 So, ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you to the United States Institute of Peace. We're very pleased to have you here on this day. I'm Bill Taylor. I'm the Executive Vice President of the Institute. Nancy Lindborg, our President, wishes she were here, Senator. It's a great honor for us to be able to host and listen to and have a conversation with Senator Chris Coons. He has been a voice for Africa. He and Senator Corker were just in Africa, put a good op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. I'm sure everyone in this room has read it. It lays out the policy. We'll have a further conversation about policy here today as well. The Institute of Peace focuses on conflict, violent conflict, and violent conflict is one of the major causes of the famine that Senator Coons and Senator Corker observed firsthand in Uganda and South Sudan on their recent visit. So the conflict there is of great concern to us. We've had a program on Africa for a long time and have people on the ground there working on these kinds of issues as well as other places around the world. We have two fellows that Senator Coons just met here from South Sudan. Francis and Adzing are standing here. It's hard to... Ah! How can you miss? How can you miss? Welcome. Let me turn over to Ambassador Princeton Lyman, who again, you all know, was special envoy to Sudan, South Sudan, and is going to guide this conversation, Ambassador Lyman, over to you. Bill, thank you so much. And let me add my thanks to everybody for being here, but most of all, to thank Senator Coons. I think people know here that Senator Coons is one of the most dynamic senators in the Congress, and one thing I learned some time ago, he has a passion for Africa, and he's traveled there many, many times. He has championed the issues of Africa in the Senate, in the public, and he has most recently returned from Uganda, from South Sudan, from Ethiopia, looking at this very, very critical problem in South Sudan, and we're very grateful, Senator, for you all. Let me just say to everybody, the senator must leave at 10.15 sharp, so we will be a little bit ruthless in the Q&A time, but please, Senator, thank you, and welcome so much. Thank you, Ambassador Lyman. It's great to be with you all. Thank you for coming out this morning, this bright and sunny and wonderful day here in Washington, D.C. I'm grateful for the U.S. Institute for Peace and for what it does to Nancy Lindborg and, obviously, to Bill Taylor and to Susan Stigant, and everybody here who helps continue to move the process of peace forward around the world. It was wonderful to have a chance to visit with you for a few minutes. We talked about how, in my own family history, my family comes from Northern Ireland. We are Protestant Irish, in part, in my history, and my wife comes from Irish Catholic. Our home areas are just 30 miles apart in a country that was driven by conflict for 300 years. Today is largely at peace, so I am hopeful that with the facilitation of the United States Institute for Peace and with stronger leadership, more engaged leadership by the United States, by the region and by the world community, there is still a prospect for peace in South Sudan, the world's newest nation and one in which we as a country have invested a huge amount of intention, attention, and resources, I was honored to have a chance to spend Easter weekend with Republican Senator Bob Corker, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, visiting refugee camps in Uganda and then to have the chance to go on to Juba, to Unity State, and to visit both UN Protection of Civilian Camp to meet with President Salva Kier and to go to Unity State. So I look forward to our conversation about lessons learned, about path forward, and about the challenges that confront all of us who are concerned about South Sudan. Senator, thank you so much. This is one of the great humanitarian crises in the world today and billions of dollars are being spent to try and reach the people in South Sudan and now over a million refugees in the surrounding countries. Part of the dilemma, if you call that, is that delivering humanitarian assistance in South Sudan is so difficult. Eighty-two aid workers killed in trying to do that. We have to use airdrops, which is the most inefficient. Do we need to think differently about our whole policy with trying to get humanitarian aid into South Sudan? Are we just, you know, sticking our finger in the dike and not really getting it the real problem? I think it is time for us to take a hard-eyed look at the path forward in South Sudan. In my meeting with President Salva Kir, I said to him forcefully that he underestimates, perhaps, the attitude of the Trump administration, which has proposed dramatic cuts in humanitarian aid, cuts which I intend to oppose. But in a review of USAID, in a review of the State Department, South Sudan may not be on the top, may not even be in the middle, may be at the bottom of the list of countries for continuing assistance the way it has been going, unless there is some path towards reconciliation and some path towards peace. The regional approach where the heads of state of all the surrounding countries came together to push a peace process seems to have stalled and now largely failed. And the continually spreading conflict within the country makes it harder and harder for humanitarian assistance to be delivered. There were three humanitarian workers killed in Wow, literally just the day that I arrived. And one of the issues I raised with President Kir directly is why should the United States continue to try so hard to deliver humanitarian assistance through many partners and NGOs when your government and your forces are blocking access and using hunger as a weapon of war? You were also, of course, you visited the refugee camps in Uganda. You talked to President Museveni. How does, how, how are the country's reaction to the flow of refugees? This must be having an impact on their attitudes toward the crisis. Certainly. I did get a chance to meet with our terrific Ambassador Deb Malik in Uganda as well as with Mali Fee in Juba, our ambassador in South Sudan. I did not get a chance to meet with President Museveni on this trip. I have met with him on previous trips. He has not been constructive in pushing President Kir to take responsibility for his country and to lead a peace process that is real. And I worry, I'm gravely concerned that if we are relying simply on our regional ambassadors and the regional heads of state that we won't see a peace process that is constructive and moving forward. We need a new special envoy on Sudan and South Sudan. Secretary Tillerson has expressed his opposition to all the different special envoys. But this strikes me as a region that calls for one. And as the former special envoy, you may be in a unique position to give me an amen to this particular sermon. But what I heard from our ambassadors in the region is they have a full plate. Ambassador Godek in Kenya, right, has a full plate with other issues in Kenya. Ambassador Malik in Uganda, Ambassador Fee in South Sudan. And the value of a special envoy, as you will know, is the opportunity to convene regionally and to press. We need a stronger, clearer role from the AU and the UN. We need to find a pathway towards more sustained pressure on both the government and the now many opposition groups. And to help convene a process that puts to an end this entirely conflict-driven humanitarian crisis. Uganda should be commended, Museveni should be commended, for keeping their borders open. Senator Corker and I went to the BDBD refugee camp, which is striking in that it is today the most populist refugee camp on earth with more than 270,000 people in it. Yet it is only, I think, six months old. The first place we went in the northwest corner of Uganda in Coloba was a sort of a welcome center where refugees were going through being accepted into the refugee system for the first time. And it's stunning. I suspect many people here have had this experience. But it is important to be reminded of the suffering of the many women and children who, on foot, for weeks flee the violence in South Sudan, and now much of it is in Equatoria that was driving the new refugees we saw. And to have the opportunity to deliver one of the first meals women and children have had after weeks in the bush, to see the process by which they're being brought in, and then to see this massive refugee camp is a reminder of the scope of the human suffering. One of my basic goals on this trip with Senator Corker was to elevate this as an issue. We have lots of distractions here in Washington, D.C. and in the United States generally. There are many other conflicts on the world stage right now. But South Sudan deserves our attention on a bipartisan basis and deserves a higher priority focus. I want to commend our ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, for speaking about this, for raising it as a priority. I raised it yesterday with the National Security Advisor. But I think President Trump and Secretary Tillerson need to show sustained engagement and leadership to make sure that America's voice is at the table as the world comes together to try and address this really pressing humanitarian crisis. How can we, U.S. Institute of Peace or the people the people represented here and the institutions they represent? How can they help in this regard, Senator, in bringing this issue not only to the higher attention within the new administration, but to the public? As you say, there are many crises in the world and people hear about famine and drought and they just sort of waves over them. What can we do? What should our role be? Not only our institution, but this room full of very concerned people. Well, we have remarkable attendance today from the diplomatic corps, from senior ranks of the State Department of Former Career Foreign Service Officers and the media. And I just want to thank all of you again for making the time to be here. We can make it a higher priority. I'm grateful you're taking this time to provide a focus for more attention on it. We can ask for hearings in Congress. We can insist on leadership by our State Department, by USAID. And as our new Secretary of State, relatively new, and hoped for new USAID Administrator whose nomination I expect will be announced shortly, as they go through confirmation hearings and as we go through hearings on the structure of these agencies, this is a humanitarian crisis that deserves repeated attention. I do think at the United Nations, at the AU and in the region, we need to be asking for responsibility. When I met with President Salva Kier and initially pressed him hard on what was going on in the country on the violence, he initially denied there was anything going on. So there's really no conflict. What are you talking about? This is all propaganda. It is some man in South Africa sitting in a hotel calling people and telling them, you know, you need to tell the press. And I said, Mr. President, with all due respect, I was in a refugee camp in Uganda and saw thousands of people, women who had lost their husbands or brothers or fathers, who had been raped, who had been beaten. This is not the result of a few phone calls for men sitting in hotels in other countries. This is a deep conflict that is really affecting your whole country. Later in the conversation, when I said you may face a cutoff of American assistance unless there is real leadership by you, the president, he said, well, the United States can't possibly abandon the people of South Sudan. You can't stop providing humanitarian assistance. And I said, I thought there was no problem. He said, well, there may be a problem, but it's being exaggerated. It's a fiction. And he then asserted that President Trump would be his best friend and that he would now find a close ally and a supporter in our new president. And I, again, fairly pointedly suggested to him that President Trump may not know of South Sudan, may not know of President Kier, and may have other priorities. And that is the, I think, potential tragedy here, a slow rolling tragedy, is the mistaken perception of the president of a young nation that he's not responsible for finding a path towards peace, towards opening an effective national dialogue, and towards welcoming the opposition into a process that will actually reconcile the country, and that instead it is somehow America's responsibility to provide unending support and humanitarian assistance even in the absence of a constructive process. The most promising part of our meeting was about the national dialogue, where if you read a transcript of what he said, if he were to do what he said, it would be real progress towards a meaningful national dialogue. But that's what has to happen. Folks on all sides of this conflict need to be in a construct with support moving towards a reconciliation. I understand how a nation born out of conflict, decades of conflict, has difficulty reconciling. As we talked about, our own American civil war was an incredibly violent and destructive civil war, and our reconciliation took years. But we have to start on the path towards reconciliation to have any hope that there will be peace in South Sudan, and for the United States to say we will provide endless assistance and support without that path, I think is stepping back from our responsibilities. You and Senator Corker wrote a very important op-ed in New York Times, I guess it was yesterday's New York Times. You said something caught my attention. You said in this context of humanitarian aid, the great demands on it, famine in four different places, Syrian war and all the rest, that there were ways in which we could make our humanitarian assistance more efficient. I wonder if you could speak to that a little bit, because in this tight resource situation, this could be very important. Sure. We have the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world since the end of the Second World War, the largest number of refugees, the largest number of people facing imminent starvation, more than 100,000 South Sudanese facing imminent death through famine and millions displaced, I think 1.7 million South Sudanese who've fled the country and millions more displaced within the country. In this context, I was pleased, proud that on a bipartisan basis we appropriated another $990 million of taxpayer money for famine relief this coming year. And it's my hope that the administration will promptly release what funds have already been appropriated to confront the humanitarian crisis around the world. The editorial that Senator Corker and I co-authored renewed our call for reforms to the Food for Peace program. Food for Peace is a more than 70-year-old program by which U.S. commodities are purchased in the United States, loaded on ships, and then sent to places around the world where there's famine or hunger. And in some situations that's exactly the right thing to do because, for example, in Yemen, local food production has nearly collapsed and shipping commodities may make sense. But in a lot of settings where those commodities are sold on the local market through a process called monetization, it simply hurts the resiliency of local markets and it's incredibly inefficient because it takes months to ship the commodities from the United States to the places where they're received. One of the things I saw in Unity State where I got to see the World Food Program air-dropping food is that a significant number of the cans of vegetable oil shatter on impact or dented or broken, and so some of the packaging really doesn't make sense for the way that we're delivering it. Today there are ways that we can purchase and deliver or finance food assistance far more efficiently. In the Global Food Security Act, which Senator Corker and I played a role in getting passed and was signed by President Obama last year, it authorizes USAID's food program, which is far more flexible. If we have a balance between flexibility and U.S. commodities, in the longer term we're going to do a much better job of delivering aid. The American people are charitable people. They care about our neighbors around the world, but they want to know their dollars are being spent well and they want to know it's making a positive difference. It's important, I think, that we keep making progress in reforming food aid so that it makes American taxpayer dollars go farther. And that was a bipartisan bill. Very much so. Very good. Do we have some questions from? Okay, if people write on the cards and so off, because I could keep this off for a long time, but in all fairness. But let me ask you one further question, Senator. Certainly. Because you spoke about needing more on this peace process. I think one of the dilemmas that a lot of us feel is that while the neighboring countries are critical to any peace process and they would have to enforce any sanctions or any pressures, that they are so divided in their own interests and somewhat distracted in some cases, that the peace process needs more than just EGAD, the neighboring country organization. Is there a way that, and Nikki Haley has sort of suggested this, that one could respect that and yet raise it to a higher level to get a broader approach that isn't subject to all the politics of the region? Well first, I think President Salva Kear and the leaders of SPLA in opposition and other opposition groups need to be unnoticed that the United States intends to be actively engaged and intends to press for a resolution of this conflict, or our ongoing support and assistance is really at risk. Second, I think we need to press some of these regional leaders, in particular President Museveni, to be constructive and to help convene and to insist on a functioning peace process. But without the AU and without the UN actively engaged, I don't see how this resolves well. I met with the leaders of Unmiss, the UN keeping mission in South Sudan with the Deputy Special Representative, excuse me, the Secretary General, the Force Commander, and the Police Commander. It was the first time I've met a Chinese flag-ranked officer in a peacekeeping mission. I was encouraging to see, I think, China taking a more significant role globally in terms of peacekeeping. And at the same time that a number of us on foreign relations are calling for reforms in peacekeeping, it is important to recognize that UN peacekeepers are what's maintaining some semblance of order in a number of the most conflict-ridden countries in Africa. And we have to have an active UN peacekeeping presence, perhaps with a broader mandate, as a piece of this resolution process. So I do think just relying on the immediately neighboring states, heads of state, to resolve this won't work as long as they treat Salva Kyr as just like any other head of state, with no accountability or responsibility for the widespread humanitarian crisis, for the gross human rights violations, and for the actions that have been inappropriately taken to block humanitarian relief. Let me turn to, you have some interesting questions from our audience. One is, how to engage, and I wonder if this came up in some of your conversations, to get women more opportunity to engage in the peace process. We know from all the research that's been done that the active role of women has a very positive effect on these processes. From your experience and what you saw there, but also your experience generally, what more can we do to assure that happens? You look at it around the peace tables, you often don't see women well represented. That's a great question. And in the resolution of some of the more difficult civil wars and internal conflicts in West African states, women played an absolutely essential role, really a leadership role in insisting on negotiations, insisting on peace. It is often women who bear most directly, most brutally, the costs of conflict. They and their children often are the victims of violence and are often the folks most affected by hunger and by dislocation. I don't have a great suggestion for how we insist on change in culture and attitude that will welcome women to the peacemaking table. But my hope is that that is one of the things that the younger leaders of South Sudan will insist on, seeing the experience of nations around the world. I also recently visited India and Nepal with CARE, the International Relief Organization CARE, and was very encouraged to see in the upcoming elections in Nepal, 40 percent of the seats are reserved for women, a society where having women outside the home, outside the home in civil society, outside the home in elected leadership is a dramatic shift from even a decade ago. That's interesting. Another question comes about journalists and the difficulty of journalists covering this. And we know that they've been restricted, etc. Can we do more, how can journalists do more to not only cover what's happening, but get the story out? Well, I was grateful that we had an AP reporter with us. We had Voice of America with us. And they did profiles and interviews. Actually, there were two reporters. One was from VOA, UN Radio, who actually traveled with Tom and me up to Unity State, and to have them there and have them on site and have them interviewing me about what I was seeing, I think, is very constructive. This is a demanding country to cover and to report on. We need more support and reassurance from the government that journalists will be protected. And frankly, we need more news organizations willing to make this a priority. There's a lot of other stories to cover here in Washington and around the world. I understand that. But this is a story that really should appeal to all people, because the level of suffering, its intensity, its duration, and its needlessness, I think, should pull at the heartstrings and motivate the focused policy capabilities of everybody. So we need more journalists able and willing to cover this difficult story. The interesting question here about, you mentioned you talked to the UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan. And one of the things that they are doing, which they weren't structured to do but have been doing, is to receive a lot of the displaced people into these protection sites. Did you get any impression of how well that was doing? Because protection of civilians, when you talk about UN peacekeeping, this is a critical issue. How well are UN peacekeeping missions in protecting civilians? And I wonder if you had some sense of that from your experience. I spent time in Juba at the protection of civilian camp where there's 38,000 internally displaced South Sudanese who, when fighting broke out in Juba, fled to a UN camp and have been there ever since, I guess about over a year, almost a year and a half now. It seemed orderly well run. It seemed to me that they were doing their best in partnership with NGOs to deliver water, sanitation, education, healthcare. But frankly, this isn't a sustainable long-term solution. To have tens of thousands of people in the very center of your nation's capital living as refugees in a very large UN run camp is just one symbol of how deep this division is. Many of the folks I had the chance to speak with in that camp are convinced that if they weren't inside the camp, they were at risk of being killed. And so this lack of trust and this lack of security and stability in this young nation's capital is just one reminder of how pressing and urgent this conflict is. One of the proposals that, and there was a letter recently sent to the administration by a number of organizations, and particularly enough, was that the U.S. proposed sanctions on individuals that the Security Council didn't go through, along with an arms embargo. So the question is, should the United States unilaterally go after those who are profiting from or corrupting, getting corrupt resources from the war? We're using all our financial sanctions tools and banking, et cetera, really go hard. And that would include some of the leaders on the government and opposition side. This would be the U.S. saying, well, we can't get it through the UN, but we could do it by ourselves. That's a step we may end up having to take. I think we are stronger and we will be more effective if we do it through multilateral entities like the United Nations, if we do it regionally. One of the striking things is the number of the leaders of South Sudan whose families are not in South Sudan who are commuting in from other regional capitals, leaders in the military, leaders in the government, and in the opposition who are outside the country benefiting from the resources of the country engaged in a number of ways in illicit traffic and arms or other things. And this is part of the tragedy is that there are national leaders who are profiting from the country, but whose families and whose core allegiances clearly are not with the average citizens of the country. So imposing visa restrictions, economic sanctions, individual sanctions likely will end up having to be among the tools that we use. I think we need to build towards that. Let me turn to another question. You said that we expect soon a administrator for USAID. Mark Green will be the nominee for USAID. What do you see as the future for USAID? Because there's been a lot of talk about downsizing or collapsing it into state. Mark Green is a very distinguished, very experienced, very fine person, could be a very strong leader of USAID. My hope is that as a condition of his accepting this nomination, he secured some sort of commitment that the process would be thoughtful, deliberate, not rushed, that there isn't a conclusion already reached in terms of the outcome with state and AID. I do think AID has unique capabilities, has seasoned professionals throughout the world, has addressed some of the most basic human development problems admirably for decades and deserves to have its day in a reasoned deliberation about what's the right path forward. Of course, there are some reforms that are needed in any institution the size of the State Department and USAID. My concern, given the President's so-called skinny budget, his initial proposal, is that the scope of cuts they're talking about go beyond reforms and well into dramatically slashing development and diplomacy at a time when the stated goals of this administration require more of both. In the board, because you've paid a great deal of attention and given a lot of focus to Africa in general, and I think we haven't yet seen a clear Africa policy from the administration. But in the terminology of the administration, America first, etc., how would you argue for Africa being very important to America in the sense of America first? Well, conveniently, I wrote an article about this earlier this year, but I'll tell you that my core concern is that the President's stated goal on his inaugural address of America first may instead mean America alone, and particularly in the context of Africa, may well mean America left behind. As I've said to leaders of this administration and written in that article and elsewhere, we have a unique role on a continent of 54 countries where we are generally well regarded, where we are often welcome, where we have a long history, and where we can and should play a constructive role. And where one of our major competitors globally is China, and China has eclipsed us in terms of its reach, its scope, its engagement economically. And we have an opportunity to engage across the continent in a positive, constructive debate about which system, which approach is better. But if we don't show up and advocate for civil society, for journalism and a free press, for democracy as a process that although messy and difficult and demanding, in the end produces a more peaceful and prosperous society, a competing model for governance and development is going to win out. In the end, this is a decision for Africans to make in their own context, in their own countries, at their own time. But I think it's an enormous loss to America's core values, to our security and prosperity, and to our long investment in real relationships of development and respect with countries across the continent for us to unilaterally cut back our engagement, our positive and meaningful and welcome engagement with a continent that has such long and deep ties with the United States. You know, one of the things that I think all of us appreciate in the last 10, 15 years or so, is that Africa has been largely not a partisan issue in the Congress, either the Senate or the House. And when you look at some of the major initiatives over the last several years, whether it's PEPFAR, whether it's the Millennium Challenge Account, whether it's YALI, the Youth Leadership Program, or Power Africa, those have all enjoyed bipartisan support. Does that continue? Can we look to continued bipartisan? It's nice to have some bipartisan areas. Senator Flake and Senator Corker, Republican and Democrat are the chair in ranking of the Africa subcommittee today. They work well together. Obviously, Senator Corker and I didn't just travel to Africa together, but are legislating on U.S. Africa issues, just wrote this editorial. I think that reflects a broader bipartisan commitment to sustained engagement with Africa. And I am optimistic that one of the unintended, perhaps, consequences of a Trump administration will be to make the Senate great again and to push the Senate. Sorry. Because in the absence of a focus and a leadership from this administration on U.S.-Africa relations, there are a dozen senators with broad experience in Africa, with a willingness and a history of working together in a bipartisan way and an enthusiasm for making a difference. If you look at the legislative agenda of which bills got signed into law in the last Congress, there are several significant pieces of legislation that relate to the U.S.-Africa engagement, whether it's the Global Food Security Act or the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act or the Electrify Africa Act or others. So this is an area that I think is ripe for a discipline determined bipartisan leadership by members of the House and Senate. I'm going to bring you back to South Sudan because it's an important question. We've talked a lot about the role of President Keir's government and some of the actions. What about the opposition? What about the role of the opposition? And now there is more than one opposition. It's not just Reak Mashaar's I.O. There's General Serino and there's others. Are they playing a constructive role or are they part of the problem too? Both. It's important for it to be clear that this is not an opposition that is narrowly along ethnic lines, that this is an opposition to how the SPLA and how the Keir government is governing and how it's acting and the real costs it's imposing across the country. But the more you have a divided opposition and the more the opposition is engaging in the same sorts of tactics the government is, the more the violence spreads and the harder it is for them to achieve any sort of reconciliation. If you look at the conflict in Syria, one of the real challenges has been that there are dozens even hundreds of opposition groups of a very wide range of views, approaches and tactics. So as the conflict continues to spread, as the violence spreads and as the suffering extends and continues, the steady break of the opposition into more and more factions I think is not constructive and will make ultimate reconciliation more difficult. What it does signal is that this is not just a Dinka New Air conflict. It is not sort of that simple. It is much more complicated regionally, linguistically for reasons of resources, but more than anything else this is a widespread national humanitarian crisis. I'm going to have to conclude in a minute and do one more question. I was going to ask you about one other country that should be playing a strong role here and that's Sudan. I know you didn't get to Cartoum on this trip, but you followed government's opening of a dialogue with Sudan last year. How do you see their role here? They could be much more constructive. We have made progress from a very low point in terms of the U.S.-Sudana relationship. They have interests and they have engagement, particularly with the opposition in South Sudan. If there is to be a reduction in the flow of weapons and financing into the government and the opposition, Sudan has a key role to play, but Sudan isn't going to remain constructively engaged for long if other regional partners aren't as well. And as you know better than anybody, it's a very tough neighborhood, very complex neighbors. This is a moment for American leadership and for the United States to show the relevance of the AU and the UN. We can't fix this alone, but I don't think it can be fixed without American engagement and leadership. I couldn't have it end on a better note. Senator, we are very grateful for all you do. And I'm going to make one concluding comment. Please. I haven't mentioned the remarkable range of NGO groups that had a chance to visit with folks who take genuine risks each and every day from Samaritan's Purse to the International Rescue Committee to Mercy Corps to the World Food Program to the Red Cross and the International Organization for Migration. This trip was over Easter weekend and to have the chance to worship and to celebrate with a joyful, robust congregation that included dozens of orphans as a choir was heartbreaking and uplifting at the same time for me. And I was really struck by a moment when two young girls who had written a letter unsolicited to Ambassador Molly Fee, trained by UNICEF and USAID, supported in their education in terms of their ability to read and write. They wrote letters that I would have been proud to have my daughter read to an ambassador. They wrote them beautifully. They delivered them powerfully. And it was a reminder that even in the midst of a refugee camp, children are resilient. They have hopes. They have dreams. They want to learn and they deserve that opportunity in peace. Only the people of South Sudan in the end can make peace. They have to want peace, but this is a critical moment for the United States to show leadership in making that path towards peace possible. And I am so grateful to everyone who is taking real risks to deliver humanitarian support, training, encouragement, resources that there might still be a path towards peace in South Sudan. Senator, thank you and please join me in thanking you.