haven't seen the report that you mentioned. I would like
    to get it, please, because I do raise this issue often. But we
    do have--and I would ask my colleagues in the Department who
    work on this to give you an up to date on what happened in
    Addis and the plans that are underway.
        Mr. Royce. Very good. And I am going to follow up with
    another point, and that is the new mission that the U.N. is
    working on regionally. My concern is what is being done to give
    them the wherewithal to protect civilians, to make certain that
    they have as part of their mandate a definition that gives them
    the ability adequately in situations where we have already seen
    happening in Darfur happens, again we make sure that there is a
    credible deterrence there.
        Ambassador Lyman. The problem for U.N. peacekeeping forces
    is, of course, how much they get out in front and start
    engaging in conflict with one party or another. It is a
    longstanding issue.
        Mr. Royce. Get out in front is your way of looking at it. I
    was in Darfur. I have seen--it is not a matter of getting out
    in front. It is a question of when civilians are overrun and
    slaughtered and run to the U.N.--or to take the situation, for
    example, in the former Yugoslavia.
        Ambassador Lyman. I take your point completely because it
    is important that the U.N. be proactive in those situations and
    it goes to the question I was asked earlier about the South. We
    want a capability in the new U.N. mission there to move very
    quickly in situations like that, in fact to have a good sense
    of where that kind of problem would break out. UNAMID in
    Darfur, we have gotten the U.N. forces to be much more
    proactive in asserting its rights to move into areas and get to
    them. And those cases that you described where they haven't
    been doing so have been a source was not only great
    consternation on our part but very frank discussions with the
    U.N. So I take your point.
        Mr. Royce. One last point if I could get this in. The Chad-
    Cameroon pipeline project. I went out there and took a look at
    that. And we put a lot of pressure on that government to try to
    make sure that that money went not to line politician's
    pockets, right, but for roads and for schools. The question
    here is going to be in South Sudan what you will be able to do,
    as difficult a challenge as this is going to prove to be, to
    make sure that our Government is supporting the ability to put
    in place the transparency necessary, because otherwise this is
    going to have a sad ending. Whereas if we get out in front of
    this and really leverage what influence we have for full
    transparency in terms of the oil revenue, I think it could have
    a very beneficial outcome in building society there and maybe
    teach a lesson to the North as well. So I just ask you on that
    front.
        Ambassador Lyman. No, Congressman--and I mentioned this
    earlier--I don't think I have had a conversation with officials
    in the South that this issue has not been raised. But more
    specifically, we and the Norwegians are putting 10 people into
    the Ministry of Petroleum to help them develop the right
    systems. We are working with the Ministry of Finance to get
    transparency there. Our friends from Britain and Norway have
    joined us to say this is going to be a critical factor in how
    the world comes to support the government of the South Sudan.
    So it is a big issue. And we have emphasized it a great deal.
        Mr. Royce. Ambassador, I appreciate your good work in the
    past and working with you in the past, and thank you very much.
    I yield back.
        Ambassador Lyman. Mr. Chairman, I have been monopolizing
    this a little bit. We have Raja here and she knows a great deal
    about the plans of USAID for South Sudan and for some of the
    humanitarian activities. So I hope if you are interested in
    those things----
        Mr. Smith. We are interested. And, in fact, we would like
    to invite her back for an additional hearing. Let me just ask a
    couple of questions if I could very quickly and then Mr.
    Payne--as a matter fact, I will ask the questions, Mr. Payne
    will then ask you because I know you have to leave immediately.
        Ambassador Winter made a very, very strong statement in his
    written testimony. He talks about how in Abyei and elsewhere
    obviously, Khartoum attacks and expects only a neutered
    international reaction. And he said something that I would
    appreciate--because past is often prologue, and you had to,
    coming on line as Special Envoy, deal with whatever good or ill
    had been done by previous Special Envoys--and I would
    appreciate knowing your reaction to the statement by Ambassador
    Winter. ``I believe''--this is him speaking--``that more than 2
    years of the Obama administration's approach to Sudan made
    matters worse, emboldening Khartoum and setting the stage for
    Abyei's and South Kordofan's current horrors. Perhaps the
    eccentricities of General Gration's approach to being a Special
    Envoy for Sudan are related to the administration's commitment
    to a reach out to the Arab and Islamic world.'' And he also
    points out his greatest issue was General Gration's highly
    biased approach to Abyei. And I am not sure if we are reaping a
    bitter fruit from that or if he has that wrong, but I
    appreciate your reaction to that.
        And secondly, Dr. Eibner in his testimony reminded us that
    President Salva Kiir declared in 2006 and addressed the
    Parliament that the government remains deeply committed to the
    retrieval of Southern Sudanese women and children abducted and
    enslaved in Northern Sudan.
        Back in 1996, I chaired a hearing right here, Slavery in
    Mauritania and Sudan, and Secretary William Twaddell, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary, you remember him, from African Affairs,
    said, and I quote, ``The Government of Sudan has denied that
    slavery exists and refused to investigate such reports or to
    cooperate with others seeking to do so.'' He did point out that
    the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights
    Practices included a section concerning the persistence of
    slavery and the alarming increase in reports of the seizing of
    civilian captives, particularly in the war zones.
        An unfinished bit of huge business and I am wondering--
    obviously you are dealing with a whole lot of highly important
    issues--but are we pushing for a full accountability and
    hopefully repatriation of those slaves?
        Ambassador Lyman. On your first question, look, I think
    that--and I worked with General Gration for several months
    before he was nominated for Kenya and we worked very closely
    together. And quite frankly, he worked his heart out and his
    soul for peace in Sudan. People may have quarreled with his
    style or things, but I found him just overwhelmingly dedicated
    to the peace process.
        Now, if you look at the record, getting up to and through
    the referendum, when I started in August working with him,
    people said we couldn't possibly have the referendum on January
    9th and if we had it, it would be a disaster. We did--and I
    don't want to say we get all the credit because we don't, but
    we certainly did an awful lot to make that happen. And it is as
    much General Gration as myself and others who worked on that to
    make sure that the Referendum Commission was stood up,
    supported, capable and that we weighed in politically heavily
    to make it happen.
        We worked hard on the Darfur crisis. We tried very hard to
    get an agreement on the referendum. And we just ran into an
    impossible situation where each side was not prepared to accept
    a voting situation in which the other side would have a clear
    advantage. The Ngok Dinka did not feel the Misseriya should
    have the right to vote and the North argued that the Misseriya
    not only had the right to vote but to vote in very large
    numbers. And 9 days of day-and-night work led us to the
    conclusion--and not only us, but the two parties--this isn't
    going anywhere, maybe we need a political solution. And we have
    been working on that ever since.
        So I think quite frankly that a lot of work was done over
    those 2 years. Of course I came on last August, but I found
    people very dedicated, very committed, working literally night
    and day on behalf of peace.
        When it comes to the slavery issue, this is a very sore
    point--a very sore point. It is a bitter, bitter memory for
    many people. I don't know of plans for full accountability, I
    don't. And I can look into that. But I know for many people,
    this is a bitter, bitter part of the history that they carry
    with them. And sometimes when you are dealing in the
    negotiations, that bitterness jumps up and you realize
    sometimes how deep these feelings go.
        So I take what you are saying very seriously and I will
    look into whether there are any plans on it.
        Mr. Payne. Very quickly. I think two things I want to
    mention quickly. I believe that the Government of South Sudan
    would want to see a transparent and a well working oil system.
    I think they need the help. I think in Chad there might have
    been resistance and needed to be convinced this is what you
    have do and if you don't do it, we are not going to get the
    money. I think in South Sudan, that is not the problem. The
    problem is going to be the capacity to manage it properly. And
    I am glad to hear that the Norwegians and the U.S. have 10
    people there.
        Secondly--and I do know that I agree that General Gration
    was a very hard worker. I just think that we tried to get
    hearings. We were able to get him to come before the committee
    I chaired for 2 years one time. We felt that if there could be
    more discussion we might have been able to get our points
    across, our ideas, and we could have worked together, but he
    would not come before the House committee. He did go over to
    the Senate on some occasions.
        Just one line of questioning. I don't know whether it is
    classified or not, but we have reports that over a dozen trucks
    filled with chemicals are heading for Kordofan. Chemical
    weapons are a violation of world human rights and things
    dealing with war, and so forth and so on, and I would hope that
    there could be some verification. It is even alleged that Mr.
    Saleh Gasch, who is a leader in the Government of Sudan, set up
    a company called G-A-I-D, GAID, for the purchase of chemical
    weapons.
        Now, this is alleged. However, I would hope that we would
    really take a serious look into whether chemical weapons are
    being transported to Kordofan. And if so, I think that this
    raises to a new level and that there will have to be some kind
    of an action with--we just can't allow this to occur.
        Ambassador Lyman. No, Congressman. I just heard about this
    today before I came here and will look into it. I don't have
    any information on it or evidence one way or another. But I saw
    the reports as I was coming here and I will look into it, and I
    will get back to you with whatever we have.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. We tried to stay within
    your time limit. And I would say to Ms. Jandhyala, thank you
    for being here. Without objection, your full statement will be
    a part of the record. And we would like to invite you back for
    a specific hearing on Sudan on just humanitarian issues if you
    would be amenable to that. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jandhyala follows:]

                                  ----------

        Ambassador Lyman. She is worth it.
        Mr. Smith. I know. I would like to now welcome----
        Ambassador Lyman. And thank you for all the interest. I
    really appreciate it.
        Mr. Smith. I would like to now welcome our first, second,
    panel back to the witness table. And I would also ask that Ms.
    Buerkle, if she could assume the chair for a few moments.
        Ms. Buerkle [presiding]. We are going to get started again
    with our first panel. Thank you and we apologize for the length
    of your wait here. I am going to begin the line of questioning
    and then will turn it over to Mr. Payne.
        Bishop Hiiboro, I would like to start with you if I could.
    In your opening comments, you talked to us about the United
    States being consistent and being focused on the South Sudan.
    Can you elaborate for me? What do you need from the United
    States?
        Bishop Hiiboro. Well, what I mean is that in the report
    that we have gone through with the support of the United
    States, we have concerns about how much efforts that we could
    keep on the momentum, the kind of system we have in our
    country. An example--that is one of the few that I can
    highlight. With the peace agreement in 2005, there was a little
    bit of silence not only from the United States but also from
    the international community. Until 2008, when we were close now
    to the election, a lot of efforts came out for which I
    appreciate. But I think--the issue of Sudan has been on the
    agenda for so many years. So I would think that with the birth
    of the new country that is coming, efforts could be done both
    from the Sudanese side and from our friends, from the United
    States, to get this issue finished on the world agenda is what
    I meant.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. To all four of our panelists, I
    would like for you to comment. I think you all heard me ask the
    Ambassador what he felt our leverage was as a country to get
    the North Sudan to cooperate. If you could comment on that and
    if you feel there is other things that we could leverage as
    well.
        Ambassador Winter, if you would like to start. I know you
    have a time constraint.
        Mr. Winter. I have never fully understood Khartoum's way of
    thinking. So I may be off base. But obviously they were looking
    for at the very beginning of this process--you are talking a
    decade ago where we had a relationship on intelligence and
    those kinds of things with them, still do to some degree, I
    guess. But I think--this is my personal view--that they were
    looking for a relationship and they were willing at least to
    enter a process of negotiation that would produce something, an
    agreement which would benefit them. I personally think that
    that changed and changed seriously in the summer of 2005. In
    the summer of 2005, several things happened that were key to, I
    think, how they shifted.
        First of all was that on the 8th or so of July of that
    year, Dr. John Garang went to Khartoum for the first time in
    several decades of the war. When he went there, a group of the
    lowest number that I have heard, it is like 5 or 6 million
    people, showed up to greet him. They were not just Southerners.
    They were Southerners, they were Northerners, they were from
    Darfur, they were from Beja in the east and all over Sudan
    because there was a hunger on all kinds of people in Sudan for
    a new governance arrangement. I think that kind of turnout,
    which was not all Southerners, his perceived constituency,
    because of his arguments for a new Sudan, the fact that so many
    people of so many different kinds showed up, I think put the
    fear of God in them about what the possibilities were under an
    arrangement that the CPA required and he was going to be Vice
    President of the entire country.
        Then, less than 4 weeks later, he was dead. He died. And I
    think his death divided--having seen the scare of all these
    people coming out and supporting basically his policies, the
    fact that he died in the helicopter crash opened up the
    possibility of actually eventually backing off of all of the
    key commitments that they had in signing the CPA, and that is
    why it has been such a rough road and continues to be right
    now.
        That is my view.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Ms. Wilkins.
        Ms. Wilkins. Well, I have to respectfully disagree with the
    Ambassador's opinion of agreements because I do think that
    agreements, getting commitments down on paper, can be very
    important and can be a useful point of leverage. Now of course
    the agreement that jumps out to me is this new oil deal in
    particular, which has additional points of leverage. The North
    is very reliant on the oil revenues and it would be a massive
    blow--they would collapse without some share of these revenues.
    And that is one place to start in saying, great, well, if we
    are going to come together in this agreement, which they have
    to, you need to be transparent in how we are managing this. And
    that is one way to exercise leverage.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Dr. Eibner.
        Mr. Eibner. Thank you. The Special Envoy outlined a number
    of areas where we have great leverage and that is a fact. We do
    have leverage, but it is not obviously enough to make Khartoum
    fall into line with what the United States wants to do. And I
    see little--that there is little space between actually regime
    change and negotiating or having discussions with Khartoum on
    the basis of their interests, which is what the Special Envoy
    emphasized, the American strategy is to not like them but
    simply try to identify their interests. And if there are
    interests that are compatible with ours, then we try to reach
    some agreement. This obviously happened in the case of the CPA,
    according to President Salva Kiir of Southern Sudan, over 90
    percent of the CPA has been respected all of these years and we
    would not have the prospect of an independent Southern Sudan
    were it not for the possibility of many agreements being
    respected. But it is not for me to say whether there should be
    regime change and whether the United States is in a position to
    exercise that and to do it effectively and then do it in the
    right way that doesn't create more killing, displacement, and
    enslavement or whether we have to proceed on the basis of the
    strategy outlined by the Special Envoy and one that its
    predecessors have followed.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Bishop Hiiboro.
        Bishop Hiiboro. My reading of the situation, I would think
    that if you really have a stable North, then that would also
    hold the peace for the South. So decisions that we can take
    regarding the government in the North Sudan have to be also
    very much weighed again in South Sudan. And so the regime
    change definitely I think I can speak about, but that has to
    come from within. And also the level of discussions going on
    with the government and the Special Envoy to Sudan should also
    a little bit get down to the grassroots. And so--get the people
    involved. To my thinking, maybe the--the discussion is a little
    bit very high. So getting the people on the ground involved I
    think would be able to provide a possibility for understanding
    the situation and finding out a solution to the problem in the
    Sudan.
        And finally on the same and looking at the issue of the
    implementation of the CPA, we had already foreseen these
    things. People are already aware that if some of those elements
    were not implemented, we are going to have a conflict even
    before the referendum. And that was sort of like, no, we pay
    attention to the referendum to succeed, then we shall come to
    talk about Abyei. But I think the time has come and past and
    now we are already in violence. So therefore the moment I would
    think that more groundwork needs to be done involving the
    stakeholders and the current leaders and to see the best way
    they can be able to resolve the issue. I don't think the people
    in the North need violence. They need peace, too.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much. I yield now to the
    ranking member, Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Ms. Wilkins, what is your--
    in a nutshell, how do you see the plan for South Sudan's oil
    sector going--you had some points that you had made before.
    What were they again real quickly that you would like to see?
        Ms. Wilkins. Of course. Of what the United States can do,
    action points for example?
        Mr. Payne. Right.
        Ms. Wilkins. Wonderful. Back to what the Special Envoy was
    saying about how the U.S. and Norway are now beginning to do
    some capacity building in the Ministry of Finance and the
    Ministry of Energy. That is a great step. What I would really--
    I would very much like to add to that, though, is the other
    aspect of accountability and the real technical support and
    capacity building for the Legislative Assembly to be able to
    monitor how the ministries are functioning and how the
    ministries are actually managing the sector.
        And in addition, I had mentioned it earlier in my
    testimony, but capacity building and technical support for the
    petroleum directorate which the Auditor General intends to
    create. And of course capacity building for civil society. That
    is going to be huge. And as of yet, no donors appear to be
    stepping forward and saying we are going to take a real lead on
    building the capacity of local civil society groups to take an
    active role in the management of the petroleum sector. I
    believe that is a real oversight.
        Mr. Payne. Let me just ask a question. You were saying that
    you felt the government of--the Khartoum government showed, I
    guess, good faith. You said the CPA went through and that you,
    I guess, had faith in them. Do you have any way to know that
    the--even their accounting of the oil accounts? I mean, you
    have talked about the South. They say they pumped 10,000
    gallons last hour. Have you looked to Khartoum, have you
    questioned them about is there a real meter that you can see
    and that it is going--have you taken any kind of a look--
    because you seem to have a lot of confidence that they are
    going to do the right thing, although they have just broken
    every sort of agreement that they have made?
        Ms. Wilkins. No, I wouldn't say I have a lot of confidence
    that they will do the right thing here. No, no. I disagree with
    the importance of agreements. I think that getting commitments
    down on paper is very important even if the----
        Mr. Payne. But they have been broken as much as they have
    been written. And it is great to have it written because at
    least there is something to work from.
        Ms. Wilkins. Yeah. Something to hold people to. And I think
    that that is where it is really important.
        Mr. Payne. I mean, Darfur, they have broken every single
    agreement they made.
        Ms. Wilkins. No. Certainly. But I think that is why we have
    to chase them on things like the audit of the current oil
    sharing agreement which they agreed to do last year, or in 2009
    rather. And progress is actually moving ahead on that audit
    happening. They are waiting now to choose a company, an
    international, credible auditing firm to conduct the audit. And
    that is where you step in on verifying. Because I agree that
    both parties, the North and the South, can agree to implement
    this, any new agreement, effectively and transparently, but it
    is about independent verification.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. Bishop, the LRA continues to exist.
    And once again in Sudan, the government has continued to
    support them as they move along. This group should have been
    eliminated 20 years ago. They still roam around. Do you feel
    that with the new Government of South Sudan that that should be
    a priority for them or do you think that the Bashir government
    will continue to support the LRA, and would that be some
    conflict between the North and the South as they try to deal
    with the LRA?
        Bishop Hiiboro. Thank you. The issue of the LRA definitely
    is a very serious issue for Sudan and especially the region
    where I come from, he--that is where he operates, within the
    area where I live. And so we are only amazed too at the
    situation of the LRA that has continued for so many years
    without any proper solution. We wonder about how they get their
    support, how they are sustained and how--they also carry out
    their activities with a very high degree of military hardware.
    No one knows definitely. I cannot say. I only maybe want to
    speculate. We don't know where they get their supplies from.
    But all we know and I know that every day as I speak in my area
    there are continual raids on the population and attacks on the
    population, abducting, looting, killing. And this is causing a
    lot of displacement. And so I hate to think that it has even
    gone beyond an international issue. It is a regional issue that
    involves Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, and the Sudan
    and also the international community. And my worry is that the
    continued presence of the LRA in the forest, with that kind of
    maximum support of them from a source I don't know, there could
    be a time bomb for the destabilization of South Sudan or
    anybody. Anybody with the terrorist oriented activities can buy
    them and can use them for anything that they would wish.
        So I am hoping and so many others are hoping that with the
    birth of the new country, probably an initiative will be taken
    by the Government of South Sudan to involve the other countries
    because they have gone across the border, and to control them
    and in these collective efforts, a regional approach and also
    international.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Eibner, we
    listened to your testimony and I certainly have to commend the
    CSI in the early days when they exposed the whole question of
    abductions and other advocates who played an important role in
    exposing the extension, the existence of slavery and people
    being enslaved. There then became a debate, you may recall,
    with UNICEF that had some question about the fact that what had
    gone on initially to a smaller degree tended then to be
    amplified because when the redemption program came in, it kind
    of created--it created an industry actually. Some alleged that
    because there was money now to buy back abducted people, that
    it heightened the abductions because millions of dollars came
    in as a new industry. And then actually even some reports got
    into the fact that the money--there was corruption on the part
    of some people involved in it. And I know that there were
    restrictions imposed by the SPLM on the CSI.
        And I just wonder--I think we do need to take account of
    people in the North; it is going to be very difficult to track
    abducted people who are in the North. I think that in the
    South, the Government of South Sudan, if there are still
    remnants of that, I am sure that would probably still be a part
    of the social services.
        So, you know, there are so many gigantic problems going
    forward, it seems as though that you are saying that this is
    one--I assume a looming overwhelming problem in the scheme of
    things in Sudan. I just kind of wonder to the extent to which
    the situation still exists.
        Mr. Eibner. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
    respond. First of all, there has been no evidence of any
    credible sort from any--from UNICEF or anyone else about
    fueling the slave trade that it has made, that more people have
    been taken into slavery than otherwise would be the case. In
    fact, all of the evidence that I am aware of points to the
    contrary, that slavery has actually decreased to the point
    where they are not happening today. And I am sad to say that
    those who failed to address the slavery problem, those who knew
    about it back in the 1980s and failed to address it come up
    with these kinds of things as a cover for their own
    inadequacies and failure to address crime against humanity.
        And in terms of corruption and such allegations, you quite
    rightly say there are allegations and I would be delighted to
    have really hard evidence about really anything that we do in
    Sudan that is not helpful. And I can assure you that if I had
    hard evidence, I would look into it very thoroughly and we
    would make sure that all of our operations are either conducted
    in a way that is helpful to the victims and the victimized
    communities or stopped if we were to feel that they are in some
    way harmful.
        And I must say I am not aware of any restrictions that the
    SPLA has put on CSI in terms of its operations. If you are
    aware of any restrictions, please let me know and we will try
    to abide by whatever regulations Juba has. But CSI operates
    fully in conformity with the law in Southern Sudan and the
    wishes of the authorities. And it would be very unfortunate if
    people were to think that that were not the case because it is.
    I believe that the slavery issue is extremely important today
    both because of people that are still apparently enslaved. They
    are human beings, human beings like the lady Achol Deng that I
    mentioned, and today there may be somebody whose genitals are
    removed, somebody who is executed because they displeased a
    master. This is important and we want to find ways to get them
    back.
        That is important just on humanitarian grounds. Slavery is
    a crime against humanity, and it cannot be just marginalized in
    the political debate in Sudan. But there is another reason and
    that is why I mentioned Francis Deng and the ``War of Visions''
    because there is something that fuels this cruelty, this
    slavery, and it is related to the different visions and the
    competing visions. And one vision is based on racism and
    religious bigotry that will justify this kind of appalling
    behavior in the minds of perpetrators, and this needs to be
    addressed as a part of the political debate on Sudan.
        Already there has been some mention of regime change, and
    this is not something I wish to get into but I think everybody
    has to understand that slavery wasn't invented by Omar Bashir.
    The slave raids got underway in earnest in a very serious way
    when there was what people call a democratic government in
    Khartoum that was a coalition government. All of the so-called
    democratic parties were involved and they were the ones who
    were really responsible for setting this in motion. This
    problem goes much deeper than a particular leader, a particular
    party in Sudan. And if we are really serious about bringing
    sustained peace to Sudan and enabling peoples, whether they are
    in two separate states or three states or whether they are
    united, to be able to live together in peace and harmony, then
    we have to address these issues. And slavery symbolizes that.
        I believe that you were probably in Juba at the time of the
    referendum, and I am sure that you saw all of the campaign
    posters for the independence of Southern Sudan. And it was to
    prevent slavery and to enable us to develop--vote for
    independence. Slavery is an important issue in the hearts and
    minds of Southern Sudanese, and it is something that we address
    and we err if we just sweep it to the margins of political
    life.
        Mr. Payne. Well, I am not saying we should sweep anything
    anywhere. All I am simply saying is that we have oppression
    throughout the world. I mean, we could almost call slavery here
    in the United States if you want to use that term. I just think
    the term is used a little loosely because it is used in some
    places and not used in other places. We ought to have a
    definition of the way that exploitation--you can go to India,
    you can go to Brazil, you can go to Alabama with the chain
    gangs where people wear chains and they work on farms and they
    get no pay and they work 10 hours a day and they are given poor
    meals. And so all I am saying is that we have inequities and
    abuses that are worldwide, China, Brazil, the Caribbean,
    Indonesia, where you have sex trading that goes on in
    abundance, even the border of Burma. I went to Burma while
    going to China. You would be surprised, you wouldn't think that
    prostitution and gambling occurs right up there. But they use
    other terms.
        And I would like to follow up with you because I do have
    some information that I would like to get to you since you said
    you are unaware it of and I think we could perhaps set up a
    meeting at another time.
        Just one last question since my time is really over, Mr.
    Winter, if there could be some immediate things that our
    Government could do to try to get this situation--and let me
    also recognition Mr. Joe Madison, who had gone to Sudan many
    times, went on a fast and really did much and is a radio
    personality and has done a tremendous amount to get on the
    airwaves way back when not many people were talking about
    Sudan. So thank you for being here, Mr. Madison.
        What would you do immediately if you were a Special Envoy?
    What would you suggest to Mr. Obama that should be done now
    because I am really concerned about what is going on?
        Mr. Winter. First of all, I wouldn't want to be said
    person. There is at this point no clear simple answer to that,
    a quick answer. We have been talking for 11 years. Everything
    has been said. I mean, the CPA process started in 2001. This is
    2011. Everything that can be said pretty much was said. The
    question is, what do we do? And that I think is the weak link
    in the thing. So if you want to go back--you can go back, for
    example, in the case of--we have been doing a lot of talk about
    Abyei and I always stand corrected to the other people--to be
    corrected by other folks on the panel.
        But just to raise the issue of the mobilization by Khartoum
    of the Misseriya people, not for the Misseriya people's
    benefit, but for Khartoum's benefit. If you have a government
    that deals with--for their good that actually divides
    populations against each other, something is dramatically wrong
    now. When we were talking about slaves in the 1980s, it was the
    so-called Murahaleen that were doing most of that slave raiding
    with the complicity of people in the government.
        Now, the Murahaleen consisted of two primary groups. One of
    them was the Misseriya. The Misseriya are the same people who
    under the auspices of Khartoum burned down Abyei in 2008, and
    that have been consistently harassing. The 31st Brigade of the
    Sudan Armed Forces is one of those military units that does the
    attacking and the violence in the Abyei area. The whole
    discussion about the kind of thing I referred to earlier about
    Special Envoy Gration in my written testimony about what he was
    trying to do to benefit the Misseriya was this same population
    that was one of the primary enslaving populations.
        Now, the truth of the matter is that the Misseriya people
    definitely need a lot of help, but the way it has been handled
    by Khartoum doesn't ultimately help the Misseriya people. For
    example, the Misseriya people, by the way, have their own
    homeland. It is a large one. It is headquartered by Mugled, the
    town of Mugled. They bring their cattle down into Abyei,
    historically with agreements with the Ngok Dinka, for water and
    pasture and a lot of them pass through Abyei further into the
    south. Giving them a little more chunk of Abyei doesn't really
    solve most of their problem because they need to go further
    south. So it is not--what Mr. Gration was doing was not solving
    a problem, but he was moving the goal line further south, which
    was problematic. And what I would say is that the issue of the
    entitlement that the Special Envoy was trying to do to create
    by saying they should have part, equal responsibility for the
    northern part of Abyei, really that is not at all the kind of
    thing that the whole CPA was about.
        The Abyei Protocol is focused on the issue of residence.
    People can get to vote in the referendum on Abyei's status if
    they were residents. They had to include the Ngok Dinka
    community because that was their traditional homeland. But
    beyond that, any other residents--and there actually are
    Misseriya who are residents in Abyei. And nobody, including the
    Ngok Dinka, have any problem with those people voting in an
    Abyei referendum. But what Khartoum has been trying to do is
    get the whole large part of the Misseriya population to move in
    and claim residence.
        Now, keep in mind, they have a homeland area in which they
    spend most of their time, normally around 8 months out of the
    year. So up to 4 months of the year they may pass through
    Abyei. Well, to say they should be able to keep their own
    homeland and then have parts of somebody else's homeland seems
    something is wrong with that formulation.
        So this whole process is a process that is being, in my
    view, manipulated by Khartoum for Khartoum's benefit but isn't
    really solving the situation. And they are justifying it by
    saying--as I say in my written testimony, it would be like--
    since I live in Maryland, and I am a resident of Maryland and I
    can vote in Maryland because I am a resident, it would be like
    saying, well, the Misseriya, since they live north of Abyei,
    the area headed by the sort of capital town called Mugled, they
    are residents there for at least 8 months of the year and they
    can vote there. But because they go for up to 4 months and pass
    through Abyei, well, they should be able to vote there also in
    the referendum. And it is like me, I live in Maryland, but if I
    go and spend summer months on the ocean beaches in Delaware
    should I be able to say I am a resident of Maryland and a
    resident of Delaware and therefore I can vote in Maryland and I
    can also vote in Delaware?
        That is the kind of thing that is really underpinning the
    conflict and the way it is being handled by the Khartoum
    government now. It doesn't hold any water.
        Mr. Smith [presiding]. Thank you. In your testimonies,
    which you have really laid out I think very clear and concise
    and compelling recommendations, you have really anticipated
    many of our questions, although members may have additional
    questions they would like to ask. I would like to ask one final
    question and just--is there anything you heard from Special
    Envoy Princeton Lyman on which you might want to comment on,
    having sat through his testimony a few moments ago? For
    instance, Dr. Eibner, he did agree that he would more robustly
    look into the issue of slavery, and when I talked to him on the
    way out, he reiterated that commitment. If there is anything
    anyone would like--yes, Ms. Wilkins.
        Ms. Wilkins. Yes, I would just add that, I said it before.
    It is wonderful that they are putting in advisers in the
    Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy, but it is very
    important that the donors, led by the U.S., also focus on
    building the technical knowledge and capacity of the
    Legislative Assembly and of the Auditor General's office. To
    only focus on the ministries which are actually doing the
    management would risk undermining accountability in the
    government.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Let me comment on that there. There is a group
    called the House Democracy Assistance Commission here headed by
    Mr. David Dreier, and that is exactly what they do, they select
    new or re-emerging Parliaments. And they just came back from
    Mongolia and Georgia, countries that have had a transition. We
    have already discussed the possibility of the commission
    expanding to one other country in South Sudan. So I do
    believe--and they have focused strictly on the legislative
    branch, which in many countries are very weak. I mean, the
    executive has the power to have the staff, the budgetary. And
    so that is what we had discussions already about.
        So that is a good point. Thank you.
        Mr. Winter. I said before that we have been talking for 11
    years on this agreement and its implementation. I suggested in
    my written statement that it is time to take an action. And I
    never foresaw myself ever suggesting such a thing. But my
    concern is that this situation can become a train wreck, a
    train wreck that influences the lives of millions of people in
    southern North Sudan and in South Sudan. And we are the prime
    entity in the whole process. And if anybody is going to take an
    action, it would have to be us; it is not going to be Norway.
    It is not going to be Holland, you know. Somebody else. And I
    think if you look at the calendar and the state of affairs, we
    are at a significant risk of failure. Not a failure on having a
    separate South, but having a separation that becomes even after
    separation a train wreck for many, many, many people of South
    Sudan and Northern--the south part of Northern Sudan.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Yes, Bishop.
        Bishop Hiiboro. One of the points from the Special Envoy
    which I felt he should highlight is the post-referendum
    arrangement committee that has been set. So I think it will be
    necessary at this point because the time is already close. We
    are already getting to July 9th and the negotiation will be
    new. It will be between the two countries discussing issues
    that have led to peace. But the post-referendum committee that
    has been put in place, it should have been much earlier. I
    would suggest that the Congress should put its energy very much
    behind this because it is going to resolve those issues that
    can pull the country into serious danger, that can pull the
    country into war. With that, we would be able to halt, to halt
    issues that could lead to war.
        Additionally, Mr. Payne said he was able to speak with the
    President yesterday, Salva Kiir, and he said he is exercising
    maximum calm, not to turn to violence. I think it is an
    opportunity that can be used at this very moment to address the
    many issues. But after July 9th, from the 10th onward, then I
    think the language could easily change. So I think the highest
    time is for the U.S. Government to throw its authority behind
    the committee and those things that are left should be well
    resolved before that time.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        If there are no further comments, I want to thank our
    witnesses not only for your insights and counsel and for the
    work you do, but for being so courteous for allowing Princeton
    Lyman to present his testimony because of his schedule because
    I know you all have schedules as well. I deeply appreciate that
    courtesy extended to him and to us.
        Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

                   \\ts\