[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 114 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4839-S4840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SOUTH SUDAN

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to the ongoing 
conflict in South Sudan, and call on the administration to take further 
action to help find a sustainable diplomatic solution.
  Today, July 9, is South Sudan's Independence Day. Instead of 
celebrating the seventh birthday of the world's newest nation, we find 
ourselves lamenting the human costs of South Sudan's 4-and-a-half year 
old civil war. The situation has created the largest refugee crisis in 
Africa. An estimated 4.5 million people have been forcibly displaced. 
An estimated 300,000 people may have been killed since 2013, but the 
death toll could be far, far greater.
  The humanitarian situation is dire. Seven million people--60 percent 
of the population--require humanitarian assistance. Insecurity has 
disrupted farming cycles, grazing patterns, and trade routes; local 
markets have collapsed. Food prices have skyrocketed. Over 1 million 
South Sudanese children are facing acute malnutrition, and parts of 
South Sudan may be experiencing famine. While the United States, along 
with other donors, has taken measures to help those in need, our 
efforts have been thwarted on a variety of fronts. Relief supplies have 
been repeatedly looted. Government restrictions and insecurity hinder 
relief efforts.
  The war has been characterized by horrific human rights violations. 
The U.N. Mission in South Sudan reports that, from the outset of the 
conflict, ``Civilians were not only caught up in the violence, they 
were directly targeted, often along ethnic lines.'' The U.N. Commission 
on Human Rights in South Sudan suggests that ethnic cleansing has 
occurred. Forces on both sides have reportedly engaged in widespread 
sexual violence. An attack on a residence for aid workers in Juba in 
July 2016, during which Americans were assaulted and a local journalist 
killed, highlighted the dangers facing aid workers and other 
expatriates. According to the U.N., over 100 aid workers have been 
killed since the war began. Hundreds of attacks on humanitarian workers 
were reported in 2017. U.N. officials assert that targeted attacks 
against civilians, humanitarians, and U.N. personnel in South Sudan by 
government and oppositions forces may constitute war crimes or crimes 
against humanity.

[[Page S4840]]

  Just last month, Reuters reported that the ceasefire monitoring group 
set up as part of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict 
in South Sudan known as the ARCSS has evidence that South Sudan's army 
has massacred civilians, burned children alive, and gang-raped women 
since the ceasefire agreement reached in December 2017.
  In the worst incident detailed in the reports, a group of 200 
government soldiers attacked the village of Nyatot in Upper Nile state 
on February 12. Civilian survivors interviewed said they were 
``shooting randomly at everything and everybody.'' Twenty-two civilians 
were killed and 72 wounded. South Sudan has denied targeting civilians 
and called the reports, compiled in the last 3 months, exaggerated. 
Despite pressure from the international community, the reports have yet 
to be released publicly. If these reports are true, perpetrators must 
be held accountable.
  The U.N. Security Council ramped up its threats to impose sanctions 
against six key individuals in South Sudan if the fighting continued 
and no compromise was reached by the end of June. Under this most 
recent threat of sanctions, President Salva Kiir and rival leader Riek 
Machar held their first meeting since the 2015 deal collapsed in mid-
2016. They have signed yet another agreement and imposed a ceasefire, 
but before the ink was dry, there were allegations that government 
forces violated the ceasefire and reports that Machar's group --the 
Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition --was opposed to key 
elements contained therein, putting the agreement at risk.
  The Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, also said it 
was developing punitive measures against violators of the ceasefire 
agreement, although it is uncertain whether this will materialize in a 
region that has been reticent to impose sanctions.
  The United States played a key role in helping create the 2005 
Comprehensive Peace Agreement that laid the groundwork for the 2011 
referendum on self-determination, through which the people of South 
Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence. We have a role to play in 
helping the people of South Sudan secure their future and find peace. 
The administration has taken some steps, including imposing targeted 
sanctions on individuals who threaten the peace, security, or stability 
of South Sudan, a bilateral arms embargo, and Commerce Department 
actions against South Sudanese companies in the oil sector. USAID 
Administrator Mark Green traveled to the country in September 2017 and 
pressed for a ceasefire and humanitarian access. U.N. Ambassador Nikki 
Haley visited Juba and Sudanese refugees in October 2017 and has 
pursued Security Council sanctions on those who are obstacles to peace. 
Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Sigal 
Mandelker, was in east Africa last month, where she urged countries to 
stop illicit money flows from South Sudan into neighboring countries. 
These actions are welcome. However, such engagements have been too 
sporadic to generate sustained diplomatic momentum. Millions of South 
Sudanese continue to suffer.
  Despite what seem like positive developments in recent weeks, if past 
is prologue, we should all be very concerned about whether the 
agreement will hold. We must position ourselves to support it if it 
does not collapse, but we must also be prepared to help find a way to a 
sustainable peace if it does. High-level U.S. engagement has proven 
decisive in achieving peace in the past; it could make all the 
difference now, either in helping support this latest agreement or in 
forging a new diplomatic solution.
  I urge the administration to redouble its efforts on South Sudan by 
taking the following steps: Consider the appointment of a special envoy 
for Sudan and South Sudan. Addressing the conflict in South Sudan will 
take concerted time effort and attention. If the Democratic Republic of 
Congo, northeastern Nigeria, the Central African Republic, and Mali 
weren't all in some form of crisis or another, our newly confirmed 
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs might be able to 
devote the necessary time and resources towards the shuttle diplomacy 
and intense negotiations required to end the conflict in South Sudan, 
but time is a luxury that we don't have. During his confirmation 
hearing to be Secretary of State in April, Mike Pompeo committed to 
reviewing the utility of assigning a special envoy to South Sudan. When 
he appeared before the committee to defend the administration's Fiscal 
Year 2019 budget request in May, Secretary Pompeo indicated that he had 
not yet reviewed the issue. Mr. Secretary, the people of South Sudan 
have suffered long enough. It is time for a decision.
  Develop a strategy, in coordination with partners and allies, for 
incentivizing each of the member states of IGAD, the east African 
regional body leading negotiations, to take constructive and decisive 
actions aimed at ending the conflict. IGAD's efforts to date have been 
commendable, but it is clear that, when it comes to developing and 
implementing meaningful consequences for nonadherence to past 
agreements, competing bilateral interests of member states have 
overtaken effective collective action by the body. Unless member states 
are willing to place peace in South Sudan above narrow parochial 
interests, IGAD will continue to fail, and the people of South Sudan 
will continue to pay the price. IGAD should lead the international 
community in imposing an arms embargo and targeted sanctions, including 
a travel ban and an asset freeze if this last initiative fails. Member 
states should stop any and all material support they may be providing 
to the government in Juba, and we must make clear that failure to do so 
will affect our bilateral relationship with each of the countries in 
IGAD.
  Improve coordination with allies. The other members of the Troika 
were taken by surprise by our announcement in May that we are reviewing 
our assistance to South Sudan. Administration officials consistently 
say that America first does not mean America alone. If that is the 
case, we need to stop taking unilateral action. We should ensure that 
our partners --if they really are our partners --are apprised of 
actions in advance of our announcing them. I am not suggesting we give 
them veto authority over U.S. policy. I am suggesting that we work in 
concert with them so that our actions have more impact. If we consult, 
we might just find that they want to cooperate with us.
  Finally, we should maintain pressure in the Security Council. I am 
pleased that Ambassador Haley has continued to pursue U.N. sanctions, 
and I support her efforts. It is evident that the one thing that those 
in power in Juba care about is protecting their self-interests. Let's 
stop the supply of arms and materiel and hit the parties to the 
conflict where it hurts: their pocket books.
  Mr. President, I truly hope the news coming out of the region is an 
indicator that things are finally moving in the right direction, but 
there is ample room for doubt. I urge the administration to better 
prepare to help the people of South Sudan reach the goals at the birth 
of their new nation, tragically derailed by civil war and an 
indifference of their leaders to their suffering.

                          ____________________