U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–002PDF 2012

THE NORTH–SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT 2012

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 26, 2012

Serial No. 112–150

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Princeton Lyman, Special Envoy for Sudan, U.S. Department 

of State .................................................................................................................. 6

The Honorable Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International 

Development ......................................................................................................... 15

The Honorable Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Population, 

Refugees and Migration, U.S. Department of State .......................................... 23

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Princeton Lyman: Prepared statement ........................................ 10

The Honorable Nancy Lindborg: Prepared statement .......................................... 17

The Honorable Anne Richard: Prepared statement .............................................. 26

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Letter from Members of Congress to the Honorable Barack 

Obama dated March 30, 2012 ............................................................................. 42

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York: Prepared statement ............................................................ 62

Written responses from the Honorable Princeton Lyman to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle ............................ 63

(1)

THE NORTH–SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT 2012

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m., in room 

2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon. 

Let me first apologize for our lateness. We did have a series of 

votes on the House floor. So, 1⁄2 hour later, again, I do apologize 

for not convening on time. 

Before we begin today’s hearing, I would like to acknowledge the 

tremendous verdict rendered earlier today by the Special Court for 

Sierra Leone in The Hague. The court found former warlord—and 

we all know about him—Liberian President Charles Taylor guilty 

of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, ranging 

from pillaging to murder, to rape, to enslavement. Taylor is scheduled to be sentenced by the court on May 30th. 

As we all know, Taylor trained and armed the notorious Sierra 

Leonian rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front, or 

RUF, which terrorized the country through acts of sexual violence, 

amputations, and forcible recruitment of child soldiers. RUF took 

control of Sierra Leone’s diamond fields which provided revenue for 

their reign of terror and for Taylor, through funneling sales of Sierra Leone diamonds to the international market through Liberia. 

This court set a number of precedents. It is the first hybrid tribunal created by agreement of the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is the first modern international criminal 

tribunal to complete its mandate. Its decision today marks the first 

time a head of state was indicted, tried, and convicted by an international tribunal. 

It now establishes the principle of accountability for leaders who 

violate international law. One hope is that those in Sudan who 

have been indicted by the International Criminal Court will one 

day meet the same fate as Charles Taylor. 

I would just note, parenthetically, that David Crane, who was 

the prosecutor of numerous people in Sierra Leone, was a frequent 

visitor to this subcommittee and did an outstanding job in bringing 

so many others to justice who committed such heinous crimes during that reign of terror. 

2

Today’s hearing will examine the current conflict between the 

Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan, and the policy 

options for stalling a full-blown war that are available to the 

United States and the rest of the international community. As we 

meet here today, the two countries move ever closer to all out war, 

and some strategy to avert this eventuality must be devised soon, 

if it has not already been created. We hope to hear some insights 

on that. Our hearing should review what such a strategy should 

look like and, hopefully, will be implemented. 

The United States is one of the guarantors of the peace process 

that ended the second North-South civil war in 2005, but it did not 

end our responsibility alone to prevent what everyone believes 

would be a disaster for the two nations, their populations, and, 

likely, for the welfare of their neighbors as well. 

The U.N. and the African Union certainly bear some responsibility for working to restore peace. However, no lasting peace will 

be likely if other interested parties fail to play a positive role in 

this crisis. 

The Khartoum government is now talking about ‘‘the spirit of 

jihad’’ rising in the north. Jihad is often interpreted as a call for 

all true believers to help in the fight against one’s enemy, although 

there are other definitions of working to make oneself a better person, but certainly that is not the application here. 

Sudan reportedly reached out to the Arab League to initiate discussions on the current crisis, and the Arab League might be able 

to convince Sudan’s leaders to calm down their rhetoric and help 

them to see the negative end result of their warmongering. If Arab 

nations can support a workable plan to fulfill the provisions of the 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the second Sudan civil 

war, then they will have helped a nation, led by people who consider themselves Arabs, to create a sustainable future with peace 

and security. 

China imports 5 percent of its oil from Sudan currently. According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, that total could rise 

soon to 10 percent, due to regional tensions in the Persian Gulf. Oil 

shipments from Sudan depend on both the Southern supply and 

the northern pipelines. War between the two would have a significant impact on China’s ability to continue importing Sudanese oil. 

As a result, Beijing has been trying to mediate the current dispute. 

South Sudan President Salva Kiir has been in Beijing this week for 

discussions on ending the dispute between the two countries. 

While all nations must join in the effort to end the North-South 

Sudan conflict, the difficulty of achieving a lasting peace is evident 

from the long history of North-South animosity, mistrust, and war. 

During colonial times, the Northerners and Southerners were 

treated differently. When independence finally came in 1956, the 

continuing estrangement of Muslim Northerners and Christian and 

Animist Southerners was established. 

The first civil war that began in 1955 was the result of an Arabled government in Khartoum that broke promises of inclusion and 

marginalized some Southerners. The massacre of Northerners in 

the South only exacerbated the growing hatred between them. 

After 11 years of relative peace, the second civil war broke out in 

1983, when the Sudan People’s Liberation Army fought for indeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Jul 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\042612\74002 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

pendence of the South. The CPA not only ended the second civil 

war, it set the South on the road to independence, which was finally achieved in 2011. 

Unfortunately, although the peace agreement laid out the path 

to sustainable peace, but it was never fully implemented, as we all 

know. The genocide in Darfur distracted the international community from fulfilling the CPA, and nearly a year after South Sudan 

became a nation, there is no agreed upon border, the Abyei region 

remains in dispute, citizenship remains in dispute for those in border areas, and there is no agreement on how oil revenues are to 

be divided. 

With all these unresolved issues, some form of conflict was inevitable perhaps, especially between antagonists with a long history 

of mistrust. The animosity between leaders for both sides does not 

bode well for peace talks or for peace accords that would be sustainable. Both sides have taken actions that have made the situation we now face more difficult to resolve. But I would respectfully 

submit that a false equivalency will not help us to achieve, and especially those who have suffered so much, a lasting peace. 

Whatever the international community thinks of the South’s capture of the oil junction town of Heglig, no nation will allow an antagonist to use a location as a staging ground for repeated attacks 

without retaliation. Sudan’s Government has been brutally oppressing Darfur and, more recently, has been relentlessly attacking 

people in the Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile States for 

months. 

Our committee has held multiple hearings on this terrible, terrible development. To equate months of vicious attacks that have 

killed or displaced thousands with the short-term occupation of a 

strategic town will neither placate the North into ending its cruelty 

against its own citizens, nor shame the South into withdrawing 

from the staging ground for assaults against it. 

I have met both Sudan President Omar Bashir and Southern 

Sudan President Salva Kiir. I found Bashir to be obstinate and 

uncaring about the destruction his armed forces have unleashed on 

his own citizens. President Kiir has been single minded in pursuing 

independence over Sudanese unity since he assumed the leadership 

of South Sudan in 2005. 

There have been numerous ceasefires and peace accords between 

the North and South over the years, none of them enduring. If we 

cannot devise a means of achieving a lasting peace, we may gain 

a brief halt in the fighting, but the war will inevitably resume at 

some point. 

We have today—and I will introduce them formally in a moment—very distinguished witnesses who are not just knowledgeable about the situation on the ground, but are playing a very constructive and a meaningful leadership part in trying to achieve 

peace in that region. 

I will introduce them shortly, but now will yield to my good 

friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, the ranking member, for any opening comments. 

Ms. BASS. Well, once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding 

this critical and urgent hearing on the security crisis and brinkVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Jul 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\042612\74002 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

manship that appears to have brought Sudan and South Sudan to 

the verge of war. 

I hope that in the course of today’s hearing we gain new insight 

into how the alarming and dangerous course of events in recent 

days, and, indeed, over the last several months, can be reversed. 

On July 9th, 2011, the world enthusiastically, yet cautiously, 

watched as South Sudan declared its independence. Less than 10 

months later, a number of very contentious disputes have yet to be 

resolved. These include the North-South border demarcation, citizenship rights of those living in the North and South, and arrangements regarding oil and related financial issues. These differences 

and recent military and political provocations by the governments 

of both Sudan and South Sudan now imperil the fragile peace and 

nation building made possible by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace 

Agreement. 

I am deeply concerned about what is already a crisis of immense 

and terrible proportions. Reports on recent events are horrific. In 

an Associated Press wire story, we learn, and I quote,

‘‘War planes bombed the market and an oil field in South 

Sudan, killing at least two people, after Sudanese ground 

forces reportedly crossed into South Sudan with tanks and artillery. The U.N. mission in South Sudan confirmed that at 

least 16 civilians were killed and 34 injured in bombings by 

Sudanese aircraft in Unity State.’’

Another AP story suggests that Sudan has initiated war on its 

southern neighbor. It states, and I quote,

‘‘South Sudan’s President said its northern neighbor has declared war on the world’s newest nation just hours after Sudanese jets dropped eight bombs on his country.’’

It is critical that both governments immediately stop all crossborder attacks and return to diplomatic talks. Both governments 

should immediately establish a demilitarized border zone and commence with the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring mechanism. Sudan, in particular, must halt its reported aerial bombardments, most importantly, because of the toll in innocent civilians. 

Ambassador Lyman, I look forward to hearing you and your colleagues’ interpretations as to whether these two nations are, in 

fact, at war. What constitutes a war? 

In either event, the alarm bells are ringing very loud, and the 

threat of full-scale war is dangerously high. I hope that you will be 

able to suggest ways that we, as American policymakers, and the 

wider international community can show strong support to bring 

these nations back from the brink and prevent a catastrophic return to conflict and losses of life, resources, and the opportunities 

to build a lasting peace. 

While we are trying to understand the specifics on what is taking 

place, I do know that it is imperative that all those with a vested 

interest in real genuine peace must show a strong unified front and 

speak with one voice, and demand an immediate, unconditional, 

and sustained end to attacks and acts of violence, as demanded by 

the U.N. Security Council in its statement on April 12th. I urge African leaders to forcibly make that demand as well. Strong interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Jul 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\042612\74002 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

national political will and pressure must support an immediate deescalation of the current dangerous and lethal climate in order to 

facilitate renewed work toward forging a permanent peace. 

We must also urge the parties to halt their use of incendiary and 

uncompromising language which only fuels what already are high 

levels of mistrust and animosity. I was appalled to read remarks 

attributed to Sudan’s President Bashir who was quoted in press reports as saying of South Sudan that there is to be ‘‘no negotiation 

with these people,’’ whom he earlier described as ‘‘insects that must 

be eliminated.’’ Such disturbing and offensive language is both unacceptable and irresponsible. 

Before I close, I would be remiss if I also didn’t take a moment 

to speak about the mass atrocities in Darfur and today’s conviction 

of Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity involving Sierra Leone. There is tremendous need to ensure a comprehensive approach to the challenges facing the Sudans, and that 

includes addressing the continuing suffering in Darfur. This situation in Darfur is far from resolved, and we must remember that it 

is just as tied up in the conflict between North and South Sudan 

as the South Kordofan and Blue Nile States. 

Today’s conviction of Charles Taylor and his involvement in extraordinary acts of human cruelty in Sierra Leone sends a strong 

and unequivocal message: We will hold those who turn a blind eye 

to human rights and the sanctity of life accountable for their 

crimes. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Bass, thank you very much. 

Ms. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. First, thank you for giving myself the opportunity to sit in on this hearing, and thank you for 

your continued leadership on this and so many issues. 

I had had the privilege to serve on this committee, this subcommittee, for many, many years. I witnessed and worked with you 

on so many issues around the CPA, on sanctions, on the genocide 

that was taking place in Darfur, and all of the issues that were so 

important. Yes, so it is good to be here with you today. 

And I thank all the witnesses. 

Let me congratulate just for a minute our ranking member, Congressman Bass, for your leadership and for your commitment and 

your astuteness in terms of really wanting to see, especially on this 

issue, it being a bipartisan solution as it relates to what Congress 

can do to really help pull back the war drums that we are hearing 

now being beaten, and, also, to ensure that the humanitarian assistance can get in, and, also, for all of the issues that you both laid 

out in your very excellent opening statements. 

So, I will just stop and welcome the witnesses. I look forward to 

your testimony. 

But I want to just thank you for giving me the privilege to sit 

in with you and, once again, congratulations. 

Mr. SMITH. You are always welcome, Ms. Lee, and thank you for 

being here and for your work on behalf of these very vital issues. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking 

member as well and congratulate her. 

6

I, too—or perhaps I shouldn’t say, ‘‘I, too’’—I am an interloper, 

not having been a part of the committee. I think when I was last 

here we were talking about human trafficking and there are still 

great issues that have to be dealt with in the area of human trafficking. 

I am honored to be here today to hear these outstanding witnesses give us some intelligence on not only the crisis as it relates 

to war, but the greater human tragedy that is already taking place. 

I assure you that my concern for people and their being cared for 

properly is one that is not second to the war. The war, I want to 

see it end. I don’t want war of any kind. But even while people are 

at war, we can still have the decency to treat human beings as 

human beings. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield back any time 

that I have left. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. 

But very briefly, Ambassador Lyman, Princeton Lyman, has 

served as the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan since March of last 

year. Immediately prior to that, he served as U.S. Senior Advisor 

on North-South Negotiations, where he led the U.S. team, focused 

on supporting ongoing negotiations between the parties to the 2005 

CPA. Ambassador Lyman has held a number of important positions 

in the NGO sector and academia, in addition to the multitude of 

diplomatic assignments throughout Africa spanning several decades. 

Ambassador Lyman has recently returned from being on the 

ground in Khartoum and Juba, and we look forward to hearing his 

comments on the recent events in his second appearance before 

this subcommittee. 

Then, we will hear from Nancy Lindborg, who is the Assistant 

Administrator for the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID. Ms. Lindborg spent 14 years as President of Mercy Corps, where she focused on international relief and 

development. During her time in Mercy Corps, she also served in 

a number of positions where she worked on issues related to foreign relations, foreign assistance, of course. No stranger to this 

committee, Ms. Lindborg testified last summer on a hearing on Somalia. We look forward and welcome her back. 

And then, Anne Richard, recently sworn in earlier this month, as 

the new Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau. Ms. Richard’s previous government service includes 

service in the State Department, the Peace Corps, the Office of 

Management and Budget. She also worked on the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Rescue Committee, and was part 

of the team that founded the International Crisis Group. 

Ambassador Lyman, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PRINCETON LYMAN, 

SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SUDAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador LYMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking 

Member. 

Congresswoman Bass, it is wonderful that you have assumed 

this position. 

7

Congresswoman Lee, it is so good for you to be here, and Congressman Green. 

I was privileged yesterday to be invited to that magnificent ceremony yesterday to honor Donald Payne, who graced this committee 

for so many years and embodied so much the spirit that this committee, this subcommittee, has had of a bipartisan approach to 

dealing with the issues of Africa, America’s interest. I know the 

chairman has worked very closely with him, and we miss him 

greatly, but it is wonderful to see this strong, continuing interest 

from this committee. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the full testimony be submitted 

for the record, if that is okay, and let me just try to summarize the 

situation and what we are doing now. 

The tension along the border, frankly, has been great for almost 

a year now, since the conflict began in Southern Kordofan/Blue 

Nile. I will come back to that. But there have been brushes of conflict along the border off and on for some time. 

That led South Sudan in early April, April 10th, to move forward 

and occupy the area of Heglig. Now the international reaction was 

immediate and unified, urging South Sudan to withdraw. The reason was that it raised the conflict to a new level. It is a disputed 

area, et cetera, but we knew that it would raise the level of conflict 

to a new level, and it did. South Sudan did agree to withdraw, but 

had to withdraw under pressure because of the counterattacks coming from the Government of Sudan. 

Mr. Chairman, you put your finger on it when you talked about 

the security concerns because that is at the heart of it. Regardless 

of the disputed claims law of where the border lies, the fundamental concern for South Sudan is that that border has been used 

as a staging ground for attacks of militias into South Sudan. Having a secure border is in their interest, and therefore, it gives them 

an interest in seeing a resolution, and a fair resolution, of the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, as well as of the border. 

On the side of the Government of Sudan, they also have major 

security concerns, but they mischaracterize, in our view, the nature 

of the problem. Because the problem derives not only from the uncertainty over where the border is and all of that, but the conflict 

in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile they feel can be addressed if 

only the South would not lend any support to it, the border can be 

sealed off, and they can pursue a largely military approach to the 

resolution of that conflict. 

That is wrong on several grounds. It won’t be solved militarily. 

It is a political problem for the Government of Sudan to address 

with the people of the Nuba Mountains and the people of Blue Nile. 

And just trying to seal the border and go after the South for whatever support might be flowing North doesn’t get at the problem. So, 

it doesn’t solve their security interests, either. And that is how we 

have got to get back and dealing with the real one. 

You asked a good question, Congresswoman Lee, about how 

you—I think it was you, Congresswoman Bass—about how you define whether they are at war or not. Actually, it was an issue when 

I got there because, you know, when two sides are shooting at each 

other, it looks like war. 

8

But what I was struck by was neither side wanted us to characterize it as such. People on both sides, regardless of some of the 

rhetoric, said, ‘‘We don’t want to go to full-scale war. We really 

don’t. Please don’t call it a war, because, yes, we are shooting at 

each other on the border, but we can’t go back to full scale war.’’ 

And that, I heard from people in Khartoum and in Juba. 

The question is, how do you manage a situation like this without 

gravitating into war? That is why this situation was so dangerous 

in the conflict over Heglig. 

Now the international reaction was sudden, quick, unified that 

the parties have to get back on either side of the border. I went 

right away to Juba and then to Khartoum. With a unified international community, we worked together on what would be the way 

out. And it is very much along the lines that the members of this 

subcommittee have mentioned. 

What we have said is that you need immediately a ceasefire, immediately thereafter going to a process whereby the border can be 

demilitarized and monitored. The irony is the two sides had already agreed to a mechanism for doing that. They just never implemented it. It is called the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring 

Mission, which would have both sides monitoring a 20-kilometerwide demilitarized zone, supported by the U.N. peacekeeping operation from Abyei, the force commander with some of his troops, to 

provide security and assistance. 

What we said was you have got to get back and implement that 

program. There has to be a stop to the bombing. There has to be 

a stop to the conflict, and you have to get back to the negotiations. 

We worked with a lot of people around the world, that that message would become loud and clear to both parties. And we were 

very pleased that the African Union Peace and Security Committee 

meeting on Tuesday didn’t just settle for a general hortatory statement, ‘‘Oh, please come back and get back to peace talks.’’

They took a very concrete set of steps with very tight timelines 

and said to the parties, ‘‘This is what you’ve got to do.’’ And it was 

a message that what is going on between those two countries affects the whole region. It affects all of East Africa and beyond. The 

African Union was sending that message in a very strong way. 

They, then, asked the rest of the international community to 

back that up. We are doing that. We are calling on other partners. 

We are hoping the Arab League will back that same resolution up 

today. They are meeting today. And the U.N. is working on a resolution as well, to bring as much unified international pressure to 

bear on the parties, that this kind of way of going at it, this kind 

of back-and-forth conflict is not the way; they must get back to the 

negotiations. 

After that resolution was passed, we are waiting today. Each 

government is supposed to make a statement on cessation of hostilities. We hope they will do so. The border has quieted down in 

the last 2 days. We hope they will both agree to that right away 

and that the specific talks on the border can start next week. 

Now I want to also address—and the chairman has raised this, 

and you all have raised this—the situation in Southern Kordofan 

and Blue Nile. There will be no real security on the border until 

9

that situation is addressed. It is both a political problem but it is 

also a tremendous humanitarian problem. 

We have, since the middle of last year, been raising the issue of 

a looming humanitarian crisis in these areas. We have been urging 

the government to open up humanitarian access to them. 

When the government objected to western NGOs, they said, ‘‘Oh, 

you’re just going to come in; you are going to set up a new CPA. 

You are going to split that area off, like you did the South. We are 

not going to let it happen,’’ then the U.N., the Arab League, and 

the African Union said, ‘‘Okay. We’ll do it. No western NGOs. We 

are ready to do it.’’ They didn’t still approve that, and we have not 

stopped doing that. 

But you will hear from Nancy how serious that situation is and 

what we are trying to do on that. We continue to press on that. 

But it is more not only the humanitarian; what we had hoped 

was that, if we could get humanitarian access, it would almost de 

facto lead to a cessation of hostilities in that area and create a climate for political talks because there must be political talks. 

We have talked to the SPLM-North, the people who are fighting 

in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. They say that, ‘‘If humanitarian access is announced by the Government of Sudan, we are 

prepared for cessation of hostilities and to cooperate in any way we 

can to let the food and the assistance come in.’’ So, we have to get 

to that. The U.N., others, like Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, 

are working to encourage those political talks which must take 

place. 

As we work with the parties, and we are working very closely 

now with all the international actors, particularly with the African 

Union and the African Union High-Level Panel, but also with others, like China—you mentioned China—and with all the P5. You 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and you are right, that the Chinese 

have stepped up more, and we welcome that. I have been in touch 

with my counterpart. They have an envoy for Sudan. 

Secretary Clinton leads next week the Security and Economic 

Dialogue in Beijing with China that we have every year. Sudan 

will be high on the agenda. I will be accompanying her, and we will 

have at least two meetings on Sudan specifically during that time, 

and hope to strengthen our own cooperation between China on this. 

The final thing I would like to mention is the seriousness. We 

have to look ahead. And Congressman Green put his finger on this. 

We get wrapped up in the conflict, of course, but there are some 

deep, long-term economic/humanitarian problems in both Sudan 

and South Sudan which the leadership of those two countries must, 

must address, and they must organize themselves, get their productive sectors, including the oil sectors, going again. So they can 

begin to address these. Because the long-term situation is not good, 

and Nancy will go into that in some detail. 

The last thing, and it is a little out of my line to do this, but if 

I could make a suggestion to the committee, we are trying to get 

not only all the diplomatic and all the countries, but others to write 

letters to the leaders of the two countries. This committee has a 

long, very distinguished history of concern. We are happy to provide you whatever detailed information you might want. But I 

think hearing from Members of Congress about the very things 

10

that you have said in your opening statements could actually be 

very helpful. It would reinforce the messages that we are trying to 

get from countries in the Middle East and countries in Africa, 

countries in Asia, to the parties, that they must move away from 

this kind of a conflict and to resolving it. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer questions 

on this. But thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lyman follows:]


74002a-1.eps
11


74002a-2.eps
12


74002a-3.eps
13


74002a-4.eps
14


74002a-5.eps
15

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ambassador Lyman, and we 

will follow up on that idea. It is a great one. I am sure many of 

our colleagues, both sides of the aisle, will be eager to sign on. So, 

thank you for that very good suggestion. 

Assistant Administrator Lindborg? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NANCY LINDBORG, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. LINDBORG. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and Congresswoman Lee, and Congressman 

Green, as visitors to this committee. Thank you for the leadership 

and the concern that this committee continues to demonstrate. 

Congratulations, Congresswoman Bass, on your leadership position. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today to make 

some comments. 

Just picking up on what Ambassador Lyman was saying, as you 

well know, these are two countries that have suffered from extraordinary humanitarian suffering for many decades. People throughout the region have been in a situation of need. The American people have long been a helping hand and a friend. 

On the basis of last July’s really joyful celebration, we were on 

a pathway to peace, a possibility of moving out of some of the worst 

suffering. We cannot afford that those fragile gains are imperiled 

by the possibility of moving into war once again. 

Congresswoman Bass, as you noted, the actions and incendiary 

rhetoric really of both governments have got to be reined in. We 

have got to help pull them back from the brink. 

My full testimony, which I ask be submitted to the record, which 

details some of the issues that present serious humanitarian concerns, from Darfur to the fighting that has continued in Jonglei. 

But I want to really focus on two areas today. 

The first is what Ambassador Lyman noted is happening in the 

two areas of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. The fighting that 

erupted there last year has escalated into a full blown cross border 

conflict. It has already displaced, killed, and severely affected over 

0.5 million people. It has disrupted harvests and services. It has 

derailed a lot of the critical work that was underway as a result 

of the 2005 CPA. 

In both areas, the Government of Sudan continues to block the 

international community from reaching a population that is desperately in need of help. The sustained aerial bombardment that 

you all noted by the Sudan armed forces has terrorized communities, and it is keeping people from their fields and from food. 

We are seeing just this last week a spike of very severely malnourished children arriving in South Sudan from Southern 

Kordofan. We very much fear that these children hint at some very 

tragic situations unfolding where we are unable to reach. 

Our food security experts predict that between 200,000 to 

250,000 people in Southern Kordofan are already facing a serious 

food emergency. That is just one step short of famine. In Blue Nile, 

households will be at that food emergency phase by August. 

16

As Ambassador Lyman indicated, we are continuing to call on all 

parties to the conflict to allow immediate and full access, to agree 

to the tripartite U.N., African Union, and Arab League agreement. 

The solution that is necessary is full access and to enable humanitarian assistance to reach these people in need. With the rains approaching, time is not on our side. 

I wanted, secondly, to underscore a very equally worrisome in a 

different way situation going on in South Sudan because of the 

heightened economic crisis. The decision to halt oil production will 

have critical impact on the people of South Sudan. That was 98 

percent of the government revenues, and it has prompted an austerity budget. That means it will be impossible for South Sudan to 

fund some of its core operations, including to sustain some of the 

really important progress that has been made over the last 6 to 7 

years in improving school attendance, access to clean water, health. 

We now have 68 percent of children in school. This is extraordinary. 

The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, however, just reported a new study, that almost half of South Sudan, 4.7 million 

people, will be food insecure in 2012. That includes 2.7 million people who are already requiring food assistance to survive. 

I mean, all of these numbers are so enormous that it is difficult 

to keep in mind the people, the women, the children, who are behind those numbers. But it does help put down the magnitude of 

what we are talking about. 

At the same time, we continue to have people returning from the 

North. There are some 400,000 who have already returned, coming 

from urban environments to live in largely rural areas. 

A direct confrontation between the South and the North would 

absolutely further derail the ability to make progress on the humanitarian situation, whether in the South or in Darfur, in 

Jonglei, and in the three areas. Unfortunately, we are already seeing many donors having to shift their resources from a development agenda to a humanitarian agenda. So, we are at risk of losing 

a lot of that progress. On April 20th, in the South, in South Sudan, 

the U.N. has already gone into an emergency crisis footing, based 

on about 20 indicators. The continued escalation of the conflict will 

only exacerbate a very dire humanitarian situation, and it will be 

the women, the children, the very vulnerable and longtime 

marginalized communities who will be most affected. 

I would just close by echoing the statement that President 

Obama made this weekend when he spoke directly to the people of 

both South Sudan and Sudan, saying that ‘‘the Presidents of both 

countries must have the courage to return to the table to negotiate 

and resolve these issues.’’

These are people who have withstood decades of hardship. They 

deserve a better way forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:]

17


74002b-1.eps
18


74002b-2.eps
19


74002b-3.eps
20


74002b-4.eps
21


74002b-5.eps
22


74002b-6.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Lindborg. 

Secretary Richard? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANNE RICHARD, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. RICHARD. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, members of the committee, and visitors. Thank you for 

including a discussion of the complex situation for refugees in this 

hearing on the crisis in South Sudan and Sudan. 

I am very pleased to be able to appear before the committee with 

my two colleagues. Even though I have been Assistant Secretary of 

State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, 

or PRM, only since the beginning of April, I have worked very 

closely in the past with Nancy Lindborg and with Princeton 

Lyman. In fact, Ambassador Lyman once headed refugee programs 

at the State Department. I hope I can emulate the leadership he 

displayed in that era. More importantly, our three offices routinely 

work very closely together on these challenging humanitarian 

issues. 

Sudan has both hosted and generated hundreds of thousands of 

refugees and internally displaced persons over the years. Today I 

would like to briefly comment on the newest Sudanese and South 

Sudanese refugees and on the situation of the South Sudanese who 

live in Sudan. And I would like to outline the multiple refugee 

movements in the region. 

The newest refugees are those generated by conflict within 

Sudan along the disputed border, as you have heard the other witnesses discuss already. They have fled into South Sudan and Ethiopia, and they number some over 140,000. Some have fled even to 

Kenya, principally fleeing the fighting and aerial bombings in 

Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States. Additionally, there are 

over 8,000 new South Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya 

who are escaping the murderous cattle raiding and ethnic hostility 

between the Nuer and Morley peoples. 

There are always refugee assistance challenges in an emergency. 

In this case, new camps have had to be built for the influx of Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia and South Sudan. Finding adequate 

clean water supplies for over 90,000 refugees in Upper Nile State 

has paradoxically been quite difficult in a country that is known for 

being widely flooded for much of the year. 

Humanitarian agencies are racing against the clock with the 

rainy season beginning in earnest this month. We have so far put 

$34 million toward the emergency response in South Sudan and 

Ethiopia through the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, or IOM, and 

some nongovernmental organizations. 

The greatest challenge, however, has been protecting refugees, 

maintaining the security and neutrality of refugee camps, ensuring 

that refugees are safely moved away from volatile borders and out 

of the potential line of fire, and that any combatants are disarmed 

and/or separated, and that women and girls are safe from sexual 

assault or other violence. 

24

Nationality and citizenship were early issues in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, process. One concern was that some 

would be left stateless if Sudan became two countries. Regrettably, 

these issues remain part of the unfinished business of the CPA. 

Before the latest round of fighting, both governments had agreed 

to the idea of a presidential summit that would have addressed 

many of these outstanding issues, including citizenship and residency. Unfortunately, that presidential summit has not yet occurred. 

An unknown number of people of Southern heritage continue to 

live in Sudan. Estimates range between 300,000 and 700,000. This 

includes people who have never lived in or even been to South 

Sudan. Safe and orderly movement of those who either choose or 

might be forced to return to South Sudan is a high priority and a 

major preoccupation of two of our key partners, UNHCR and IOM. 

Reception and integration in South Sudan are also ongoing critical 

concerns. The most immediate concern is that these people not be 

victimized as the level of conflict and rhetoric between South 

Sudan and Sudan increases. 

These two situations, new refugees and potential mass movements from Sudan to South Sudan, are part of a broad, interlocking set of humanitarian concerns and refugee movements in 

the region. 

I sketch these out in my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like 

to request that the full testimony be submitted for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, yours and Ms. Lindborg’s will be. 

Ms. RICHARD. Notably, the testimony touches on South Sudan. 

South Sudan is also host to over 23,000 Congolese and Central African refugees who have fled attacks by the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army. There are another 5,000 refugees from Ethiopia’s 

Gambela region. 

And then, in Sudan proper, Sudan itself, there are around 

150,000 Eritrean refugees in 12 camps in the east and in cities. 

There are as many as 40,000 refugees from Chad living in Sudan. 

And then, of course, several of you have mentioned already the 

situation in Darfur. As you know, there are some 280,000 Darfur 

refugees in Chad as well as over 1.5 million displaced people within 

Darfur itself. 

Finally, as Ethiopia and Kenya are called upon to host new Sudanese and South Sudanese refugees, they are also facing continued inflows of Somali refugees fleeing famine and violence in Somali. 

The point that my colleagues in the Population, Refugees, and 

Migration Bureau wanted me to be sure to make was, even as we 

analyze the recent arrivals across the border from Sudan into 

South Sudan, we must keep in mind the large number of refugees 

and displaced people who are being helped and in need of protection throughout the region. 

In all of these cases, PRM’s primary concerns are protection and 

achieving genuinely durable solutions for the displaced, a chance to 

go home again or restart their lives in a new home. Life-saving and 

life-sustaining assistance are means to these ends. 

For example, the aid provided through PRM partners is used to 

transport vulnerable refugees away from a border, to clear land for 

25

new camps as necessary, to register and document refugees, to drill 

for sufficient clean water, and to provide the basics of sanitation, 

adequate food, minimum healthcare, and shelter, as well as primary education and youth programs that will protect children from 

being recruited as soldiers. 

Having visited this area in conjunction with my previous work, 

I am saddened by the continuing hostilities between and within 

these two nations, while I am also honored to be leading a bureau 

that provides much-needed assistance to the many affected people. 

I am also grateful for the excellent collaboration with our Africa 

Bureau, Special Envoy, and USAID colleagues. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to highlight some of 

our work and concerns. I am very appreciative that you are holding 

this hearing. 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richard follows:]

26


74002c-1.eps
27


74002c-2.eps
28


74002c-3.eps
29


74002c-4.eps
30

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Secretary Richard. 

Let me begin with Ambassador Lyman. In your testimony, you 

point out that the U.S. is not working alone to diffuse the crisis, 

and you point out that the AU High Implementation Panel, led by 

a strong team; it’s led by three Presidents, including the Burundian, the South African, and the Nigerian former Presidents. 

You were the ambassador to two of those countries, South Africa 

and Nigeria. I am wondering, perhaps more than anyone else, the 

insights you might be able to share with us about how well they 

are doing in terms of an action plan or a strategy, what the outlines of that plan might look like. Are they personally involved, and 

to what extent, in this effort, if you could, Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Panel has done extraordinary work keeping the parties at 

the table, helping with technical help, defining the issues very 

much, moving them toward agreement. I think it is the general belief of former South African President Thabo Mbeki that it is the 

responsibility of the leaders of these countries to reach the conclusions, make the tough compromises, and do it. They haven’t been 

willing to do that on many of these issues, like Abyei or borders. 

It is interesting that the African Union communique ́ yesterday, 

Tuesday, said, at the end of 3 months, we are just going to have 

to put solutions on the table that the parties must accept. 

The second thing for the Panel is to make sure the parties know 

that its work is backed up by a very strong international community. That hasn’t been as clear to the parties as it is now. The U.N. 

Security Council is now more unified than it has been on Sudan. 

With the African Union communique ́, the Arab League coming in 

along the same lines, then the Security Council coming in along the 

same lines, we hope that will strengthen the Panel’s political 

weight, if you will, as they bring these parties to the table. 

Very specifically, they will start next week. I think next week 

they will start on this border, to set up this border demilitarization 

and verification system, and then set up a schedule for the parties 

to come back to prepare for a summit that would address how to 

negotiate the big issues like oil and other things. 

We had a lot of progress before this latest crisis with the Panel—

I was there with the parties, et cetera—on how to deal with the 

very difficult oil issue. They would get back to that. It is not impossible to solve that issue if they get back to a collaborative approach. 

The Panel helped bring them very close to an understanding of how 

to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. Would you say their working point is in terms of trying to craft, first of all, an end of hostilities and then deal with 

some of the systemic issues? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Yes, both parties, both countries have said 

that the AU Panel is the one they recognize as the one to facilitate 

the negotiations and bring people together. 

I will tell you one of the things that bothers me about the situation between the two countries is that they don’t have enough communication between themselves on a regular basis. If it weren’t for 

the Panel, they might sometimes never get together. It is the Panel 

that convenes them. 

31

But we have said over and over to people in the government, 

‘‘That’s fine. That’s good. But you should be talking to your counterparts all the time.’’ We did it all through the Cold War. And 

they need more of that. There is some of it going on. But now the 

Panel is the one that brings them together to put together these 

border agreements and things like that. 

Mr. SMITH. What is the relationship of the AU HIP—is that the 

proper way of saying it, the Implementation Panel, the HighLevel?—with the Chinese Government? Do the three Presidents 

have access to Beijing, and does Beijing respond? 

Ambassador LYMAN. China hasn’t played a major role with the 

Panel up until quite recently. The way the Panel was structured 

from the beginning, there are two observer missions. There is the 

U.N. and ourselves are official observers. Others have been invited 

in. 

Thabo Mbeki has been now more in touch with the Chinese and 

I think would like them to play more of a role, to be present like 

some of us are when these negotiations take place. I am going to 

raise that next week when I am in Beijing. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just ask you, Ms. Lindborg, you mentioned the 

situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile has severely affected 

over 0.5 million people. How does that break out in terms of how 

many people have actually lost their lives? How many have been 

displaced in terms of actual numbers? What are the specifics on 

that? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Loss of life is always difficult to estimate, but we 

are seeing about 28,000 have come into the South. There has been 

another outflow North into Khartoum, around the 10,000 or so figure. We estimate that there are about 300,000 who have been affected who are still inside Southern Kordofan, and many of those 

are displaced. Of that number, the estimates are about 225,000 to 

250,000 who are in this serious food emergency crisis phase. Those 

are the people that we are most concerned about now. That is 

where the malnourished children population is coming from. 

Mr. SMITH. You talked about limited access. How would that 

break out? Are we talking about up to 250,000 people and a lack 

of ability to have access to them with humanitarian supplies and 

medicine and food? 

Ms. LINDBORG. That is right. In both Southern Kordofan and in 

Blue Nile, there is some limited access to the areas that are controlled by the Government of Sudan. 

Mr. SMITH. They are the ones that are restricting access? 

Ms. LINDBORG. They have blocked all access of all international 

actors into the areas controlled by the SPLM-North in the two 

areas. 

Mr. SMITH. So, that is what happened previously, too, because 

that is what it was? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Correct. 

Mr. SMITH. So, they are just continuing. But now the consequences are growing more severe with more people now being affected? Would that be correct? 

Ms. LINDBORG. That is right, and as people’s harvests continue 

to be disrupted and their access to food is interrupted. 

32

Mr. SMITH. You brought up an interesting, disturbing, but interesting point from your recent return from one of the states in 

South Sudan, that people are having a hard time adjusting from 

the rural to the urban. Did I get that right? Yes, adjusting to the 

rural from the urban. Is that because they are not farmers and 

they just don’t—could you elaborate on that? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Yes. You know, there is a significant population 

of almost 400,000 who have now returned from Sudan to South 

Sudan. I was just, a few weeks ago, in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, 

which is one of the states bordering Sudan, and met with a number 

of people who they were not farmers. They did laundry. They did 

small trade. They did a variety of more urban-based livelihoods, 

and they are now in a position of being very rural. 

So, a lot of the assistance that we have provided has been to help 

that reintegration and to work both with the families who have returned as well as the local governments on how to establish alternative livelihoods, how to allocate land, how to enable that return. 

All of this is imperiled, both by the shrinking budgets in South 

Sudan, because of the oil shutdown, and as more resources have to 

go toward those populations that are at risk through other conflicts. So, we have a squeeze going on, and a conflict escalation will 

just exacerbate a really dire set of humanitarian challenges. 

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Lyman, there are four current U.N. or 

peacekeeping deployments in South Sudan, Abyei, and Darfur. 

What role are they playing in mitigating this ever worsening crisis? 

And is there a need for additional deployments or for the U.N. and/

or AU to reconfigure a new deployment? 

Ambassador LYMAN. There are, as you say, four; there are three 

peacekeeping operations and one Special Envoy. The biggest two 

operations, one is UNAMID in Darfur, which just focused on 

Darfur, and, then, the new mission in South Sudan. They have 

done a lot of work on internal problems in South Sudan; for example, the fighting that broke out in Jonglei that pit two ethnic 

groups against each other, thousands of people involved, several 

hundred killed. They have been working very closely with the government to try to address that and similar problems inside South 

Sudan; also, to try to get verification of what is going on on the 

border. But they are not allowed to cross that border. 

Then, there is a mission that was set up in Abyei itself. That, 

as you know, is a disputed area. It was occupied militarily last year 

by Sudan. To get them to withdraw, and they have almost but not 

entirely withdrawn, a new peacekeeping force was put in there, almost all Ethiopian troops. That peacekeeping force has done an exceptional job. They have kept the peace. For the first time in 3 

years, there was a migration that the nomads could come in and 

leave. They have kept other entities from coming in just more recently. They patrol the whole area. 

But what has not happened is that the 100,000 Ngok Dinka who 

were displaced last year have not yet been able to return. So, there 

is more work that needs to be done. 

And then, there is a Special Envoy, Haile Menkarios. 

Now what the South wanted was, as you said, a new peacekeeping entity along the border. We did not think it was practical 

33

to try and have the U.N. patrol that entire border. It would have 

been huge. 

However, the Abyei force commander does have a mandate to 

work with them on this verification process. He has got 300 troops 

designated to work with them on that. 

The U.N. Security Council is reviewing that mandate this month, 

in May. If more is needed for his mandate, they will be looking at 

it. So, I don’t think we want to start putting yet another peacekeeping force in separately, but we want to support that border 

monitoring process. 

Mr. SMITH. Are there sufficient U.N. peacekeepers and AU——

Ambassador LYMAN. There are sufficient ones in the South, in 

UNAMID. The question is whether the original idea that they only 

needed 300 to be the support mechanism for this is sufficient. We 

have to see as they get back into the discussions. He had agreed, 

the force commander, that that was sufficient. Whether this latest 

conflict changes that is something we have to look at very closely. 

Mr. SMITH. Just two final questions. Secretary Richard, you talked about the $34 million that we are 

providing to you in ACR and to IOM and others. How much need 

is there, how much unmet need? I am sure UNHCR is gathering 

money, I know it is, from other donors. But are they meeting that 

call? Are people responding sufficiently? And what is the unmet 

need? 

If you could speak to resources versus access, you know, maybe 

all of you would like to speak to that? Does stockpiling of foodstuffs 

that can’t get to people because the workers, the humanitarian relief workers, are precluded entry, mean that that food spoils and 

people die? Is $34 million enough? Is the EU coming forward with money? 

Ms. RICHARD. Mr. Chairman, I think, as usual, the U.S. has 

taken the lead in providing that assistance, and that it is a good 

start in getting needed aid to the people who need it. But, as you 

have heard, more people are coming across the border. They are severely malnourished. The rains are anticipated to start. And then, 

there will be real serious problems of getting access as the roads 

are washed out. So, it is a situation that is going to bear a great 

deal of watching. 

I just came from a meeting with the High Commissioner for Refugees who is in town this week. He met a little while ago with Secretary Clinton. One of the things he raised was his concern that, 

with so many things going on—and this was one of the crises that 

he mentioned, but he also mentioned Syria, the Sahel, and other 

concerns—there was so much going on, he was very concerned 

about having sufficient funding to do a good job everywhere. 

So, I would say at the moment we have made a good start, but 

certainly we have a lot of concerns that resources will continue to 

flow to this area. 

Mr. SMITH. In terms of the refugee camps, when I visited Mukjar 

and Kalma Camp, I remember hearing multiple stories, and I have 

heard them here, obviously, from advocates, of security concerns, 

especially for women in terms of rape and abuse. The refugees that 

are flocking together in camps, who is providing security and how 

adequate is it? 

34

Ms. RICHARD. I share your concern for the women. What I understand is that the camps in the area we are talking about today are 

overwhelmingly female. They are women and girls and, also, 

women and children. So, in those kinds of situations, we always see 

security issues. 

I am so glad you raised this today. I met, last week or the week 

before, with a lot of our top partners in the non-governmental organizations to say we have to put a very big spotlight on this very 

issue. Because sometimes people say, ‘‘Well, it is an emergency. 

There is nothing we can do right now to worry about preventing 

or responding to gender-based violence.’’ But I consider it something that is very much a lifesaving measure to which attention 

must be paid during the emergency situation. 

In terms of who is providing security right now, I understand 

that there is a great deal of Southern Sudanese presence in both 

Unity State and Blue Nile. I mean, the local governments are involved, the state governments are involved, and there is a lot of 

movement. But in terms of who the vulnerable people are, I think 

they are overwhelmingly female and they are extremely vulnerable. 

Mr. SMITH. One final question, and then I will yield to Ranking 

Member Bass. 

Ambassador Lyman, have you perceived any change, real or perception-wise, with the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood and 

the more extremist Islamist groups that have emerged in Egypt, 

because there is a direct connection, obviously, with Khartoum and 

Cairo? Do you perceive any change? 

I mean, the calls for jihadists, we all know what the war in 

Southern Sudan was all about, the imposition of Sharia law, 

though it often gets forgotten. Now are we seeing a reemergence 

of that? And is that consolidation of radical belief in Cairo affecting 

Khartoum? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Well, there are some extreme groups in 

Sudan. Some of them have been very critical of any movement on 

the peace process even or rights for Southerners in Sudan, you 

know, people who are still living there who have come from the 

South. 

I don’t think it is the mainstream in Sudan. It is not the mainstream of Islam in Sudan. But those groups are there. 

As you said, the kind of rhetoric that President Bashir was using 

during this last crisis was very, very frightening and wrong. One 

of the things that the AU and others have said is rhetoric has to 

stop. Africa is very, very conscious of how much that kind of rhetoric contributed to the terrible events in Rwanda. So, there was an 

immediate gut reaction to that. I hope it doesn’t inflame those 

kinds of radical elements you talked about. 

But they are there, but at this point they are not the mainstream. We are hoping that the Government of Sudan is conscious——

Mr. SMITH. But, again, is Cairo having an influence? Mubarak 

was no prize, and many of us met with him every time he came 

here or in Cairo, but——

Ambassador LYMAN. You know, the relationship now between 

Khartoum and Egypt is kind of evolving with the new government. 

The foreign minister from Egypt actually visited both Khartoum 

35

and Juba during this crisis to try to calm the situation down. But 

I really don’t know about what might be going on between the parties. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you ask around? And if you get the information, let us know? 

Ambassador LYMAN. I can ask and let you know. Thanks. 

Mr. SMITH. I do have one final question, if you don’t mind, more 

of a statement, if you want to respond to it. I am concerned—and 

you may be, too—about the sense of equivalency between Salva 

Kiir and Bashir. One has been indicted by the ICC, as we all know; 

the other has not and is, I think, a very good man. 

But it reminds me of what happened in the Balkans. I remember, after the invasion of Croatia, I went to Vukovar and all these 

places that are under siege by Slobodan Milosevic. When I talked 

to our interlocutors at the EU, they would say, ‘‘Oh, they are both 

at fault. They are both at fault.’’ And there was a sense of one is 

aggressing and attacking, using MiGs and every other means of destruction; the other is trying to defend themselves. 

At some point, a country responds, hopefully sooner rather than 

later, when its citizens and folks are being attacked and killed and 

maimed and the like. I just get a sense that that same thing is 

happening here. But maybe it is a diplomatic fiction, so that people 

can meet in rooms and hammer things out. But Bashir is clearly 

the perpetrator of these heinous crimes, not Salva Kiir. 

Ambassador LYMAN. Mr. Chairman, you know, one of the things 

that I have said over and over again in Khartoum, because Khartoum says, you know, they are criticized more than the South or 

something like that. And I said, ‘‘The reason you are criticized is 

the way you fight wars. You fight wars with civilian casualties, 

with the use of militias who are not under the rules of war. You 

don’t fight like armies do in the 21st century. You commit terrible 

human rights violations. And you will be condemned by the international community if that is the way you carry out what you 

think of as your security concerns.’’ And there is no question that 

that is the case and has been the case historically. 

Where we do call upon both parties in kind of an equivalent way 

is not to make the problem worse by the way they clash at the border or take risks with peace. For the South, I think it is a great 

challenge for them to come to an agreement with a government 

that they have many historical and current grievances with. We do 

encourage them to come to those agreements because, as Nancy 

has pointed out, with no revenue, South Sudan will be in a terrible 

situation. And so, in that sense, we call both parties to the table 

and want them to do so. But there is no equivalency in the human 

rights violations and the history of it between the two. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I actually want to follow up. You were asking about Egypt. Since 

you asked about Egypt, it made me wonder about Libya, and just 

in terms of the flow of weapons. I don’t know if that has been an 

issue in Northern Sudan. So, I don’t know who I am directing that 

to, maybe the Ambassador, but I am not sure he heard my question. 

36

Since my colleague was asking about Egypt, it made me think 

about Libya. I was just wondering if there is an issue with the flow 

of arms from Libya into Northern Sudan. 

Ambassador LYMAN. The problem of the arms flowing in out of 

Libya, because several of the Darfur, two of the Darfur rebel 

groups fighting with the Government of Sudan fought on the side 

of Gaddafi, it is believed that they have come out of that situation 

with considerable arms, although it doesn’t seem to have had as 

big an impact on the fighting as we thought. 

The Government of Sudan, of course, then fought on the side of 

the rebels in Libya and was very concerned about that flow of 

arms. I don’t think it has had as significant an impact on the situation in Sudan as it may have had elsewhere in the Sahel. 

There has an uptick in fighting in Darfur, but we have a feeling 

that that reflects the fact that the arm movements have taken advantage of the fact that the Government of Sudan had to move 

more troops over to Southern Kordofan, and they took advantage 

of that situation. But I don’t think it has had a major impact. 

Ms. BASS. I see. 

And then, several of you have talked about the U.N. peacekeepers that are there. I just wanted to ask you a question about 

whether or not they are having any challenges having the tools 

that they need to carry out their mandate safely and effectively. 

And specifically thinking about South Sudan, with just 68 miles of 

paved road, with a territory about the size of France, helicopters 

are essential to the effectiveness. And then, with Russia’s decision 

last year to withdraw eight helicopters, it contributed to this already being a serious problem. So, I was just wondering what was 

the status of that. Has it gotten any better? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Yes, you are absolutely right; without helicopters, they can’t move rapidly at all. They have been able to replace most of the helicopters that the Russians withdrew. 

But it did come at a time when there was a great deal of conflict 

in Jonglei. It really did slow UNMIS down. It is a very difficult 

area to get around, particularly rapidly. 

Now what the UNMIS has done is that they have stationed their 

people out much more than traditionally is done. And so, they can 

respond faster. But it is going to get harder in the rainy season. 

So, the helicopters become essential. It is also true for the government forces to move around. 

In Darfur, the main problem has been when the government denies access because they say security conditions are such. It doesn’t 

happen often, but it happens whenever there is fighting, and it 

slows down UNAMID’s ability to respond quickly. That has been 

raised with the government over and over again. I think that is the 

main problem they have had. They have had other logistic problems, but in Darfur that has been a problem. 

Ms. BASS. So, you were referencing the access earlier. I think you 

said humanitarian access, if it was announced, the fighting will 

stop. Could you explain a little bit more about that? And I think 

it is connected to what you were just saying. I didn’t understand 

what was blocking the access. 

Ambassador LYMAN. In the two states of Southern Kordofan and 

Blue Nile, which are part of Sudan—they are not part of South 

37

Sudan—fighting broke out there last June, I think it was, May or 

June, after an election that was contested. And the fighting has 

gone on ever since by what is called the SPLM-North. That is the 

people who come from Nuba Mountain and from Blue Nile, from 

the Southern part of Blue Nile, but fought on the side of the South 

during the civil war. But they are now part of Sudan. 

That is the area where, as Nancy described, we see a major humanitarian crisis because the Government of Sudan, these are 

their own people, but they have not allowed international humanitarian access. We have talked to the SPLM-North. In fact, I talked 

to them quite recently. They said, ‘‘Please, you can say publicly 

that, if the government would announce that they are accepting 

this approach to humanitarian. . . .’’——

Ms. BASS. I see. 

Ambassador LYMAN. [continuing]. ‘‘We would agree to cessation 

of hostilities in order the food gets into people,’’ et cetera. So, that 

was what I was referring to. 

Ms. BASS. I see. Thank you. 

And then, also, in terms of the international effort and support, 

you mentioned, Ms. Richard, I believe, that, of course, the United 

States is carrying the majority of the burden, but who are the other 

major players? And what is the relationship in terms of funding? 

Are we carrying 90 percent, 50, 60? 

Ms. RICHARD. Yes, generally, in most refugee crises, the United 

States provides a quarter or more, depending on our interest 

level—and thank you all for having such a great interest level in 

this—of the international appeals that come out. 

The other major donors are the same major donors that respond 

to most of the U.N.’s appeals. So, you are looking at Western Europe and the sort of G8 countries funding that. 

What the High Commissioner is trying to do is reach out—and 

perhaps this gets back to your question, Chairman Smith—and 

find new donors, get more countries involved in this, get them engaged in this, getting them to be productive and make this more 

of an international effort. He said, or his Executive Committee, 

which are the member states that take a particular interest in 

UNHCR, the size of that has been growing, which is a good sign. 

But now we need to see that growing on the dollar side, too. 

Maybe Nancy Lindborg can talk about some of the aid flows, and 

Ambassador Lyman can talk about the contributors of peacekeepers. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ms. LINDBORG. Yes, there is a very engaged group of donors both 

for South Sudan and for Sudan. In South Sudan, there is what is 

called the troika of Norway, UK, and the U.S. That has been very 

involved with ensuring that there is the kind of funding that is 

needed to move toward peace. 

Ms. BASS. African nations? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Not so much on the donor side. Certainly involved 

with the larger efforts of——

Ms. BASS. Peacekeeping? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Right, of peacekeeping, and hosting of the refugees. 

38

I would say that the big frame to communicate is that this has 

been a multi-decade effort with many, many international providers of assistance, both regionally and from the donor community. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the pathway of peace that 

it opened up and great concern that, because of the escalated conflict, because of the cessation of the oil revenues, that we are moving seriously backwards. 

Ms. BASS. My colleague mentioned China. I know President Kiir 

was just there and came home. I was really surprised he was there 

at all, I mean, you know, considering the fighting going on. 

So, a couple of questions. What is China contributing toward this 

effort? I didn’t hear you mention them. And then, also, I mean, I 

know one of the reasons why he was there is because they would 

like to have the oil not go to the North. They would like to develop 

the capacity for it to go South. What would be the timeframe in 

that? Do we know anything that resulted from his trip to China, 

even though it was aborted? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Thank you. 

Before that, just to mention on the peacekeeping forces, if you 

put all three of those peacekeeping operations together, you have 

about 50 countries contributing. African countries are very prominent in that regard: Nigeria, Rwanda, Ethiopia, et cetera. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ambassador LYMAN. The force commander in UNAMID is a 

Rwandan general. The force commander in Abyei is the Ethiopian 

commander, and the UNMIS is a Nigerian commander. So, Africans play a very prominent role in the peacekeeping. 

On China, I think they do have a small contingent in UNAMID, 

engineering I believe. But their real world is political and economic. They are roughly a 40 percent owner of the major oil industrial companies there, and particularly in the pipeline. 

I am not sure that their interest is really in seeing an alternate 

pipeline to the South because most estimates that I have seen are 

that that is 3 to 5 years away. Meanwhile, they have got this huge 

investment. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador LYMAN. So, only by an agreement between the two 

countries to resume production and export through Sudan is China’s interests served in the near future. 

I don’t have the results of the trip President Kiir took. So, I don’t 

know what may have come out of that. But in our conversations 

with the Chinese, they definitely want peace and security in the 

area because, otherwise, the oil sector can’t go back into production. 

I think that has to mean that China has to, along with others, 

address some of these fundamental political issues which are the 

source of the insecurity and use their long relationship with Sudan 

and President Bashir in this regard, as well as the relationships 

they are developing with the South. 

Ms. BASS. I think both the chair and I would like to hear from 

you when you come back from China as to what happened. 

I have other questions. I don’t want to take up any more time. 

So, let me just ask one final question. 

39

What more do you think the United States should be doing? And 

that is for anybody. What more do you think the United States 

should be doing? Is there anything more we should be doing? Are 

we doing everything? 

Ambassador LYMAN. First of all, my staff tells me it is 40 countries, not 50, contributing to the peacekeeping. So, I have got to get 

it straight. 

Ms. BASS. Oh, thank you. 

Ambassador LYMAN. But it is a question we ask ourselves all the 

time. I was just in a meeting yesterday of our senior deputies from 

all our agencies on Sudan, a Deputies’ Committee meeting, and 

that was the question that we all looked at. What more can we do? 

What we are trying now is to mobilize people from around the 

world to put pressure particularly on Sudan, but on South Sudan, 

to get back to the negotiations, to reach agreements. We are providing a lot of technical support to the actual facilitation/mediation 

by Kabul and Vecchi. 

The aid agency is doing an extraordinary job of responding to the 

humanitarian situation, as much as we are able to do, and has 

been creative in doing so. 

I would welcome ideas that we could do more. Because we don’t 

have contact with President Bashir, we obviously are not in the position of being the mediator that brings the two together, but we 

do have contact with many senior people in Khartoum. 

We look at that, and, Congresswoman, any suggestions from the 

committee would be welcome. We ask ourselves this literally all the 

time. I appreciate it. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LINDBORG. Congresswoman, I would just add that we have 

long been a leader in provision of assistance, thanks to the generosity of the American people and with your leadership. Last year, 

we put about $440 million into South Sudan and Sudan, primarily 

Darfur, and continue to work to mobilize response from our donor 

colleagues and to ensure that we are continuing to mobilize in the 

face of great need. 

The sad sort of benefit of all of that is that, when these crises 

flare up, we do have a lot of capacity on the ground and the ability 

to move food or people to move quickly, when new fighting flares 

up, whether it is on the border in Abyei or in Jonglei. Even though 

it is an extraordinarily difficult operating environment with, as you 

noted, very few roads, we have the ability to meet immediate humanitarian needs. The concern is that they are growing. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Even after Southern Sudan has withdrawn its troops from some 

of the disputed areas, Khartoum has continued to send the 

Antonovs and rain the bombs down. This would include bombing 

civilian areas. 

I had an opportunity some years ago in Darfur, Sudan, to visit 

Tine that had been bombed by Antonovs. I saw what that did. We 

talked to, by the way, survivors of various attacks by the government forces. 

President Bashir is using the type of language again, talking 

about going after the ‘‘insects’’ in the South, as he calls the people 

40

of the South, rallying his troops, clearly, doing what they know 

how to do in terms of genning people up to do what they used to 

do with the Janjaweed. So, this is an incredibly dangerous situation right now, from the activists that we talked to on the ground 

in South Sudan, relaying to us their concerns about how this plays 

out. 

I wanted to ask you, Ambassador, the oil cutoff, the renewed operations down there have got to be weighing on Khartoum, given 

what we know about the machinations within that capital and the 

problems that beset that government. Some have speculated recently that that might trigger a change within Khartoum. 

Do we have a window on what is taking place in that capital? 

Do we have any insights? And do we have any contingency planning for any scenario, should such an event occur? 

Ambassador LYMAN. I am glad you raise this because we talk 

about the impact of the oil cutoff and crisis on South Sudan, but 

it is also very, very serious for the economy of Sudan. If you just 

look at the exchange rate, having gone from the official 2.9 or 

something to 7, you know that prices are going up; people are experiencing shortages, fuel shortages, basic commodities. They don’t 

have the foreign exchange to import food. They usually import a lot 

of food. 

The economic consequences in Sudan are very great. And you 

have to get outside of Khartoum to really appreciate it because 

there is kind of a surface normalcy in Khartoum, but if you go out 

to the rural areas or even talk to people who are struggling in 

Khartoum, you realize the economic problem is severe. 

There are people in Khartoum and Sudan who understand that 

they face a major economic crisis. The loss of revenue and the failure now to have a functioning collaboration with oil is just making 

the foreign exchange situation even worse. 

In our view, for a government to continue to fight in Darfur, in 

South Kordofan, in Blue Nile, et cetera, when their economic situation is so severe, is a dangerous and bad policy for their own people. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right, right. 

Ambassador LYMAN. I can’t tell you what it may do politically in 

Khartoum. I don’t have that kind of inside understanding. But I do 

know from people that have spoken out publicly, that have talked 

publicly, that there are people who think this set of policies is not 

the right direction for Sudan. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Ambassador LYMAN. Now whether that translates into changes of 

the policy, I can’t tell you. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, we don’t know, but the point you make is that 

pragmatists are being sidelined on both sides of the border. The 

point I would make is you want to permanently sideline the 

hardliners that are sidelining the pragmatists. To do that is going 

to take a more proactive communication campaign into Khartoum, 

broadcasting into Khartoum, as we used to do in Poland or in Russia, you know, in East Germany, where you take advantage of the 

situation on the ground. 

You give people information about the situation on the ground. 

You talk about the crisis that is being created by bad governance. 

41

You give them an alternative. You suggest that alternative. You 

have got to be more proactive on that. It is a non-confrontational 

way, if you are proactive, to offer out a different scenario. 

The last question I wanted to ask is, in your testimony you talk 

about everybody speaking with one voice on the issue. I was going 

to ask you, have the Arab states or the OIC, are they on that page? 

Have they spoken on those issues? 

Ambassador LYMAN. We did a major outreach to all the members 

of the Arab League just in the last 24 hours, 48 hours. They are 

meeting right now in closed session. 

What we have urged them to do is to be in total synch with the 

African Union’s approach to this that they enunciated the other 

day. I have not seen the communique ́ coming out of that. I hope 

it will be as close to the African Union approach as possible, so 

that we get their collaboration and speaking, as I say, together. 

And then, we want the same from the U.N. Security Council. 

So, I will let you know once I get a sense of what has come out 

of the Arab League meeting. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador Lyman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Panel. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

Congresswoman Lee? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

Let me just follow up on a couple of questions that were asked 

earlier in terms of what else the United States could do. I know 

for many, many years many of us have been concerned that we 

could not do as much—and I am not talking about the humanitarian front right now because we recognize and appreciate the 

level of humanitarian intervention and contributions this country 

is making. But we haven’t been able to figure out, given our relationship with the Sudanese Government as it relates to cooperation 

on matters of terrorism, because we are in contact with—it may 

not be Bashir, but it is his government. How does that hamper or 

hinder what we are trying to do now and what they are trying to 

do in terms of this new escalation of war? So, that is the first question. 

Then, secondly, China, for many, many years we have been encouraging our Government to use more leverage with China, so 

they could use more leverage with the Government of Sudan in 

how they are moving forward, not only with the implementation of 

the CPA, but the new war that has taken place. And I think it is 

a war. I think that we haven’t been as assertive as we should have 

been and as we should be. I am pleased to know that the administration and you are going to be talking with the Chinese at the 

meeting that is coming up. 

We actually had 68 Members of Congress sign a letter asking the 

President to engage in discussions around this new eruption. And 

so, we are very pleased to have that. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if it is appropriate, but I would like 

to have that letter inserted into the record. 

[The letter referred follows:]

42


74002d-1.eps
43


74002d-2.eps
44


74002d-3.eps
45


74002d-4.eps
46


74002d-5.eps
47


74002d-6.eps
48


74002d-7.eps
49

Ms. LEE. And finally, let me just ask, in terms of the political obstacles that are preventing the humanitarian assistance and intervention, what are those political obstacles as you see them? I know 

oil is one in Heglig. I mean, we know that. But what are some 

more obstacles that we see that need to be removed? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Thank you so much. 

On the first question, there is a degree of cooperation on terrorism because the Government of Sudan finds that in their interest as well. But the big types of cooperation that might be possible 

between our two countries cannot take place while they remain on 

the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and they remain on that list. 

They have not met the conditions that we feel are needed to do so. 

They would like more cooperation in that area. It would serve 

our interests if we could do it. But, until we can get satisfied that 

the conditions are right to do that, we can’t go forward with that. 

It doesn’t impact, quite frankly, because I work on this every 

day, it doesn’t change our way that we approach the issues of 

North-South issues, of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile; it really 

doesn’t. 

The point is that their continuing to be on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is something that we say to them, if you want to 

come back into the international community in good graces, dealing 

with issues like Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile on a political 

basis, allowing humanitarian access, not doing, as Congressman 

Royce mentioned, the constant use of bombing on civilian targets, 

then the full ranges of cooperation not only in security matters, but 

in economic matters, could take place. But we can’t do it under 

these circumstances. We have had very candid conversations with 

them on that. 

On China—and the letter was a valuable letter—when Vice 

President Xi came here from China just a couple of months ago, the 

President and Secretary of State said, ‘‘We need to cooperate on 

Sudan. We need to join together on this.’’

And then, President Obama talked to President Hu when they 

were at the meeting in Seoul on nuclear issues and agreed that 

this had to be a priority. 

As I have mentioned, I have been in regular contact with my 

counterpart there, the Special Envoy. But, also, when I travel in 

the region, I always stop to see the Chinese Ambassadors in Khartoum, in Juba, in Addis Ababa. 

Next week, when the Secretary goes to China, this will be high 

on our agenda as well. 

So, I think the cooperation with China is picking up very rapidly. 

I think their reluctance traditionally to get involved in political 

matters in countries in which they are doing business, here they 

recognize that they can’t serve their own interests as well as 

everybody’s if they don’t. I think that cooperation is building up. 

On the political obstacles to humanitarian access, what the government of Khartoum claims and argues is, if the food goes into 

those areas, it will prolong the fighting because part of it will get 

to the military, no matter what, and will strengthen their desire 

to keep fighting. 

Second, they have this memory in their view that, once the humanitarian community enters in, then comes the U.N. peaceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Jul 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\042612\74002 HFA PsN: SHIRL
50

keepers. Then, they lose their sovereignty. Their view is that this 

was part of an attempt to carve off more of their country or at least 

reduce their control over it. 

We have tried to deal with that in many ways, like I said, this 

tripartite proposal which has the League of Arab States and the African Union and the World Food Programme. I think Congressman 

Royce said that there are hardliners sort of driving policy right now 

in Khartoum. In spite of all of the efforts to convince them on this, 

they still have not allowed that. I think those are the reasons driving them in that regard, but I think they are wrong. 

Ms. LEE. But in terms of international, bringing more attention 

to the world as to what is taking place now, we remember what 

happened with Darfur. It took a while for the world to really recognize that genocide was taking place. And many of us have visited 

Darfur many times and have been in the refugee camps, but you 

don’t see the visual. You don’t see the suffering, and you don’t see 

the starving and what is taking place. 

I am wondering if there has been a problem with media access, 

and if, in fact, the Bashir government, because of what happened 

around Darfur and the world came together, are they using different tactics now in terms of media access and preventing the rest 

of the world from really understanding what is coming, what is getting ready to come down if we don’t take some action very quickly? 

Ambassador LYMAN. You know, it is exactly right. There is no 

free media access. Some journalists have gone in on their own. 

Nicholas Kristof went. Alan Boswell has gone, some others, and 

they have written about it. 

There has been more interviewing of refugees to get a better 

sense, and you will see various reports have come from George 

Clooney, from Human Rights Watch, from others, particularly 

interviewing refugees and illustrating these kinds of problems. 

I do think—and we have worked very hard on it over the last 6 

months—we have generated a great deal of unified international 

opinion on this. In almost every statement coming out of other 

countries now and out of the AU, it is to the government: You must 

allow humanitarian access to these areas. But you don’t get all the 

pictures and attention that took place in Darfur, and partly because access is so difficult. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you and Ranking Member Bass for this hearing and this 

oversight, which I think is crucial. 

Just in memory of our fallen colleague, Congressman Payne, we 

are reminded of the great excitement of the inauguration of the 

new nation of the government, the new nation of Sudan, Southern 

Sudan. 

Let me, just as a point of personal privilege, thank, Ambassador 

Lyman, yourself, and, of course, the representatives of USAID and 

the State Department, but also the journalists. I note that Ellen 

Ratner is in the room, who visits this region quite frequently. But 

the journalists have not, many of them have not persisted in the 

story. 

51

Even, Ambassador Lyman, the good news and the bad news, but 

certainly to continue the thought, I will just say to you that I have 

had an experience—and I can say it now because I am back here 

in the United States—where I was refused entry into Khartoum, 

meaning that I was in Chad waiting and waiting and waiting for 

a visa, having been to at that time the refugee camps in Chad, 

which were, if you will, raw and extreme, if anything; women and 

children living in almost dust bowls. But we certainly appreciated 

the fact that there was a welcome mat somewhere for them. 

And I had wanted to go into Khartoum, and it just shows, of 

course, there have been incidences when we have come. But say 

that this was the first time around, and just happened to slip 

across the border because we had waited. We had tea. We waited 

into the night for the visa to come. It was on its way; it was on 

its way. Just to at that time dialog with the African Union troops 

that were there. 

Subsequently, I went into Darfur with all the necessary credentials on another occasion, but, then, sat down and saw or listened 

to stories, to recall our memory, Mr. Chairman, of the women who 

were brutalized as they left the camps to pick firewood. We seem 

like we overcame that, even though I don’t think we fully resettled 

those individuals. And you were certainly right at the head of leadership. 

Now we have Southern Sudan, and we now know that across 

that region there is disruption; there is difficulty. So, I know this 

may have been answered, but I want, if you will, a thorough approach to it in respect to the Heglig crisis and its aftermath. What 

accounts for the rapid escalation of that conflict between Sudan 

and Southern Sudan leading to South Sudan’s occupation of 

Heglig? And please describe the military situation to Southern Sudan’s withdrawal from Heglig? What is your assessment based on 

military operations and troop movements in the field, whether we 

are seeing indications of a return to full-scale war between the two 

governments? 

In the midst of that is the unmerciful treatment of human 

beings. I will add a leverage. What is happening to the women? Are 

they still being raped? Are they still being abandoned because men 

have gone or men are victimized, so women are sent forward? 

And do you take seriously and at face value the Sudanese Government’s assertion that it is intent on ousting the Southern People’s Liberation Movement that we have known for a long time? 

And to what extent are the conflicts in Southern Kordofan and the 

Blue Nile linked to or likely to shape the outcome of the military 

situation from the Heglig conflict, if you would? And I have a question for the other representatives. 

But, Ambassador, thank you for your service. It has been a long 

time. 

Ambassador LYMAN. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, and 

for your continued interest in this, as you have. 

What sparked, I think, the occupation of Heglig by South Sudan 

was a frustration that really extended over a long period of time 

of clashes on the border and bombing across the border; that they 

felt they were being pushed, and when they exercised restraint, it 

didn’t stop. 

52

They went into Heglig earlier in March and then withdrew, and 

then the bombing continued and the fighting continued. And they 

just said it is enough, and they wanted to react much more strongly. 

The problem was, as we and others told them, that by doing that, 

they had raised the conflict to a new level because they occupied 

an area of enormous strategic importance to Sudan and could have 

increased the kind of—you know, before then, neither had attacked 

the other’s oil facilities. It could have gotten totally out of hand. 

They would have committed mutual economic suicide. 

They did agree to withdraw, but the government pursued them 

in doing so, bombed across the border, and generated a situation 

which has calmed down. It has been much quieter on the border 

the last 2 days. Both sides are now getting ready to respond to the 

African Union’s demand for cessation of hostilities. They gave them 

48 hours to respond. They are supposed to respond today. 

As I said earlier, I don’t think—and I have talked to people in 

the governments in both places—that people really want or governments want to go to full-scale war. Neither one can afford it, can 

sustain it. That doesn’t mean that they are not prepared to engage 

in conflict over what they see as their security conditions/issues on 

the border. 

And those are related to the conflict in Southern Kordofan and 

Blue Nile, which the Government of Sudan continues to characterize only in military terms, not in political terms, and which the 

Government of South Sudan says, ‘‘We can’t have a border which 

is used to send militias into South Sudan.’’

So, until they can get a handle on the security of that border, the 

danger of those clashes continues. Right now, I think the military 

on both sides, they have largely pulled back across the line that 

they both use. We are hoping that that, plus the rainy season, will 

lead to a lower level of conflict than we have seen and, hopefully, 

open the door, create a climate, if you will, for more political talks. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This question is for everyone, starting with 

Ms. Richard. Is Khartoum the same old Khartoum? Both South 

Sudan and Khartoum indicate that one or the other is backing the 

rebels. Give us the true and honest level of the humanitarian crisis. What level of crisis do women and children find themselves in? 

If you are note-taking, is it time to—it looks as if Southern Sudan 

has gotten its muscle—but is this another moment of intervention, 

the African Union, peacekeepers? Are we letting this fester, so that 

we find ourselves in an enormously sad humanitarian crisis? 

Ms. Richard? 

Ms. RICHARD. Well, Congresswoman, I am going to defer to Ambassador Lyman to answer your question about Khartoum. 

On your question about the scale of the crisis, I think that this 

hearing makes very clear that this region can be like a tinderbox. 

And so, smaller skirmishes have the risk of reigniting war. 

We can see how many people currently, as we have talked about 

these different groups of people who have been displaced, you 

know, different people right now are suffering throughout this region. 

I visited a year ago in the summer, right before the Independence Day. I was there a couple of weeks in advance in Juba talking 

53

to colleagues and trying to get a fix on the prospects for peace in 

South Sudan. And it was such a hopeful time, you may recall——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARD [continuing]. After so many years of war. 

What really came through to me was the incredible needs of the 

people in South Sudan. There is a great deal of illiteracy. There are 

not sufficient educated people to run the government ministries, to 

provide the services that so many people need. 

I saw people returning from the Khartoum area in very large 

boatloads coming down the Nile to start their lives over in the 

South. As we have heard today from my colleague, Nancy 

Lindborg, these people are trying to start over, trying to become 

farmers, trying to have livelihoods. The needs to educate their children, some of whom have never lived in the South before and were 

born in the North, were born in Sudan itself; the needs are very, 

very great. 

So, to take the very tough prospects for achieving economic development, for achieving an educated and healthy citizenry, and 

then to toss all of that back into violence and conflict, that is just 

absolutely the wrong direction. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Lindborg? 

Ms. LINDBORG. I would echo much of what my colleague has just 

laid out. You know, these are people who have borne enormous 

hardship for decades. There was precarious peace going forward. 

We knew it would be difficult. We knew it would take a long time. 

But there have been gains over this year since the CPA was put 

into place. What used to be 20 percent children in school is now 

68 percent. Many more millions of people have achieved access to 

water, to health, to basic services. Much of that is in jeopardy right 

now because of the lack of oil revenue; 98 percent of South Sudan’s 

budget stems from oil. 

As the conflicts escalate, both the North and the South are putting their people in peril. We are losing what precious developmental gains were made in South Sudan. Between Darfur, Abyei, 

Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, the intercommunal fighting in 

Jonglei, and the 4.7 million people, half the population of the 

South, of South Sudan, who are food-insecure, you have about 8 

million people who need humanitarian assistance. That is a huge 

number of people. 

As the conflict escalates, and there is no oil revenue to provide 

even basic services by the government, there will be the potential 

for adding to that 8 million because they are not otherwise able to 

move forward with their lives. They are not able to go to hospitals 

or go to schools that the government previously was supporting. 

So, it is imperative that we pull back to peace and that we find 

a way forward because of the burden that is placing on the women 

and the children, and a history in that region of marginalizing vulnerable communities. 

The challenge is enormous. The stakes are very high. The solutions will not be military. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ambassador Lyman was going to finish. Ambassador Lyman, 

could you just throw in—not to throw in—but the dysfunctionalism 

54

of the energy industry, because many don’t understand it is not 

functioning? And if you know anything about the burden on women 

and children? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Well, as Nancy has said earlier, when you 

get into large scale food-insecure areas, women and children are 

often the ones who suffer first and foremost. We can see that in 

the refugees coming out, and many of them are women and children. In a war situation, clearly, they are very much in danger. 

You asked about Khartoum; is it the same old Khartoum? Here 

is a situation where Khartoum had an opportunity to develop a 

productive and positive relationship with South Sudan. You will recall that President Bashir came to the independence ceremony and 

was well received and said all the right things. 

But every time there is a sharp difference or a crisis, there is 

kind of a default back to let’s use military power; let’s use our 

bombing; let’s use the gun, et cetera. And that brings out all the 

worst characteristics from that regime and makes it very hard to 

deal with these problems in the right way. It is almost like you 

have a Jekyll-and-Hyde situation sometimes. 

So, what has to happen in Khartoum is—and Thabo Mbeki 

phrased this extremely well in a lecture he gave in Khartoum in 

November 2010. He said, even with the secession of the South, 

Sudan is a diverse country, and therefore, it has to be governed as 

a diverse country. That means there has to be political change in 

the way Sudan governs itself. 

That is the fundamental issue. It is the issue that the Sudanese 

must address because, otherwise, there will always be trouble in 

the Darfurs and the Southern Kordofans and other places. And 

that hasn’t taken place. 

I think there are a lot of people who understand that in Khartoum, who know it has to take place. But that is really the challenge. Thabo Mbeki phased it very well and he has spoken out on 

that many times, as have others. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And my last word to you, Ambassador Lyman, we are not, the 

United States and its policy, going to abandon this region. We are 

going to stay engaged in the fight, if you will, a nonviolent fight 

on behalf of this region, this area. 

Ambassador LYMAN. I can tell you that the White House is all 

over me every day. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Excellent. [Laughter.] 

Let me join in that, in a way of strengthening you. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for your kindness. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute you, Mr. 

Chairman, and the ranking member as well, for hosting this important area. Mr. Chairman, I would also compliment you on some of 

the positions that you have taken. They have been very meaningful 

to me personally. 

I did go to Darfur, and I saw the throngs of people living on the 

ground and off of the land. There is no substitute, I think, for seeing some of these things as they develop. 

55

I want to compliment the witnesses here today for the intelligence that you have accorded us. 

My friend, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, has served with this 

committee and has traveled to these places many more times than 

I, but I think that she never tires. My suspicion is that she will 

be back before I will. So, I want to compliment her as well. 

I have just a very few questions. So, I will be as pithy and concise as possible, but I don’t want to be so terse and laconic as not 

to make a point. 

Let’s start with the oil and how it flows. It is in the South, but 

it flows through the North. If there is a change in the direction, 

and if the South somehow manages to have access to another 

means of moving the oil, how will this impact, if you can prognosticate to this extent, or just the thought by the North of losing the 

opportunity to have the benefits that flow from the oil, how will 

this, if you can prognosticate, impact this concern that is already 

at a crisis level, as far as I can see? 

Mr. Ambassador, would you care to give an answer first? 

Ambassador LYMAN. Thank you. 

For the South, if it had an alternative way, it would not feel that 

it had such a difficult situation with a regime that they often have 

great difficulty with, including on oil. But the prospects, the possibilities of doing that are not short term. People I have talked to, 

people who are oil experts, engineers, et cetera, looking at the 

types of soil that would be involved in Sudan or the mountains in 

Ethiopia, looking at alternate routes, estimate 3 to 5 years and a 

very expensive proposition. It doesn’t mean that someday it can’t 

be done, but it is not a short-term solution to the problems that 

Nancy outlined with the government that needs revenue. 

It is in the interest of both countries to have this sector run. 

They both benefit. I think Sudan would lose a lot if South Sudan 

ended up unable to have a satisfactory and assured relationship 

with the Government of Sudan about the oil flow. 

They get fees. They get processing fees. They get access to oil for 

the refinery. There is also in this negotiation a payment from the 

South to ease the loss of oil revenue that came from the CPA. All 

of that is in the very high priority interests of Khartoum. 

I think there are a lot of people there who know it. But the negotiations which were very promising a few weeks ago have been set 

way back. So, I am hoping that kind of rationality on both sides 

says, ‘‘Look, we don’t like each other very much, but we both are 

hurting our people and ourselves by not being able to function.’’

If the oil reserves are such in South Sudan that it would also justify an alternative, that is a possibility, but it is not a near-term 

one. For South Sudan to put all its chips on that means they would 

go years without any revenue. That, we think, is very dangerous. 

Mr. GREEN. I see. 

With reference to the humanitarian crisis, the prospect of food 

moving in over land is a good one. I like the idea, and I think this 

is the way most NGOs would like to move large amounts of food 

as well as other humanitarian substances. The question, however, 

is about airdrops. In a time of great crisis, I understand that you 

have others who will try to take the food. But if we can find out 

where people are, which can be difficult, airdrops of food into an 

56

area where you have a humanitarian need has been used before. 

To what extent is this available to us, given the 200,000 people 

that may be near starvation? 

Ms. LINDBORG. Well, you want to look at all of the options. One 

of the concerns with air operations is that, for those of you who remember Operation Lifeline Sudan, which was critical for many 

years, it did have agreement on both sides that it would operate. 

So, for those kinds of operations to really have the impact that we 

want and need them to have, you really need to have that sort of 

agreement to enable the airdrops to be effective, to reach those who 

need it the most. 

Mr. GREEN. May I assume that we are seeking approval of both 

sides for airdrops? I know that there is some consternation about 

having NGOs, or especially Westerners, come into the country. 

With an airdrop, you don’t have to touch the ground, but food gets 

to the people. Are we negotiating along these lines? 

Ambassador LYMAN. We haven’t emphasized the airdrops, Congressman, because if they would approve the proposal on the table, 

the World Food Programme group could bring in so much of the 

needed food. Airdrops would not be able to do nearly as much. 

I think the government would have great objection to airdrops. 

I think it would be very hard to get their approval. They would 

consider it a hostile act. That doesn’t mean they are right; don’t get 

me wrong. But I think it would be a hard thing to get them to approve. 

I just wish they would approve the most logical and most effective way, which does not involve western NGOs, which does not involve anyone but people they trust as doing it for humanitarian 

purposes. I think we have to keep pushing them on that. It is the 

most useful possible way to do it, as well as other things that one 

looks at. 

Mr. GREEN. My final comment has to do with China. Countries 

do what they believe to be in their best interest. I am confident, 

Mr. Ambassador, that you are explaining that this is in the best 

interest of China, the world, but China benefits from oil. And they 

are getting an amount of oil from Sudan now. 

So, we have had it requested of us—and I know that the request 

has been echoed to you, but I will just reiterate; sometimes things 

bear repeating—please take advantage of the opportunity when we 

have our high-level meetings to make the request in your way to 

make sure that China understands that we desire that they help 

us with this crisis that is looming in Sudan. And it is to their advantage to do so, I believe, but I hope that you will continue to exercise your good office’s use of this type of diplomacy. 

While we are thanking people, I do want to thank Mr. Clooney, 

who did go in at some considerable risk to bring back some empirical evidence of the atrocity that is taking place. I don’t ever want 

to discount what good Samaritans do, and I consider him a good 

Samaritan for what he has done at some considerable risk. 

So, thank you for what you are doing. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member. 

I yield back any time that I may have. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. 

57

Ambassador LYMAN. I would say one thing on the China thing. 

I assure you that the Secretary is leading our high-level dialog next 

week. Sudan remains very high on her agenda, and we will be 

making those points next week in Beijing. 

So, thank you very much, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

And just to reiterate or echo Mr. Green’s comments on airdrops, 

I would agree that they are part of the solution, especially for the 

harder to reach when access is denied. I hope that will be robustly 

promoted. 

I remember when the killing fields were occurring in South 

Sudan, remember the loss of 2 million people. We had UNICEF testifying in 2172 Rayburn, and many of us pressed very hard that 

the international community was doing far less than it could to get 

permission from the Khartoum government to allow those to go 

through. They had absolute veto power, and missions would be deployed or not based on their willingness to allow it to happen. And 

people would die when the airdrops didn’t occur. 

So, I know it is on the table. At least I hope it is. I hope it is 

even more so, because if you can’t get a team in, you know, you 

can drop meals ready to eat and a whole lot of other things that 

in the short term could absolutely sustain life. And so, I do hope 

that is being looked at. 

I would also like to ask if the faith community is being adequately included with the AU High Implementation Panel, the 

players themselves, whether or not the mullahs and the Catholic 

and Anglican bishops, who I know in terms of the provision of 

healthcare and ensuring that people get food to eat and medicines 

to help cure, are, if not our best, certainly are at the very top of 

people we need to be partnering with. I am wondering, are we 

working with them closely on the ground to make sure that the refugee camps as well as at other places, that money is going to faithbased NGOs that are doing this work, particularly indigenous 

faith-based NGOs? 

But, Ambassador, if you could speak to whether or not the faith 

community is being pulled into this in a way that it is certainly capable of helping to bring about a more positive outcome? 

Ambassador LYMAN. They have played a very significant role in 

the peace process within South Sudan. You know, this terrible conflict that took place between the Nuer and Morley. 

And it is the religious community that is playing a major role in 

bringing the communities together. That is true in other parts of 

South Sudan as well. They also play—and Nancy can speak to 

that—they also play a major role in delivering services. 

We are also reaching out now to the faith-based communities 

internationally, as I had requested of the Congress, to make their 

voices heard to the leadership about the need for peace. 

But, yes, they are very active and extremely important in South 

Sudan particularly. But Nancy can——

Mr. SMITH. But, again, when the AU High Implementation Panel 

meets, do they incorporate and integrate——

Ambassador LYMAN. No. No, I can’t say they do. You know, it is 

a negotiation sort of between parties. You don’t see civil society 

58

there. You don’t see faith-based. I think that has been unfortunate 

in this whole process. 

Mr. SMITH. But it would seem to me that special faith-based envoys could play a big role as well. 

Ambassador LYMAN. I think it is a very good point. 

Ms. LINDBORG. I would just note that we work very, very closely 

with a number of faith-based organizations throughout South 

Sudan, in Darfur as well, where they are absolutely critical to saving lives, to ensuring that needs are met. They work closely with 

the faith-based leaders throughout South Sudan. 

We also just signed recently an MOU with the OIC’s humanitarian arm. So, we can foster greater cooperation between the 

NGOs that USAID funds and the primarily Islamic groups that the 

OIC funds. It grew out of our experience of working side by side 

in Somalia, and we are looking to bring that globally. 

So, I think your point is a very important one, that we pay a lot 

of attention to the role that those organizations can play. 

Mr. SMITH. Before we conclude, any——

Ms. BASS. Yes, I would just like to thank you for all of your testimony and participating today. And again, Ambassador, we look forward to hearing from you when you come back from China. 

And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and also the members that 

participated. As all of you know, I am new in Congress. This is just 

my second year. I recognize that there are many of my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle who have been working on this issue for 

many years, which is why we had extra participation today. I really 

appreciate your input. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass, and thank you for 

your leadership. It is great to work with you. 

I want to thank our very distinguished panelists for the extraordinary service you render and your leadership, and for taking the 

time this afternoon to share that with us, as we work together in 

partnership. 

Pursuant to your recommendation, Ambassador Lyman, we will 

do that letter. I hope that has some impact. 

And I look forward to working with you going forward and appreciate it. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60

f


74002n.eps
61

f


74002m.eps
62

f


74002e.eps
63


74002f-1.eps
64


74002f-2.eps
65


74002f-3.eps
66


74002f-4.eps
67


74002f-5.eps
68


74002f-6.eps
69


74002f-7.eps
70

Æ


74002f-8.eps