 Well, good morning everyone. Welcome to CSIS. My name is Richard Downey, Deputy Director of the Africa Programme here, and we're here this morning to discuss South Sudan at a very, very bleak moment in its short history. As I'm sure you'll be aware, the country's been torn apart by civil war at just two and a half years after starting life as an independent state. The rival camps supporting President Salvekir and Riyat Mishar have become more entrenched since the fighting broke out in December. The army split into rival factions. It's been joined on the battlefield by an assortment of militia groups, some from outside the country, barely under control of the warring parties, not to mention the Ugandan military, which is also involved. Fighting has continued despite the cessation of hostilities agreed back in January, and the war really reflects a rupture in the ruling party, the SPLM, and the military, the SPLA. Both bodies have failed to make that transition from liberation movement into modern army and the government of an independent state, respectively. Most of all, though, the conflict really reflects a failure of leadership by both Salvekir and Riyat Mishar and the broader political elite whose political ambitions and from at least the perception over here, uncompromising stances have brought the country to its knees. And as usual, it's the ordinary South Sudanese people who are suffering. Untold thousands dead, more than a million displaced, 3.7 million we hear facing severe food shortages. Peace negotiations in Addis and Ethiopia have been stop-start. They're on hold currently due to resume later this month. The United States has expressed its unhappiness with the apparent foot-dragging that's going on in Addis. President Obama last week issued an executive order that clears the way for sanctions to be imposed on individuals considered to represent a threat to peace. So the situation could not be more urgent. Time to find and explore solutions is now, and we're here this morning to discuss what those solutions might look like and what the international community, the United States in particular, can do to contribute. We're not here to apportion blame this morning. We want to focus on the task ahead and consider practical steps for how South Sudan can get itself out of this mess. Understandably, emotions are running high right now, but I hope we can encourage a calm, reflective discussion this morning. We have three speakers joining us to discuss the issues. On my left is Awan Gwal-Riak. He serves as the Minister in the Office of the President of the Republic of South Sudan. In this role, he is responsible for coordinating policy development and implementation across all government ministries. And he's here in Washington this week as a special envoy to, an envoy of President Selvakir for talks with the U.S. government on the conflict. And in particular, to discuss what can be done to try to implement a permanent ceasefire, promote national healing and reconciliation, and address the very urgent humanitarian situation. In the middle, in the middle of the group here, we have John Temin, who's Director of the Africa Programs at the United States Institute of Peace. Primarily, his work at USIP is focused on helping to end Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia's multiple conflicts and prevent new violence. He also follows developments elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. And at the end of our row, we have Zak Burton. He's Senior Advisor to the Office of the Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan at the U.S. Department of States. Before that, he was Senior Analyst for the two Sudans for International Crisis Group. So we're delighted to have all three of you here with us this morning. You have their bios, which explain who they are in more detail. But without delay, I'd like to turn to Minister to start us off this morning with some remarks. Thank you. Thanks, Richard. My colleagues in the panel invited guests here, ladies and gentlemen. Let me take this opportunity to thank CSIS for this wonderful opportunity to be with you today on the issues of South Sudan. We know that you have built continued interest in Sudan, not only now, but since our decades of struggle, the U.S. has been supportive. We know that we value the relationships between us and the United States. Without the help of the United States, I think this young nation wouldn't have been in surface. And during the need, we need to engage ourselves from time to time. My presentation here will not be strictly to the topic, but I would be interested to bring a little background of South Sudan and the facts. Because knowing the facts, it's easy to find solutions. It's also easy to understand the issues and how we can find the way forward. South Sudan is one of the youngest nations, still a baby nation. It came into existence on 9th July 2011 as a result of referendum based on the Compensate Peace Agreement that was signed in 2005. It has a population of over 11 million, which we think could be more if we conduct our own census. We have more than 60 ethnic groups in the country. And the size of our country is bigger than the size area of Afghanistan and France. With the facts that were in the ground, and I think most of you know, South Sudan has been hit twice by two civil wars. One in 1955, all the way to 1972. Imagine that. That was a long period when we had a local autonomy. And again, from 1983 to 2005, when we got the era of the CPA, which gave the best to our country. It has been indeed a quite long period. South Sudan is also very rich in terms of resources, oil, minerals, animals, and even human resource, which is a growing young population. The two wars affected us seriously. We do not have infrastructure. South Sudan is a very virgin land, nothing even if we talk of reconstruction. Our president mentioned it, it is really construction because we never had anything in place. During the SPLA struggle in 1994, our late chairman and the leadership of the SPLM convened a convention in a place called Shukudum in South Sudan. And that was the time we introduced the civil authority in New Sudan. It usually stayed as the movement that was fighting. But when we captured some of the areas, it was realized that there is a need for us to have a civil authority, at least to govern the issues of our civilians, to differentiate it from the army. And this introduction of new civil authority of New Sudan emerged as a result of that Shukudum convention. Having mentioned the fact that people were fighting, one thing come obvious in mind, we lost many generations in illiteracy because there was no proper schools. We never had skills in many things. Even today, when we talk of little things that were seen in Juba, it was from the support of the neighboring countries, is Africa in particular. So we never had skills. And with the introduction of civil authority, our late chairman used to call it survival structures. Survival structures, they were the same combatants that were taken from the army to come and rule because we never have professionals. So you get, in the area of maintenance of law and order, we have those who assume the work of the police and the same thing also with the administrators. We call them survival structures because we have nothing. And the little we have, we must utilize it. We did not have many ABCD in many of our institutions that were created. When 2005 came, we were also faced with the first challenge. We had cans, that is civil authority of New Sudan, the officials that were in the liberated areas. We also had the officials that were in the government control areas. And these two workforces was a big challenge of how you can bring them to assume the work of the civil servant given the fact that we have a peace in our country. That one faced our government immediately upon the signing of Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the intervention of our leadership made it very clear that those who were in the liberated areas and those who were in the government control areas are South Sudanese. And they have to be harmonized based on merits, experiences, and some qualifications. That period took us long to stabilize. The second challenge immediately, that emerge were the issue of militias because we have some of our people who were also fighting the SPLM, SPLA. Also with the intervention of our president, Salfa Kirmayadid, he choose the past to buy peace by integrating the militias into our security sector. And of course the militias are not people who are trained as well as our fighters were also not trained in doctrine of military so that they can serve professionally. With the huge numbers of militias in search of peace they were integrated in the SPLA. That was a challenge but our president choose the path of uniting the country. He didn't say those should go away. No, they were integrated. These are the effects that happen in our country in regard to the situation that we were really facing. In 2010, at the elections, we were also hit with the crisis of those who lost the elections. Maybe most of you were aware of the acute problem after 2010 was the issue of George Arthur, who was a general commander who fought during the liberation struggle. When he failed the elections, it turned out to be a rebellion and I think we lost many lives of our Sudanese in that. This was followed also subsequently by General David Yao Yao and I think most of you were aware of a process that we committed among ourselves in regards to that path. If these are the challenges, my presence today here as a special envoy of President Selfer Kir Mayadit will be on the principle of openness because we have to talk straight showing the challenges that we have in order to find solutions and it will not be more political to say that I want to massage things. No, these are clear challenges and they were not making of our late chairman. They are not also making of President Kir. These are the challenges and the realities we have and if these are the realities we have, then our problem is always divine as the status of the first where they are and the expectations. Our expectations to be a professional army is another thing that we need and the reality is there. Moving into this to have reforms in the security sector and especially in the country like Sudan which is a fragile state given the background that I mentioned here earlier, the approaches must be of careful understanding and good approach because fragility is a problem. Our President went through many things in order to bring that country into existence through his policies that he was not reactionary. Today with what happened in our country on December 15, which was another challenge, it emerged in our SPLM leadership as mentioned earlier by Richard who had two documents to be passed in the National Liberation Council. That is the Constitution to guide the party and the manifesto. The manifesto went very well. The Constitution went with some views that were contrary to one another and it was very simple. It will not bring even misunderstanding if there is nothing that was behind. Modes of voting, 5% that was given to the President to select and appoint people to parliament whether to appoint the deputy chairman of the party or to be elected. These are issues that will not bring the language of guns. The total number of the delegates in the Liberation Struggle Council, it was 136. 8 had different views. 128 agreed on principle and the Constitution was passed. We never expected that we will use a language of guns among ourselves again. Also being a young nation we needed also to grow on principles of democracy, rule of law, respect of human rights and to be like other nations. I know it's not easy because we have the realities that we have to go through them gradually and we have that aspiration of becoming also like a country that respects the norms of democracy. If it resulted into something that didn't turn good, the practice of us exercising the democracy in our country, we know that the leadership of Selphakir Mayadid is taking it as a challenge also to bring peace back and he mentioned it several times that I do not want to take the people of South Sudan back to war nor himself interested again to go to the bush. When this crisis broke out on December 15th, immediately after three days he declared that he is interested for peaceful settlement of the crisis and on December 23rd he appointed the delegation for negotiations and his messages were very clear. What happened was very sad and I'm not here to talk much because I know that part there is a body that is appointed already for investigation into what happened, so I will not be interested to dwell much on the area of what happened on December 15th so that I'd not look here as defensive or trying to point fingers at any side. No, I'm just mentioning as facts generally to help some of you which I know most of you are aware of the issues. The view we look at the peace talks in Addis, it's a commitment and we also thank US, Troika, EU and regional leaders for intervening immediately to bring us back on table and I want to assure you on that first day when our two delegations met in Addis, our Chief Negotiator Honourable Nial Deng Nial when he straight reaching the other Chief Negotiator on the other side and that was General Taban one another. We don't consider this as a fight between us and Khatum, a fight between us and another country. It's something internal except approaching it is where we really need a great support. We don't want to lose that time so that mistress could grow. We have our people suffered through that and there are people today in the UN camps with very bad conditions. We are losing children every day inside camps because of bad conditions. We know that if rainy season is also coming, it's not pleasant. We said we need to engage our mediators should engage the two parties that are fighting among ourselves, among themselves, in the state of making it a broader conference immediately when we know a session of hostilities agreement is not well consolidated, it's not respected. There is a need to put mechanisms of verification and monitoring in the grounds to ensure the safety and security of our citizens and also to give human humanitarian access to the needy people. This is what we view because when we heard that agreement up to today, I'm talking since January 23rd, we do not have monitors who can verify that and again I'm not interested to say it's government violating, it's the rebels violating, it's not my role here, but the fact that we put the mechanisms is still not in place. In the last EGAT Extraordinary Summit in Addis Ababa, it was resolved that there will be a protection and deterrent force to be deployed to protect the monitors that can verify this session of hostilities and also to protect our installations, oil fields. As a government, our President immediately accepted it. It's not because of anything else that we cannot protect the oil fields, but we do not want a fight to continue among ourselves. The other side rejected the idea of protection and deterrent force, but we still feel with the support, we can still make it. If that face is dealt with carefully according to the roadmap of our President, we need to have a national political dialogue. This will allow those who are fearing to come out from the camps if the agreement is respected of cessation of hostilities and they can also be participants in that conference. And maybe a question will come in if we say we need to do this in the country, the question will come in immediately. What about those who pick up arms? Will they feel secure? Will they have that confidence and trust? We say yes. Our President gave General Amnesty several times. We are also interested to get support so that we build confident trust among ourselves with the support of EGAT and international community so that we can convene and talk. And it's not first time that our people fought among themselves. It happened and they reconciled. So this is the way we look into these issues. We mentioned that we are ready for the talks and we need a good approach so that it can end this. Declaration of principles of how we can conduct the conference will be there. And I personally, I mentioned it several times, that with that conference it will bring all its stakeholders and I believe even there will be no any role of mediation that is there but it will be there to help to assist as a facilitation because the views that will come in is reforms in the security sector, reforms in the judiciary and all other institutions of the government. I do not think there will be one or other groups that are sitting on this side. If I'm saying we need reforms in judiciary then I will have another group on the other side who will say no, no, no, we don't need that. This will be the time that we are out the views of how we also examine our institutions and the way we can move the country forward with the nice reforms. It will be a general responsibility for all of us. As I mentioned earlier, it was not a making of President Kir so that it will be seen as government is protecting its status quo, no. Even our brothers on the other side, they were in that government for long and it was not easy to just wipe people away and say we got good people now, you move home. It has to be done in a systematic manner that is also respecting the rights of others. So I believe in that conference it will be successful because it will be views that we think of how we can govern ourselves and gradually we will move. I know it will be not, it will not be a matter of one day or two. That will bring us immediately to expectations. It's something that will grow given the facts that we have, given the leg of its skills that we have and this where I also come in here. I had a meeting with the USAID and I mentioned that there is a need for US as the midwife of the birth of the country of South Sudan not to abandon us at this time and say he's punishing because the facts are there and they are not making of any one of us. These are the realities we have in the grounds and if there is anything we need most is the support, not just punishing us. If we say we don't need talks, well and good they will be say these people are distracting and they are allowing this conflict to spill also to the region but we are committed and if we have views it will be resolved in a way that will bring us together. We are convinced and even when you go to the people of South Sudan today, US role is known without it. There is no country called South Sudan. So we always look forward to improve our relations with the US government and the people because some of you invested big time on our issues and there is a need to continue with that support till we put our feet in the ground solid. I will not last long because I know the time is against us here. I will stop to give chance to other colleagues. We will be interested later on for responding to any questions. Thank you for your attention. Thank you minister. I want to turn next to Zach Burton to speak for the US government on this. Thanks Richard and thanks to CSIS for hosting us today on an issue I think we all in this room care deeply about. Let me first say despite the many crises and priorities at the moment around the world just articulate how extremely engaged the US government is as one of South Sudan's longest and closest friends. I can tell you administration, the many members of the Congress and the many individuals elsewhere in foreign policy circles many of whom are in this room who have spent time working in South Sudan on South Sudan and with the South Sudanese over the years have been incredibly mobilized since the crisis unfolded deeply concerned by the devastating nature of the conflict and the speed with which it unfolded and they feel extremely committed to the people of South Sudan. My boss, the US special envoy, the White House, the State Department, USAID, our embassy partners on the Hill have been deeply involved in supporting the EGAD mediation efforts to end this crisis. The humanitarian response, the efforts to stand up a monitoring verification mechanism efforts to support the many IDPs displaced as a result of this crisis as well as the UN's critical efforts to protect civilians. And the time and efforts and resource of this administration like today will continue to be mobilized will continue to assist the people of South Sudan away out of this crisis. And above all, I think as the minister mentioned the need to talk solutions. I know the special envoy and the administration are particularly ready to stand firmly behind those who want to talk solutions, who want to chart a peaceful way forward, and who want to help the people of South Sudan realize their hard fought the benefits and fruits of their hard fought independence. With that, I'll be very brief. I know there'll be plenty of time and question and answer, but I'll just outline what we see as the key elements of the way forward in basic terms and what we continue to press all parties to the conflict both here in Otis at the talks and in Cuba. First is to, number one is to agree is to implement what's already been agreed. And in this regard, I mean in particular the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in January. Since it's been signed, it's been disregarded by both sides. It's been open discussion and announcement of offensives. There's been squandering of too many lives and resources on military efforts that we really don't see as a means out of this crisis. We've consistently said we don't think there's a military solution to this crisis and parties must come to talk. And part of this in particular is cooperation with deployment of the monitoring and verification mechanism. The administration since before talks began have been helping to set up to design to support EGAT in funding a monitoring mechanism. We're very eager to see that deployed. There have been problems in terms of the deployment to date, some restrictions, some discussions of access. We need cooperation from the government and from anti-government forces and from others in terms of deploying those teams as well as ultimately in agreeing to and deploying a regional force as mentioned to help both protect the monitoring teams to do their job and also to act as a deterrent against continued hostilities. Number two is the humanitarian situation which we all know is quite grave at the moment. We've pressed both parties consistently to allow complete access in all areas of South Sudan held by pro or anti-government forces and help facilitate this as a partner. The people of South Sudan had little say and little interest in this crisis and yet as Richard mentioned, they are the victims. So we need facilitation from both sides to the conflict to be partners in delivering humanitarian needs. The rainy season is now here in South Sudan and the risk of famine is increasing. We've seen increasing discussion of this. Many of you may have seen the New York Times recently did an editorial on this. It was really a serious need for additional money and support to help prevent a real catastrophe in South Sudan. In this regard in terms of humanitarian assistance and delivery, continued delays, checkpoints, harassment of humanitarian operation when coupled with the lack of urgency about the growing need is really quite concerning to all of us. And a big element of this and we can talk about this more later is cooperation with Unmiss. The UN has a long history in South Sudan and it's really been embattled in the middle of this crisis and they are the representatives of the international community and they need to be respected by all parties not least in their attempts to try and meet the needs, protection needs and assistance needs of the really incredible numbers of people who have been displaced. Number three is accountability. We have and continue to encourage all parties to the conflict to fully cooperate with the African Union Commission of Inquiry and their investigations into human rights abuses and potential atrocities. We've offered our support to the AU in this regard and we also welcome a strong role for national mechanisms. So the three reconciliation bodies that exist in South Sudan I think can have a real role if they're empowered, if they're given the spaced off rate, if they're given the support necessary can play a role both in terms of accountability and reconciliation going forward. And fourth and really above all is the political process and we've pressed all sides again that they must get serious about an inclusive political dialogue toward resolution of this crisis which as we know has started has political roots. Absolutely necessary for that dialogue if we're to achieve a sustainable peace, viable governance arrangements and institutional strengthening going forward and those who have undermined the EGAD process to date have tried to narrow the process, exclude others. Those are among the individuals that may be eligible for sanctions as well as many of you have seen the executive order released by the White House earlier this week which is targeted both to try and say send a signal to those who are committed continued abuses but also those who aren't interested in the peace process and who would rather deter that at this stage. And in terms of the political process let me mention just four brief points. One the administration does not have any prescriptions. Our view is only that a dialogue and its outcome are credible that it's inclusive and that it's capable of transitioning this country out of the disaster and towards a sort of South Sudan 2.0. What we do not support and what we've continued to press the parties on is a need for inclusivity. What we do not support is a stitch up among political elites. We continue to work hard with those who are trying to ensure broader civil society participation participation of other political parties of churches of those outside of the elite circles of where this crisis started. We think that's absolutely critical for anything to be sustainable going forward and so South Sudan doesn't revert to crisis again. It's got to be a broader base to this agreement and to and confidence in the way forward. Two as mentioned that we think the parties must take this process seriously. Must sit down together under EGAT auspices and must determine the way forward. Must review and consider governance and institutional arrangements to decide what is viable, what's sustainable, what will engender reconciliation, what will enjoy the broad confidence of South Sudanese and what can help pave the way toward a new constitution, new elections and a new beginning. Three there's clearly been an attempt by some to paint a picture of business as usual. I think that's something of a front to the people of South Sudan have been affected by this process and by this conflict. As Special Envoy Booth said a few weeks ago business as usual is not a viable way forward. A way forward starts with acknowledgement of the reality of what's happened in the deep institutional and societal fractures that have been laid bare by this conflict. And fourth just on the negotiations the Special Envoy myself several other members of our team and of the U.S. government have been consistently out in Addis Ababa between between the negotiations and Juba trying to support the EGAT mediation. Let me say we're incredibly grateful for EGAT leadership on this they came they answered the phone right away on this crisis they've stepped up and we're really fortunate to have a mediation team that is quite senior quite respected and and quite well known to the South Sudanese people. There's been very important progress to date there as I mentioned some of the need to implement what's what's been agreed so far but at the same time there's a degree to which the process is is stuck in tactics in process and I think in order in the long run to bear fruit they really there really need to be some bold moves in Juba to unlock this situation some moves that restore the confidence of a broad cross-section of South Sudanese a demonstration of political will to begin what I think many of the friends of South Sudan here in the region and more broadly see as necessary I really think that's necessary if we're going to take support the talks going forward to reach a viable solution there's obviously a host of other issues that the minister and others the minister and Richard mentioned and happy to talk about those more in question and answer thanks very much thank you Zach John over to you for some comments thank you and let me add my thanks to CSIS for organizing this discussion I want to start with an observation which is that we have heard in these fast past few days a discussion of a possible famine in South Sudan we are hearing about 3.7 million people potentially at risk for starvation at the same time we are in the midst of a three-week break in negotiations in Addis on these issues and I find that juxtaposition remarkable and sad I don't know quite who is to blame for that I suppose there's a lot of blame to go around but that simple fact I think is striking we've heard some talk coming from Juba that that things are returning to normal a bit and I disagree with that I think that 70,000 people living in UN camps is far from normal I think that people from certain groups not feeling safe to walk the streets of the capital city and that is the case still is not normal I think that having a large contingent of a neighboring country's army on your land is not normal and I think that having over one million people now displaced because of the violence is far from normal this is not normal situation it's an extraordinary situation and an extraordinary situation requires a sense of urgency from all the parties but especially from the protagonists who are doing the fighting and I'm not sure that we're seeing that sort of sense of urgency right now what I fear is that the logic of negotiations in in Sudan and now South Sudan that we've seen for decades is prevailing here and that logic is that you fight on the battlefield to try to gain advantage and then that advantage translates to the negotiating table and that the parties like their chances right now on the battlefield and are trying to to see what they can do there and then maybe we'll get to negotiations sometime later there's also a logic that we often see of fighting during the dry season and then negotiating during the rainy season and the rains as we know are coming we need a deal out of out of what's happening in Addis Ababa but and as Zach I think makes this point very well it's not just any deal that is needed it's a broad deal it's a comprehensive deal it's a deal that involves a broad swath of the South Sudanese population and it's not a deal that is just among elites and it's not a deal that tries to resurrect the old status quo anything that does that I think is far from sufficient and I think that the role of the international community right now is to be constantly pushing against that sort of narrow deal and constantly encouraging the broad deal but not allowing for the narrow deal I think the momentum if things sort of are left to their own will be towards that kind of narrow deal and I don't think that that's what says Sudan needs right now in some ways the comprehensive peace agreement was a narrow deal between two belligerent parties and I think we're seeing some of the consequences of that now over these last few months. I think it is good that there's a conversation going on within the SPLM as to reform of the party and a lot of the roots of what's happened here has been the failure of the SPLM as a party to handle some internal divisions and to manage differences within the party so that SPLM process is needed but it is far from sufficient to resolving what's going on here and if anybody who's thinking that some sort of SPLM deal is going to fix things I think that is far from the truth. This is going to be a long term process here. This is a marathon I think and not a sprint in terms of trying to fix things and there's a lot of different pieces of that process and I think there's still a lot of lack of clarity as to how those pieces fit together. We've got negotiations in Addis right now and a cessation of hostilities. We have talked about a national dialogue process and I think it's very good to hear the minister emphasize that. I think that's central. We have talked of the constitution making process that is has stalled. We have talked of justice and accountability processes truth and reconciliation processes and one of the big questions that I struggle with and I know many do is how do all these things fit together? We don't have a big picture roadmap for how these things fit together or at least if there are some that exist they don't think that they're being shared very widely. We need that kind of big picture view as to how all this works and what is the sequencing of these things and also where does all this happen? Right now the center of gravity is in Addis. I think we should all hope that it moves into South Sudan at some point but I also don't think that much of this can happen in Juba right now. I don't think Juba is an enabling environment and a safe environment for many people to engage in these processes and these conversations right now. I think it's also the case that a lot of these types of processes we're talking about they take a long time. We know from successful national dialogue processes and elsewhere that they take years. This is one of the lessons we all hope Sudan is learning right now as they talk a lot about a national dialogue process. I think that that raises a lot of questions about the idea of having elections in 2015 in South Sudan. I think elections in the midst of a process like a national dialogue process if it's a legitimate process elections can be a problem in the midst of that process. I also think that having an election in anything like the environment that we have right now South Sudan is potentially explosive and potentially sets things back further. I'm all for elections and democratic processes but I think there needs to be a conversation about delaying those elections at least for a little while. I will highlight one bright spot within a lot of the negativity here which has been the role of civil society over the last few months. I think that a lot of civil society groups have come together quite impressively to put together some very good articulations of what needs to happen and a lot of what I'm saying is informed by conversations with a lot of them. If you haven't seen some of the work that one group in particular called Citizens for Peace and Justice has put together I would really encourage reading some of what they're doing. They are just one example but I think they've done a particularly good job in articulating what broad swaths of South Sudanese are looking for and not just the elites. Turned into slightly a different topic the regionalization of the conflict is still something that I'm very concerned about. Obviously so many of the neighbors are involved particularly Sudan. They have been a relatively constructive partner in this I think so far but if they change their calculations and if it proves to be too much to have the UPDF so close to their border that's going to change things a lot and it's going to lead to the even greater regionalization of the conflict and I think that the threat there is that the narrative on this changes more to one about all the neighbors and how do we get them out that's already true to some extent but that could intensify and that pulls the narrative away from the root causes and the deep failures within South Sudan that have led to so much of this crisis. Zach mentioned the commission of inquiry. I think that's a very important process and I think it's a real test of the African Union's ability to respond to these sorts of crises. What happened on December 15th and on the days after that really does matter. If it was a coup attempt obviously that needs to be condemned. If it was not a coup attempt and if there were some of the ethnic targeting that we've heard reported in Juba over the next few days that's a grave violation and that needs to be taken quite seriously as well that raises a lot of questions if that's the case about the current government. So it's critical that the that the commission do a good job also that it consults widely with the social news population that it engages with the broad spectrum of the population that it works transparently and that it does make a real effort at the end to disseminate its findings and to go back and talk to people about what it found. Just again to reference the organization I mentioned earlier Citizens for Peace and Justice they just released a letter that they sent to the commission that if you haven't seen it I would highly recommend they suggest five pillars for their process trust justice reparations institutional reform and memorialization. I think they've done some very good work on that. They also make a point to emphasize the need to combat the culture of impunity. We've talked a lot about that in Sudan and the north over the years and it exists in South Sudan as well. There are people whose political careers should end as a result of what's happened over these past few months and that's at a minimum I think. There should also be serious conversations about accountability for what has happened. We have to remember we're talking about at a very minimum probably 10,000 dead and perhaps many more. I think CPJ also offers some really interesting ideas on hybrid courts that should be considered and there should be a lot more thinking about models from elsewhere and how else that can be done. Let me just close with with three sort of quick points. One also potentially a bright spot is that there are big parts of South Sudan that are not caught up in this conflict and that are not fighting right now. We need to focus on them too and on keeping them out of it and promoting the resilience that exists in those places and also perhaps learning from those places as to why they're not fighting and perhaps there are some lessons to be extracted there that are relevant to the parts of the country that are fighting right now. Second is in building on a point that Zach made, the relationship and some of the rhetoric between the government and the UN is deeply troubling and is not obviously what we'd hope for in a situation like this particularly concerning the bases and the people who are there, the safety of those installations and the people there has to be paramount. That has to be an absolute red line, I think. Final point, and this is a bit further on down the road, I think there does need to be a conversation about when things do move back to normal and are put together different modes of international oversight in South Sudan. To be clear, I'm not talking about sort of heavy international oversight that has been written by some. I don't think that's the case but there are different models. You look at what's happened in Liberia, what's happened elsewhere of how the international community can play a greater, more constructive role in managing particularly finances and other aspects of the country because we have seen a failure of that over the past few years and the past few months in particular. So stop there and look forward to addressing any questions. Great, thank you very much, John. I want to open the floor to questions in a moment but first of all I just ask a question of my own to the minister. One of the messages or themes that seems to have come across in various remarks so far is the perception of the lack of urgency by the protagonists who are there and at its charge with negotiating solution. You say on your side that President Kyr is once a peaceful solution, once an inclusive dialogue but we don't see many signs of the parties entering these talks in a spirit of compromise. One issue just off the top is the position of the four political detainees currently on trial but also the seven former detainees who are now released influential people who are wishing to get involved in these negotiations perhaps could provide a bridge between the two sides. Could you sort of address some of these perceptions here in Washington that there is a lack of compromise currently and what's been done from President Kyr's side to try and push a solution to this very urgent crisis? Thanks once again for having the chance to go straight to the question. Messages of peaceful settlement is a reality because before even the IGAT initiative came up and that's why I mentioned earlier it was after three days immediately and President Kyr mentioned that he needs peaceful settlement to the crisis. That one is there and I mentioned also why we view the talks of Addis to be very critical here is the sense of urgency because when we sign the cessation of hostilities agreement and it is not respected we are very much concerned because the government will not benefit from the crisis in the country. In this state we need the situation to be normal as soon as possible so coming here for the monitors to verify the situation and to stop the fight it is for the interests of our people first. Those who are trapped somewhere and who confine themselves in other certain areas when there is cessation of hostilities is fully respected it gives that confidence back and people will be normal returning to their places and even the rainy season has started they can also cultivate but when people are still fighting it doesn't give confidence to the people who are now in UN camps they feel there is threat though there are people who are out there from other ethnic groups who are walking freely but those who feared what happened it is for our interest to see that we are respecting cessation of hostilities in the first place before we even move further this is why we have the view of us looking into this one critically because language that we are viewing things is a good thing and the same time we don't want that situation to continue in fighting it will not even give the humanitarian access to the other needed areas. About the four as you call them detainees first the terms here are problems in the past before even this crisis you go to our prisons we never have any somebody called political detainee because they view out their their their thoughts in in open manner and we don't arrest people these ones were suspects of the coup and with the investigation which is another pill of the government doing it seven were seen without sufficient evidence their role went somewhere to instigate the public to go on its streets and as a matter of fact we didn't hold on them we cooperated and the government also cooperated a lot to give them to a neighboring country Kenya it is also for their security and safety that's why we did it because it's staying in the country and the hatred that came so far that there are those plotters whom citizen may think that have contributed their safety could be very critical for us as government of how we can release them to the houses and then they feel safe and the government made that initiative and I think most of you are aware we are not controlling them coming to the fore in the state of using the term again detainee and the suspects they are accused and if they are accused we have the courts and that's where they can be seen innocent or proven guilty and that one we don't own it is in judiciary which I believe it we have to respect the due course of law to take its place and you talk already of impunity impunity starts with the people that are also seen if they have contributed it has to be seen if they are not like other seven detainees whom you call detainees we release them so four are accused and they are on trial and and and bringing compromise here as a government will come later on when these four accused are proven guilty this is where the role of constitution comes in here to the president to say I have pardoned and I think in the history of what President Kir has done he has pardoned many many many many people those who pick up arms even David Yau Yau we reach now a settlement and it's one thing that I have to also show the audience here that we have to reach a cessation of hostilities with David Yau Yau who was really a big problem in our country and general amnesties were granted even prior to reaching the agreements those who also pick up arms like George Arthur were also given pardons that's where the role of the president will come in later on to pardon the four if they are found guilty okay thank I will resist the temptation to ask follow-up questions I want to give the audience a chance so first hand up is is ambassador shins there so microphones on its way David Shin George Washington University the members of the panel have identified a long and important list of challenges and problems to be dealt with I haven't heard at all any reference to endemic corruption in South Sudan and I realize that may not be the most immediate problem to grapple with but once there is progress on these other issues if the problem of corruption isn't dealt with you're right back to where you began and someone comment on that thank you let's take a couple of questions at a time and then I'll allow people to respond to a gentleman here yeah my name is Gabriel then I'm both citizen of the US and South Sudan so I'm just speaking on has a consent citizen of both country and picking up from what he said the corruption my main concern you have you to that things should not be usual but especially in the light of executive order coming out that has a citizen and knowing deeply the roots of corruption and what led us to here that I would be very interesting to hear from you what in us bill or in the eye of Obama administration what are the bold move that they are talking about and what the possible executive order or sanction may be because for me as a citizen I'm deeply concerned about what is often a particular those who have destroyed our financial system our institution these are not the sevens and four and they are out of the system now and then my fear is they're going to renegotiate themselves into the agreement and then seeing would be usual that this thing is the civil society really have the key it is the government and the civil society because we the citizens really we should be there the one and in the light of I'd be reading a lot of the articles and opinion about other opinion that the president kid did not descend into power or ascended to power by force he was elected and in that view it is the international community should cooperate to make sure there are conducive and trust in the government so that the president can give back the power when when the time come okay thank you and another question just the lady next to to you then my question is for please introduce yourself if you can my name is blasia vasikari and I am with the european union delegation in washington my question in fact I have two questions the first is the executive order and the sanctions um do they have any teeth is there an effort uh for by them by the u.s administration to send a message uh to the parties of salsa down that please return as soon as possible to the negotiation table this is one question the second question is um what okay the second question is what circulated mainly me I saw it in the in the european press not in american press about the speech of ambassador page and northwestern and what is the position of the american government on this thank you sorry the position of the american government on on what I missed the speech that ambassador page uh gave at northwestern university okay you just for those who don't who didn't see the speech would just explain the context of that I don't want to say more that I should say and put the speaker in a very difficult position because he might answer that question okay well um throwing a a curveball to our uh our panelists here but uh Zach there are a couple of questions about the the motivations and objectives behind the executive order and the sanctions and any other issues you want to tackle as well and please remind me if I forget from the from the various questions there uh very briefly on the speech and I will be breach brief the news of that was a wholly inaccurate representation of the remarks wholly inaccurate and that's the position of the government and I'll leave it at that um on the executive order um as you see the documents are public and and I'll be happy to get those to you but the the EO is particularly targeted those who obstruct the peace process those who target UN peacekeepers those who are responsible for human rights abuses uh and atrocities and those who violate the cessation of hostilities um I think this this was absolutely a message to all parties to the conflict who uh we haven't seen uh cooperate fully with the EGAD process and we haven't seen uh approach it with the urgency that's demanded to the people um you know there there are those who it's clear in inside South Sudan and inside the government who want to put the agenda to the people first and who want to to prove that their government is legitimate by exercising that kind of leadership uh and that kind of responsibility and as I said those are the people that um uh this administration will stand up firmly to support uh and then there are those as the statement from the White House said that would rather be strongmen than statesmen and I think the EO is is certainly a message to those people uh and really it is not targeted as blanket at the government isn't targeted blanket at South Sudan it's really targeted those individuals who want to hinder the process and in effect really should strengthen those who want to take this forward who want to be statesmen rather than than strongmen um that's relationship to the talks I think the EGAD mediators have put forward a range of various models um as as ways to take this forward so far it isn't the decision by the parties to engage in our assessment in a serious dialogue the one that's that's demanded right now and both sides continue to seek gains on the battlefield um that can segue into your discussion about corruption ambassador I mean we obviously agree um that improved financial management uh is critical and need to harness uh South Sudan's resources in in better ways and I think that should be part of the discussion that we're promoting a broad-based discussion uh whether it be an audits or it start an audits or there are sufficient confidence building measures uh to start at an audits and move it in juba we don't have a view as long as it is a broad swath of South Sudanese this can't be just among elites and I think part of that what we're looking for in bold moves is from is from jubin from all parties but it's the kind of political will to say look uh things are broken here and we need to together find a way forward and that part of that should be the electoral john mentioned the elections the electoral process and the timeline um it should be efforts at reconciliation security sector reform and then a range of potential changes to the constitution potential increased uh oversight uh of various sectors not least financial management I think that's really part of the agenda uh if we can identify and the parties can identify what are what are the key things needed to take this process forward I think that can really be the driving engine here um and I think ultimately however this shakes out personally I think investing South Sudanese the government the opposition civil society churches all these groups in a revised and reinvigorated constitutional process is really the way forward we can't we can't move there immediately there are obviously some steps that need to be taken but the constitutional process as some of you know was neglected it wasn't given uh the necessary resources to to be a success it didn't have the kind of political champions necessary and so I think part of this process ultimately should be rooting these actors and and the kind of competition and the kind of dialogue in that process that really I think is where we can address all of these issues um and and and kind of come forward with a better constitution and a more viable uh you know set of arrangements thank you I don't know if I missed anything no that's John is there anything you'd like to add a minister anything you'd like to add straight to corruption that I didn't reflect in my remarks I think I reflected it indirectly when I mentioned weak institutions because when you have institutions there will be systems already of how things can move also the laws because when we came as a new country we were busy to establish institutions the same time enacting laws and a law is what can really divine what is wrong what is not wrong for the bold move that we have taken in that I think there were two ministers uh that fall into this category when some funds gone missing and and and there was a presidential relief for the investigation to take place so we are trying to handle that and we know that corruption when we have proper institutions there will be no room that will allow things to just come out so this goes to what I mentioned about the weak institutions and thank you for that we know it's it's also a disease which we want to get it off okay let's take another round of questions and we'll start with this gentleman here and good morning thank you my name is Henry Legue from the Center for International Private Enterprise uh you have mentioned a number of elements all three of you regarding financial management the need for this to not just be an elite decision process and some of the strong civil society engagement but going off of that what specific role has the private sector played in this peace process both local and international what role can it play and in your opinions what role should it play in this peace process okay let's take a question in the middle of that uh laurence freeman the african desk at our magazine uh to mr yak there's been a discussion about bold plans and initiatives uh and you mentioned this conference and I was saying that the way to maybe present some bold ideas is to present a policy that unites the country and I think if you look at the tamazoo zones that were put forward by Dr. Lowell Dang in his latest book uh integration of northern and southern sudan gives a potential to give people a economic dividend and I think this was not done when the country separated I think was a big mistake by the west we should have just moved in with credits or just build water infrastructure grow food when people are desperate they do desperate things so I wanted to get your view on whether we would go forward even though people might say it's impractical we don't have the security I think we need impractical interventions to change the thinking of people in this process if people are not taken care of there's not going to be any solution no matter all the details we make on accountability law justice also I wanted to know if you would speak to the fact that I've heard rumors in washington that uh people want to see a president uh here replaced before the 2015 election I don't know if that's true or not and also that to be an interim government set up prior to the 2015 election thank you and let's take a question with the gentleman there yeah Richard Parkins the American Friendsley Episcopal Church of sedan uh guess my question follows up on the one that was just raised and that is uh various measures that have been suggested uh will involve an extended period of time in other words these are not going to be reforms that happen overnight and I guess the question is indeed if you were to postpone the elections uh as it was suggested uh what sort of an interim governing body would you have to create the safety and the security if you will the safe space to allow some of these important reform processes to go forward okay thanks so uh so a few questions that let's start with the minister this time um tackle the issue of bold moves you know what are the sort of bold moves that uh that from from president Keir's side could really help to kick start this negotiation process and then and then if you could address the idea of various ideas plans being floated uh for some kind of interim or transitional government uh and uh um whether the president Keir and Rick Michelle would have a place in that well the bold moves uh I think when I mentioned the roadmap uh we have some points and doesn't matter which one come first but the most important one which was very critical and we see is the cessation of hostilities so that the country is normal humanitarian access to the needy people resettlement of IDPs and we are not also happy with the with the with the many of our citizens going out the country so with with this one is what we have seen as the very important part this one also we have step two which is a national political dialogue a broader based bringing all the stakeholders of South Sudan together to examine their systems and issues and then find a way forward because I said there will be no anybody rejecting because we need how we can move from status where we are to a different location which is our expectation that is on the national political dialogue and even in the team that we sent to Addis it's not the SPLM alone we have other political parties involved because we have seen it as a national thing uh we also have the council for reconciliation and healing is being headed by our vice president and it has started to engage the community leaders churches in the country and this is to help also bringing the confidence building again among our communities it's it's a process that we have seen it's very important we also have in our roadmap strengthening and building our institutions to be strong to prevent corruption malpractices and so many things this is the area when I came and met with the USAID and you as authorities I said it is a good thing to give humanitarian assistance to our needy people the same time do not neglect us because there will be another better time for us to start we are at the foundation and we do not need also interval that is long to abandon the way that we are building and strengthening our institutions we need institutions that are democratic even the transfer of power that has caused us a lot of problems we need that area to have some expertise to support our people so that we adopt it I know in the history of all the countries post-war conflict period is always so difficult it's not only with us it's it's a fact that has to be to be seen properly and we need a big support because even we have seen how many incidents that are happening in other countries from the individual that went to fight in a war sometimes there is trauma and a lot of things and then you act in a very reckless manner losing even the lives of the people imagine with the decades that we were struggling it's not a fun so we need the support in building our institutions and this is one of the roadmap in 2015 I think the US institution I first because they were involved in in our referendum and it turned out very successful because for us having no expertise we couldn't have conducted by ourselves so these are the areas we need also to have preparations because elections is one thing but preparing ourselves for it is a different thing altogether we need sensors to be conducted very well constituencies to be seen based on the population voter registration list things like that preparation for us to reach and there will be no another good time in ahead of us if we don't start now this is the area we need a big support so that this crisis will end when we approach in a correct and careful manner it will avoid so many problems in the nearest future these are the roadmap we have in the process which one come first we can see they can even go simultaneously simultaneously to bring all these solutions in place with the support of also of the international community I think anything well just just to press you on one issue if the if the cessation of hostilities is a prerequisite for all of this roadmap and and we we've had one in place in theory since january and and if that's what's stopping anything moving forward then then can't we is you know there's no way around that can you not go to the the negotiating table despite the fact that there is fighting going on on the ground because let's face it neither side is fully in control of events on the ground or the people doing the fighting yes we are ready for that and even we made it very clear that for the agendas to be drawn we can have that the small body to sit to frame the agenda that will constitute the conference these are all preparations that we have and and we didn't even make it to be our own process as a government we open it to our civil societies change leaders and and and and all intellectuals and our partners also to assist so framing the agenda to allow the conference to happening this is a move that we are also doing we also have the move in the SPLM political side our team went to Addis so that we engage ourselves even on the other side of the rebels those who are still SPLM we are also involving them in our issues of the party they can come in participate so that we can realize the reforms that are needed and it is good that with the intervention people coming in right away during the the post-war conflict we need services to the people sometimes you can have security through development if if if services are there we have all facilities that are needed and people are at work private sector has come in and this is the area we need the support of the U.S firms and and and big companies to to come to our country because we know that they respect the human rights also in terms of giving social corporate responsibilities in in in other different sectors that they can also assist our people it will not be just profit taken and that's it they will also give good peace dividends to our people I believed the the coming of the such services to our country in this critical time is very important okay thank you we're virtually out of time but I'll allow John and and Zach to make a few closing points thank you let me just pick up on a couple of things the minister said again it's really good to hear about some sort of roadmap that's being developed I do hope that when the time is right that will be shared first of all with the people of south Sudan broadly and also perhaps with with those of us who who follow it closely minister talked about the phase two in that roadmap of national political dialogue one of the big questions I would raise is who is going to lead that I would suggest that the government is not the right entity to lead that that you need to find some sort of independent credible third party I think that's one of the lessons that can be taken from other similar national dialogue and political transformation processes elsewhere minister also mentioned a a council on reconciliation and healing and of course it's it's good to hear about something like that but I also question whether the vice president is the person to lead that I don't say that because of him I say that because he's a government representative and we have to acknowledge the fact that for many south Sudanese the government is seen as one of the belligerents in the current conflict as one of the conflicting parties for one of the belligerents to be leading a reconciliation process I don't know that that works I think we also need to note that there already was a reconciliation committee headed by Archbishop Daniel Deng so it'll be interesting to learn how these things fit together you know I don't think we necessarily need more bodies I think we need the bodies that exist to work and to be effective also just to note on the private sector question I have a very interesting question and you know private sector and so many others are the kinds of voices that we need in the conversation that we need in the room which traditionally has not been the case the private sector in south Sudan is is pretty small and overlaps a lot with the the government and political sector too you know so many of the the private sector interests in south Sudan are not south Sudanese they're from neighboring countries which is part of the reason for so much interest amongst the neighbors but yes more of those voices more of the less heard from voices is critical right now thank you and the negotiations and the process more generally that there are certainly things you know there are the immediate events of what happened and then you can zoom out and take the broader view about a collective failure to transition to exercise the kind of leadership necessary to take south Sudan forward and I think that's what this administration is looking for and is is looking to support that includes the president himself who has a history previously of of unity of reconciliation of being able to rise rise above the fray and and again I think that's what those that are willing to take that track now those are those are the people that this administration and other friends of south Sudan around the world are looking to support um we will remain uh wholly engaged on this both in terms of the short term what's necessary to sort of chart an immediate way out of the crisis achieve stability get to a real cessation of hostilities and as john said uh in the marathon in the longer term of the kind of reforms uh that are necessary um to sort of uh as I said build a south Sudan 2.0 and and that's really I think what the people of south Sudan are looking for uh we're grateful for your continued partnership your support uh and your ideas and and uh thanks again to everyone at the CSIS for hosting thanks thanks very much I know that minister has to go off to another meeting uh now but uh john raised a couple of issues there that you might wish to respond to about you know the leadership of this reconciliation process and the broader roadmap the reconciliation process uh it's the the part that government comes in is facilitation of the terms of resources because our civil society is especially uh in what they are doing they need also support we have to ike bishops ding bull as he mentioned it is true is the one uh sharing that uh under the supervision of vice president that is also to help in coordinating with the council because our role is to bring peace but when we come to reconciliation we always leave it to uh people that are seen in partial and it has been on even in the issue of us with the David yaw yaw those who brought that peace to come and cessation of hostilities uh these are churches and they are well respected by both parties uh this is only in terms of support and we do not have vice president directly involved in this uh with the role that we have generally in the roadmap we will be committed and I came here to listen to your views also and that's why I mentioned openness the the problems we have we have to be very open telling because that's the way it is to be diagnosed that's the way we can help get the help in our issues I'm really thankful here to center of the strategic international studies and all of you who have come in I value your contribution and I will take all these views back home I believe they will help uh in the way we are moving forward once again thank you very much and thanks to all three of our panelists and uh good words this morning and let's hope that they translate into uh spirit of uh good sentiment of the peace talks thank you