 Good morning everybody. Thanks very much for coming. I'm John Tenman, director of the Africa program here. My first job is to ask you to please silence your cell phones. Let me also welcome the audience who's watching online. Thank you very much for joining us. We're very pleased to be able to host what I think is a really important conversation this morning concerning the crisis in South Sudan that I know many of you have been following. Today is May 15th. That means it's been exactly five months since the implosion in the world's newest country and many of us have watched with great alarm the tragic results reports of 10,000 and perhaps many more killed and more than a million displaced. Perhaps a bright spot last Friday when an agreement was signed between President Kier and Dr. Mishar, though we have already seen aspects of it violated sadly. I think one of the most positive parts of that agreement was some language and I quote, to ensure the inclusion of all South Sudanese stakeholders in the peace process and the negotiation of a transitional government of national unity in order to ensure broad ownership of the agreed outcomes. And it goes on to say the stakeholders include, among others, political parties, civil society and faith-based leaders. Today we have a chance to hear from three of the leading civil society members who have been working on these issues from various places and whose input we hope will be very critical to the peace process going forward. This includes one of the leading diaspora members who's been deeply engaged on these issues so we're going to touch on that aspect of the equation as well. We've heard so much over these last few months from the belligerents, the folks with guns. Today we have a chance to hear from those without the guns whose voices are as or perhaps more important in bringing a more sustainable peace to South Sudan. You should have bios in front of you so I'm not going to go into great detail but just to briefly introduce we have immediately to my left David Deng who is the research director with the South Sudan Law Society and then next to him is Anyeth Tawul, the founder and director of the Roach Project for South Sudan. Both David and Anyeth have also been very involved with something called Citizens for Peace and Justice which they will explain further. And then we also have Isaac Garang, the director of international affairs with the Alliance for the South Sudanese in the diaspora. I should note as well we were supposed to have two additional panelists including Reverend James Ninru and Edmund Yacani very sadly due to health and other factors they were not able to travel to the U.S. so we regret they're not here, hopefully they are watching us online today. So our plan for this morning is I'm going to have a discussion and ask a series of questions to our panelists and we're going to have a discussion up here concerning many of the pressing issues that a lot of us are talking about on South Sudan and then we're going to open it up to the audience for questions in this room and also questions from our friends who are watching online. If you're watching online the way to ask a question is through Twitter using the hashtag South Sudanese Voices so we welcome those questions as well. So to get started we'll get to a lot of the issues of the day but I wanted to start with a question about whether our panelists saw this coming whether you were at all surprised by what's happened in South Sudan over the past five months and whether South Sudanese and also the international community perhaps could have done a better job in seeing this on the horizon. David, let me start with you on that. I guess yes and no would be my answer. Certainly people knew things were not going right in the country but an outbreak of violence had been predicted numerous times from the national elections to the referendum and I think it got to be a sort of common refrain that everyone was predicting the outbreak of violence. Of course when it actually happens it's one thing to be predicted and one thing to actually see it. Another way of looking at it is that really the conflict never ended in 2005 and we can look at parts of the country that had been embroiled in really large-scale conflict with huge casualties and you know, Zhongli State is an excellent example where if you go back to 2007 there was a forced disarmament campaign over a period of a few months you had I think 1,500 people killed and about 3,000 weapons recovered so one person killed for every two weapons that situation persisted for many years. Most recently my organization, South Sudan Law Society did a survey in Kobo and Pibor and some other places. We found that 27% of households reported having one or more people killed within the last two years. So I mean in terms of the murder rates and sort of indicators are those of a conflict full-scale conflict across the country. It's just that this was relegated to a very remote rural area and wasn't something that people really had to deal with and when violence broke out in Juba on December 15th it was there in all of our faces and it was, you know, it's not something that anyone could run from. So yes, I mean I think it was surprising and shocking but maybe in the way that someone who lives in an earthquake zone is surprised when the actual earthquake happens but eventually it was going to happen. And Yeth, were you surprised? I was surprised that it happened and I was sad that it happened but I cannot say that I was extremely shocked that it did happen in the end. The fact that the conflict took the turn that it did and that the whole country was engulfed in civil war within a matter of hours and days is a big indication that the conditions were ripe for it. We've had, you know, governance issues, lack of reconciliation, lack of accountability, no service delivery, the security sector issue. The fact that 70% of the SBLA defected whether to the opposition or just refusing to fight is an indication that a lot of the things that we thought were in place were nothing but a myth. So I think in that respect everybody at all levels has to really look at the role that they played in either contributing or being silent or the role that they should have played to avoid what had happened. So in that respect, I don't think that, I mean, I'm not surprised. I was very sad, saddened like everybody else. But we have to look at those conditions and ensure that those conditions are addressed so that we can actually move forward as a country. And Isaac, you've been watching this from a bit further away but deeply involved with diaspora efforts. You and others in the diaspora, were you concerned about this? See any of this coming? I want to say, yes, I think if you follow the affairs of the country for the last two years, you've seen some signs. I think the question becomes to what magnitude will this take? And I think we're a bit surprised with the magnitude of the conflict but the fact that it happens in my opinion, especially for those of us that are looking at this from far away, there are some signs. If you look at any government or a system, you have two key ingredients. Number one, you need to invest in the citizens. Number two, you need to produce a conducive environment for other people to come and help you. And I think the first ingredient wasn't addressed properly. The investment in the citizen wasn't there. The government was not particularly involved in making sure that the citizens are empowered. If anyone here visited, you know, have been so done in the 90s or the late 2000s and you go to the village, you go to the payam, you see the conditions and then you go there now, you know, you go to the village now. The development of the progress can be seen in the eye of the villager. The conditions, especially for those of us that were in the village in the late 90s, are exactly the same today as they were 10 or 15 years ago. So if you look at the aspect of the situation, you can tell yourself that if this person in the village doesn't even know that we have a government or that we have a development, how could you expect that person to change their attitude, basically? And I think, you know, if you can answer that question, you will know that what happens right now was bound to happen because the people are dissatisfied. And it's just a matter of time, even the Taliban can come and say that I can do something better and they will go for it. And I think that's, you know, that's what we've seen today in Satsuda. Thank you. So let's get into some of the details of what civil society has been doing to address the crisis. And David and Anyeth, you've been very involved with Citizens for Peace and Justice. Can one of you please give us some of the background and tell us about those efforts? Yeah, I mean, I think the early days, weeks that followed the outbreak of violence, civil society started coming together and trying to process what happened and to determine its role in the whole process and what's needed in order to resolve the conflict. One initiative which Anyeth and I represent is this coalition called Citizens for Peace and Justice. It's a group that came together in January, representing at this point about 40 or so South Sudanese civil society organizations. Other initiatives came as well. The church was very quick in getting active. You know, the church of course has a very long history in South Sudan and is much more, you know, in many respects much more developed than other sorts of civil society actors. And so we came together and I think a sort of common message naturally emerged from all of us independently and then was later reinforced as we met as different groups. And that was basically a two-part agenda. Or you could look at it in three parts. The first is that there are some immediate concerns which need to be taken place before we can think about anything. It's to stop the violence, protect civilians, ensure humanitarian access. A consistent message across the board that this senseless conflict which really has no basis for even existing, that it needs to stop. But then that's not enough. Simply bringing an end to the violence will not secure a lasting and sustainable peace. And we need to look at what are those things that set the conditions in which a conflict like this could assume the proportions that it has. So looking at some of the serious governance problems that South Sudan has been facing, lack of service delivery, culture of impunity, non-inclusiveness in government. Looking at some of these things that set the stage for the conflict and that the process of addressing these and developing reforms need to be done in an inclusive way, which they never have in the history of South Sudan in terms of peace processes, been done by involving people other than those with guns. It's always been violence that determines a person's contribution to the process. Yeah, and then thinking about how to engage in the diaspora as well. Yeah, well, and Isaac, so please tell us a bit about the diaspora mobilization and engagement that's been happening over the last few months. Yeah, I think David brought a very good point. I think we in the diaspora are looking at the event from a perspective of, you can call it an independent observer, but we have the stake in the country. So the organization that we formed are meant, or at least from the mission perspective, to advocate for peace, to advocate for development, to advocate for inclusiveness. And going back to the question of inclusiveness, I think it's very important to know that if you're going to be part of the government or if you're going to be part of the development, you have to get there through qualifications. If you visit Juba or you visit any ministries in Juba, you would find a particular ministry where people speak the same language, or they speak one language, and that language may not be English or Arabic, which are the two national languages. So when you see this practice, it brought back to mind, what is it that you have to do as an individual to be part of the system or to contribute positively? Obviously, if the system is developed to look at a Yacht or a Mule as being unfortunate, I can't go to school and become a Nuer, or become a Dinka, or become an Anuang. I can't go to school to become a doctor or to become an engineer. So if this is not enough to be considered as part of the system or to contribute to the system, then we have a problem. This to say that our efforts as a civil society organization in the diaspora is to make sure that we bring up practices that are contrary to a national building. The fundamentals of national buildings are either ignored or violated because if you're going to build a new nation, you need to be able to empower the people. And you have to be able to be inclusive, even if it means introducing legislations or affirmative actions so that everybody in this included, you need to do that. So with aligns for social needs in the diaspora, we want to advocate for those. And we also have tried to come together as a group. I think for the last two weeks, we formed something called the Coalition for Advocates for Social Done or CAS to bring different civil society organizations in the diaspora to advocate for inclusiveness, good governance, practicing the fundamentals of national building, and especially to get out of this conflict. And I think if the people that are at the center of the conflict are able to allow us to participate, I think we would be able to contribute in a positive manner. But it is a challenge. I hope we can overcome that. So clearly a lot of good efforts going on right now. There is a question about the receptivity to civil society input and to other input by the parties who are doing the fighting and also doing the negotiating and also by the mediators who are trying to forge some sort of a solution. So a couple of questions. One is what kind of receptivity have you experienced so far? And the other one is what kind of models do you see for how civil society can be meaningfully involved in any sort of political process going forward? Are civil society representatives in the room with the others? Are they sort of on the outskirts of the room? How can that work productively? Anjith, do you want to start on those? Actually, I think it's probably a question that's better for David to answer since it's been involved. Yeah, I mean, it certainly hasn't been receptive the way that we would like to see. If not outright hostile is at least indifference and resistance to civil society, which I can't say I'm entirely surprised by and looking at our part of the world. It's not known for creating an enabling environment for independent voices to speak in the public interest. So I think for us we anticipated that. It was the same with the CPA process, which eventually led to the peace in 2005. It was a very exclusive process in which the parties at that time, the government of Sudan and the SPLM resisted very effectively an inclusive process. In fact, there was a proposal at one point from the actors, the parties to the negotiation after they had received so much pressure from UN and from different governments about the need for inclusivity, they finally capitulated and said, okay, we will be inclusive, we'll nominate six civil society organizations from our side, they'll nominate six civil society organizations from them to their side, and that will be inclusivity. And it shows just the perception and not wanting to open it up and being afraid to lose control over where the discussion leads. That's been very much a feature of the process, but that's changing. You know, we have heard the right sorts of messages from UN, US government, also from EGOT in a number of summits that they've held. They've consistently acknowledged the need for inclusivity. And most recently, as you quoted from the May 9th agreement, a very clear commitment from the parties that they will find difficult to backtrack on in favor of inclusivity. There's still a question of what that would mean. You know, I think for many of the people involved, inclusivity means the 11 former detainees who were released, and once they're included, we sort of get looped in with them, but we're rather irrelevant. For our part, South Sudanese, these coalitions that have formed regionally, we were invited by EGOT to come and hold a conference in Addis in March in which we tabled a proposal whereby we would have a group of delegates based in Addis and then a complementary secretary in South Sudan that these people in Addis would engage in the peace talks and the complementary mechanism was designed so that they could both receive information from people in the country and then also transmit updates back to South Sudan. I think our approach is not that we as individuals or individual organizations have something important to say and need to be included, but that our relevance is based on the degree to which we can represent the interests of the people which are really not represented by these two groups who are now negotiating in Addis. One fact just to end on is the fact that the two sides, the government of South Sudan, SPLM in opposition, not a single one of their delegates has their immediate family in South Sudan. So these are people who are negotiating the future of the country, but yet they don't even have their own children in the country. And I think that points to a need to have an independent voice that is able to genuinely reflect the interests of the people. That's a striking point. Anjeth or Isaac, do you want to add anything to what David has said? To me, I think it's important. I mean obviously the two groups or maybe the 11 detainees are part of the problem. So if we want to look at the direction of our country as belonging to the people, there has to be a way for the civil society organization to be represented, as whether they are being received by the two sides or not. I mean it's very difficult because they know allowing the civil society organizations would endanger or would be a threat to what they really need. Obviously they're not going to be speaking their language. They're going to come and say we need accountability. We need peace. We need a constitution. We need good governance. And these things are not necessarily good words for the groups. So the task that we need to undertake as civil society organizations is to put pressure on the two sides to accept despite their concern about the civil society organization exposing their weaknesses or their ignorance is to talk to the mediators. I would encourage maybe the US and the Troika countries to put pressure on the two groups and the mediators to include or to receive civil society organizations so they can contribute in the point of view of the people because if the country belongs to the people and you don't allow the people to participate, you're not on scene because that can come out of there. You both mentioned the 11 now former detainees who have been released. I want to spend a minute on that. And your opinions on their role and how much of a positive influence they can be on any sort of political process going forward. They have, I think, at times been held up as somewhat of a solution to the crisis but there's also the fact that all of them were very much involved in government by some time and part of the elite. Where do they fit in going forward? Personally, I don't think they are our solution. I think that the situation, the fact that they were arrested, detained without due process has unfortunately to some people made them seem and appear as heroes but we have to just continue to be honest that they were part of the government for eight and a half years and between them, amongst them, there had been cases of abuse of power, corruption and also just inability to do the jobs that they were there to do. At the same time, you know, they've been released, the seven were released and we were told that they were the answer to a peaceful resolution and it did not happen. Similarly again with the four, the same thing, it did not happen. Our stance as CPJ or civil society is that we want to be able to go forward having the environment in which we can actually resolve the problems that we have. Let's not pretend that old solutions will bring different results because they will not and the evidence is right in front of us. I think a positive contribution for them is an acknowledgement of where they went wrong and to actually convince, advise the two leadership about that, creating that environment so that everything that we're all saying can actually come to pass. One thing that's been very telling about this conflict is that we're really all in agreement. We want democracy, we want peace, we want unity, we want reconciliation, we want accountability. Everybody has said the same things. The government, the opposition, the people, the international community, everybody. The question is how are we going to get there? And I think the most positive contribution from them could be an acknowledgement of where they actually did go wrong because they have a lot to answer for as well. And just also advocating again for a peaceful resolution to our underlying causes, underlying issues in South Sudan. I'm glad you raised that question of how are we going to get there because I think that's where much of the conversation moves to next. There's been a few media articles very recently about an idea that one Juba-based think tank put forward about rotating presidencies and those sorts of things. But I wonder if I can ask you guys for some ideas on how the political process proceeds from here. What is civil society thinking about different models, different arrangements for the next weeks, months, but even the next few years, especially if elections are now possibly postponed, for how politically to get out of the crisis? I think picking up on NDS's point, I think our approach is very much to think about what conditions need to be in place in order for us to achieve the kinds of things that we want. And that's where the transitional arrangement is particularly important. We want accountability, but we know that can't come unless there's certain things in place. We want free and fair elections, but those require certain conditions. The million-dollar question is what you do with Salfa and Rijek. And I don't think anyone has a great answer for that other than that we all hope they would quietly disappear, but it seems unlikely to happen. And for our part, we're still thinking through the technical aspects of a lot of these questions, and I don't have any sort of silver bullet. What I can say is that the question of what happens with the leadership has been a very divisive one for us as civil society. And each time we try to reach consensus on this, it totally splits the room. What we've done instead is to fall back and develop a series of principles that can guide an assessment of whatever transitional arrangement is to come. And then we use those principles to look at different scenarios and at least start thinking thus far has fallen into four different sort of broad models. One would be the status quo if the existing leadership in the government of South Sudan remains. And I think that's a scenario where you see protracted conflicts, potentially large-scale conflicts, potentially something that simmers and never quite dies out. A second option could be power sharing between Rijek and Kira, in which they divide national wealth and power among themselves. A third option could be a technocratic government that somehow limits the participation of the existing leadership and focuses on people who have the technical capacity to run the country for a set time period after which there would be elections and whatever has to happen would happen. And a fourth arrangement could be something with sort of very robust international participation. The idea of a trusteeship was loaded at one point, but that's one extreme example. I think most people gravitate towards the technocratic government as what would be in the best interest of the country. The political question of how you pull something like that off is I think the main stumbling block. And there are various options about maybe you let Rijek and South will run the country for a time and then there are elections which they can't run in. Or else you tell them to step aside and you put a different leader in and you say that after three, four years there will be elections and anyone who wants to run can run. And I'm sure there are many, many, many other options. But as Anjith said, to think that we can go back to a power sharing model that we've had for ten years with the same individuals, only that now it's a country at war. It's no longer the CPA. We are independent so we don't have the self-determined referendum to push us together to think that they could come back and be in the power sharing government in Juba is highly unrealistic. Yeah. Isaac, do you want to add anything on these last couple points? Yes. Quickly I think on the question of detainees. You know, I seem to have, you know, I have a very different opinion. I think for the part I agree with them yet that they've been part of the system for a long time. And their status as being detained in my opinion is being used by the group in the wrong way. I know the two sides, you know, kind of disagree about the role they should play. What I would recommend or what I would see happens is that they should either join, you know, one side or the other because if you look at their agenda, it's not very different, you know, from the opposition. And they were in fact part of the opposition before they were detained. So I think the idea that they should be the middle is there's a political experience in my opinion. So they just need to choose what side they want to be on so they can contribute on that part, you know, that part of the spectrum. The second part, where do we go from here? I think it's very interesting. You know, David brought up some very good points. If there is some agreement that we can all point to, it would be that the status quo is unacceptable. The question becomes if the status quo is unacceptable, how do we get rid of it and what do we replace it with? Obviously we have the choice of the interim government in my opinion. The interim government is, you can call it interim or transitional, whatever term you want to use. It's the ideal. And I think the one that is being run by technocrats would provide more opportunity for things to change. You know, write new constitution, develop a good system of governance, and then provide a good atmosphere for a fair and democratic elections. And then at that point, if very much I want to come and run, you can come. And then if somebody wants to come and run, you can come. But one thing I know that people will not accept, even if they are held at a good point, is to have the status quo or to have either of the polarizing figure being the leading figure. Or, you know, for the status quo. So an interim government with two of them here in the power would most likely be not ideal in my opinion. Thank you. It's been mentioned a couple of times, but I want to really hone in on some of the justice and accountability issues. And this is something that CPJ has really emphasized in some of the publications that I've seen. But also too often gets swept under the rug in peace agreements. Are there ways to make sure that justice and accountability concerns are taken seriously in the negotiations? Are a serious part of any sort of agreement? Are there particular models that you folks think should be considered as part of any sort of agreement, as any sort of dispensation going forward? Yeah, as you say, the tendency is to sideline these issues. We saw it in the CPA. We saw it most recently in the agreement with the SSDM and the government of South Sudan in Zhongli, in which there's some vague provision about accountability mechanisms being designed, but nothing real in terms of accountability. And in my opinion, this is the reason why these agreements never lead to a sustainable peace in the country, because they take the sort of very short-term focus of all we have to do is reconcile this small group of people around the table and then from that peace will flow. And I think that's a really faulty assumption, and I think the discussion on accountability needs to happen now with the recognition that of course you can't do anything until there's some degree of stability, but at least people need to start thinking through it and get what sorts of commitments they can. There are two, I think, main points that I would point to highlighting the importance of accountability. First is that when people are given rewards for using violence, political, military positions, blanket amnesties, it incentivizes the violence. And this is what we've seen time and time again. Peter Gadett, who was recently sanctioned by the U.S. government, has switched sides on conflicts probably four or five times. And there's a group of people whose livelihoods depend on wreaking havoc and then being rewarded for it. So there's a need to stop that and that has to be done in the context of the peace process. You can't disincentivize violence by rewarding people and then saying, eventually we'll sort it out. Secondly, what's really driving the violence is revenge among people. It's because they don't have faith in the state to provide justice and they don't have any options. So what they do when their relative is killed somewhere, they say, I'm going to go kill the next person I know from that group. The best way to stop that is to have a mechanism whereby you can give them confidence that people will be held accountable and you can help instill confidence in the people as the state that you're committed to accountability, you're committed to eliminating this cultural impunity, you're committed to human rights and hope that that's enough that they will say, OK, I won't take my gun and go kill this person today and I'll wait to see how this process pans out. And that will be an immediate sort of dampening effect on the violence. One mechanism to do this, which was first actually came from South Sudanese civil society in January, was taken up by international organizations such as the Enough Project, founded its way into the U.S. government. Most recently was put forward as a recommendation in the UNMISS Human Rights Report, is the idea of a hybrid court, which would be the basic ideas that you have a court that involves a mixture of South Sudanese and international judges, lawyers, investigators that is owned by the government of South Sudan and is established within the judiciary in Sudan, it's a domestic initiative, but that it has the international support that's necessary to let it do what it needs to do, namely to prosecute those who bear most responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes. So this sort of throws a line between international justice in the form of ICC, which would be problematic and which, at least in the short term, it may eventually be part of a comprehensive solution, but for the time being, for a number of reasons, it's maybe not the best option. And then also knowing that South Sudan doesn't have a justice system that can hope to even begin providing justice for these things. And one additional aspect of that is there's also the African Union Commission of Inquiry. I'm just wondering if any of you have seen their work so far, had interaction with them, what your hopes and expectations are for that effort? Do you want to say something about that? Yeah, for the first question, I think that's the biggest part of the whole process because as an individual, justice is the most important thing. With all that happened, starting from Cuba and spreading to other places, there are a lot of people that are highly, highly emotional. And I think for us to move forward in a very positive manner, these people have to either see justice served, especially to those that are proven to have done them wrong, or they would probably hate the state for the rest of their lives. And so this would mean no peace, and they will always find a way to try to get at or to try to self-justice themselves. And that's what we've seen for the last years. The government said that they have no capacity to protect the citizens. So when something happens, there's no justice done to the perpetrators, and also the people feel in danger, they take matters to their own hands. They protect themselves and they try to self-justice by themselves. And I think this is one thing that if it's not addressed or it's not part of the peace agreement, that there has to be a specific mechanism to be used to bring people to justice those who are wronged. I think we will continue to have grudges even if it doesn't resolve the conflict or a gunfight, we will continue to be very reasonable, either to the system or to individuals. And the way our tradition works is if you can find a way to go and do it yourself, this will continue to happen until people feel that justice has been served. So coming to the question of how it's going to be done, it's very complex because the court in the country is very weak. The judicial system is very weak. First of all, I think it belongs to the executive that are being told what to do. The idea of hybrid court will work if you can guarantee, number one, it's independent. Number two, maybe immunity because what will happen is if they tell the truth, especially the part that is, you know, the South Sudanese side of it, they have to know that there will be no repercussions. You know, there will be protections against powerful individuals that want to revenge or that want to do armed because they want to go after them. That has to be number one. Then number two, I think there has to be international, you know, PAC that say this group is going to be independent. And if someone interferes in the government, there will be consequences. And the consequences have to be spent like one, two, three, four. So people know if I interfere with this body, I will face A and B. I think, you know, if that can be done, I think we can, you know, we can follow. We can go, you know, with the idea of the hybrid court. Otherwise, I think maybe the ICC can play a role to try to investigate. We have a president of that, you know, people, we have done wrong. We are brought there. And then we can, you know, we can also keep exploring the idea of maybe try, you know, I don't know, it could be compulsive. Same idea with the hybrid, but maybe, you know, with the stronger and maybe with Paul Rebecca from, you know, maybe the Troika countries and all the people that are, you know, that are interested in the affairs of, you know, the country. Thank you, Isaac. You raised two interesting points there that I'd like to draw our other two panelists on out if possible. One is the idea of immunity. And this has been floated by President Kier and others. And you can see the logic as you articulate of how this can lead to peace. But it also raises question given the bloodshed and the deaths over the last five months. The other one is the ICC. And this has also started to come into the conversation. And one can see the logic of ICC engagement here. But then the politics of it become particularly difficult. David, are those issues, immunity and ICC, are those things that civil society is grappled with? Definitely. But I think for civil society, we don't want to compromise on the issue of accountability and immunities. We did hear about the thinking for a blanket amnesty for the opposition when they come in. And we're more inclined to hope that we can start to develop a minimum standard for any agreement that's going to be coming out. To say that no, you know, immunities cannot be... Blanket immunities are not acceptable. Of course, there is the international standards, certain crimes you cannot give blanket amnesties for. Lack of accountability have always been the cause of our violence or the cycle of violence. So I don't think there's any argument for immunity being a way to achieve peace. Again, this comes down again to be, you know, the political arrangements and the environment that we need to create in order to have this. The country should be bigger than two people. It should be bigger than two tribes. It should be bigger than one party. And the sooner we accept that, the more we can actually be on the road to peace. So even just the example of being among civil society people working with the grassroots people concerned about what is happening, people who are not benefiting from political positions or whatever it is, being divided while talking about political arrangements is a big indicator as to the divisive factors in our country and in our politics and in our, you know... So if we put the issues and the country first, I think the answer is very clear. So I think we just need to go for that. We need to go for the things that will bring us what it is that we all really want, because we all really want the same thing. And just to touch again on what Isaac was saying about the 11 detainees, I wouldn't want them to join one side or the other. In fact, we want to draw people from those camps back to us, the people, you know, protect ourselves and go for the nation that we can all actually prosper from. We don't want to divide each other. We want to come to the middle where we can actually have an equal ground so that we can develop as a nation. So that's my perspective on that issue. David, anything else? Yeah. With respect to the ICC, myself, I'm a supporter of the ICC. My institution SSLS is also a supporter of the ICC. I think it's great that they're targeting these people in our neck of the woods and trying to clean up Africa. I'm not one who feels bad about Africa having more in DITs than other places. However, and I know this discussion has started in the Security Council about a referral. South Sudan is not party to their own statute. It would require a referral from the Security Council. Now is probably not the opportune moment to be pushing for the ICC to get involved for a number of reasons. One, there's a lot happening regionally. So as you mentioned, the EU Commission of Inquiry, first Commission of Inquiry of this kind by Glamini Zuma, the commissioner of the EU. And there's a lot of expectations in this commission. It's a chance for the African Union to demonstrate that African solutions are possible and that they're committed to combating the culture of impunity and dealing with atrocities. And I think one has to leave space for that process to run out. Also within the ICC, there's issue of complementarity, which is a principle that says it's best. The ICC only gets involved when a country can't or won't deal with things on its own. And I think South Sudan can't deal with it with the existing justice system, but with the proper support from the international level, it would be better if we could do something in the country. We could send a few people to the ICC to be tried, but it wouldn't do anything to reform the culture and institutions in South Sudan. So to the extent that one can do something locally, it's much better. And then finally, just the political reality is that the ICC is embroiled in so many headaches in this part of the world. And if you were to have an indictment of someone in South Sudan, I think it would destroy all the good will from the EGOT countries. It would push all these people into the same boat and you'd be faced with an even more difficult challenge. But if it turns out that nothing happens locally, that is time, I think, to consider. Last question for me, and then we're going to open it up to our audience. It's obviously been a difficult, very difficult five months, and a lot of the coverage of what's been happening in South Sudan has been quite negative. I wonder if you can tell me a story, an anecdote, something about some positive developments that have happened during this time. If there's anything to hold on to that we need to hear more about because so much of the coverage has been rather negative. Anjith, do you want to begin? Yeah, sure. I think there have been countless stories of members of our communities in any given place protecting someone from another tribe. I think there's also been countless stories of people who've lost their lives in that process trying to protect somebody from another tribe because they don't see the logic of what has been happening. Basically our message is that that's what we need to amplify. The world is always intrigued by sad stories and depressing things and just humongous tragedies, but it's always intrigued by it initially and then after a day or two it just gets completely bored with it and waits for the next tragedy to happen. But there are so many interesting stories out there, people who have defied the narrative and the things that get the attention is what actually fuels the violence. This is the thing, everybody has a role to play. The way that the conflict manifested shows at all levels we were all doing things wrong. We gave the power to a few. We respected them blindly. We allowed them even when they showed that they could not or they were not willing only through blind faith. We did it. And here we are. Do we want to do it again? We were asked about the agreement that was signed on Friday. People called it peace agreement, I don't know why, but it was violated by Monday twice. So how much faith do we have to give to the same thing? The same thing. I think that the approach has to be on so many different levels and we have to engage people on all these different fronts. Why did this happen? How can we avoid it next time? So amplifying the voices of those who are not seeing one way or the other as the means to peace because they're not is the most important thing right now. Not just running to hear what Selvakir is saying, because that incites the other side. Not running to hear what the Yikhmachary is saying, because that incites the other side. Who are in the middle? There are so many people in the middle. And actually the majority is in the middle, but they're scared and they're silent. And those stories are there. Thank you. Isaac, David, anything to briefly add on that? You know, the same lines with Inyat, I think there are a lot of good Samaritans that want to see everybody live together. Even, you know, one of the stories that I heard people talk about is even on December 15, you know, when the chaos was happening, there were people that, you know, would get in the way of a bullet or of a tent or something just to protect the other person. And I think, you know, those few people that have that type of mentality is the future of our country. We want to see us as humankind, not as them and us or her or he. So basically, you know, they are there. People who care about each other dearly are there. In the country, they are intimidated, they are afraid, they can't talk. You know, we've seen the consequences of talking, especially in the media. And so they have no way of expressing how they feel or how we should be governed. But, you know, I would encourage those of us that are outside or that, you know, have no immediate fear of reprisal to, you know, to support them. You know, when they hear our support, they are encouraged and they are more likely to speak up, you know, even in the face of danger. Thank you. I think let's go to questions now from the audience here. So if you want to ask a question, please raise your hand. Microphone will make its way to you. Assy, please keep your questions short. Also, please identify yourself before asking your question. And let me also remind people who are watching online, you too can ask questions. Please do throw through, so through, through, so through Twitter. Using the hashtag, it says Sydney's Voices. Questions to start with Ambassador Guilty. Thanks, John. Alan Guilty from the Wilson Center. It sounds wonderful to talk about inclusive processes, but the CPA was just one example of the difficulty of mediating a peace just with two sides. If you add a third side or a fourth or a fifth, isn't it going to be very hard to make it work, especially when David tells us that when you get to the really key issue of what happens to Salva and React, you can't even discuss it among civil society. And I'd like to ask all three of the panelists if they would discuss a little more what is the basis of these divisions in civil society. Does it mean that a civil society organization, when it comes to the really difficult questions, splits or disagrees with each other on an ethnic basis, or is it on some other basis? How can these divisions be overcome in such a way that a process can move forward? Thank you. Let's take one more over here, please. Thank you so much. My name is Movi and I'm from The Enough Project. Just my question would go to the representative of the civil society. Knowing that the civil society in South Sudan is a very important component of this process that is actually whatever, I mean, what everybody is actually talking about. My question would be if you actually represent in the civil society and knowing that most of the people that I see sitting in the platform here are people who are actually based in Cuba and Cuba is only like one or two million of the 10 or 12 million South Sudanese population that are actually part of the civil society that you represent. What are your organizations that represent the civil society doing to make sure that your representation goes deep to the real civil societies that are actually part of the peace process? Thank you. Thank you. Good question. Let's take those three from Ambassador Guilty about the complexities of adding more size to already complex negotiations and about the divisions within civil society and then also about some civil society beyond Cuba, which I think is really important. We'd like to begin. Thank you Ambassador Guilty. I think these are very good questions. One of the challenges especially within our civil society organizations is the division that you mentioned. Even within one organization that allegedly wants to do the same thing, it's very difficult to focus on the mission because sometimes you get distracted because of emotion or something that happens. If you get your brother or mother killed by one side or the other and you want to be in the civil society organization, it's very difficult to separate that from the mission that you want to accomplish. I think the question of how do we... Is it tribal or what is it? It's not clear. If I had to answer that, I think it would most likely be... I would say ideological, so to speak. Maybe you want or you believe on the rhetoric that the opposition is going to change the status quo or maybe you believe in the status quo, that the status quo is the only way because as a democratic elected, we're elected by 95% or 100% and so you want to stick to the ideology that you want to believe at least on the outside without thinking about the consequences and so if I believe that I have to accept the current government because it was elected by the people or by 90% or 80% and then I don't allow myself to see the negative part of it. You know, I don't see what about the people who think that the government has now met itself illegitimate by what it has done or by the actions that it has committed and then on the other side, you can also argue that if I want... If they say the king is going to come, you love the idea of change but you don't ask yourself how are those change going to be affected? So to answer the question, I think it's ideological as far as how easy it's going to be to have a third or fourth or fifth column or entity in the peace table. I think it will be... It can be difficult if you are one of the side because for example, if the civil society organization represents the boys and the people or at least they say that one represents the boys and the people, certainly they have a legitimate argument to be part of that. So they can present that agenda to the negotiator that this is what the people want and then on the other side, obviously the thing that they represent is people but the action that they are committing do not reflect their argument. So in that regard, I think as difficult as it will be or as difficult as the sides will make it for a third or even a fourth entity to be part of the negotiation, I think we have to do all we can from the outside to make sure that there is indeed an alternative that can speak for the people instead of just one side or the other. To do the question, I think... I'll let David answer that. Here in the U.S. or the diaspora as a whole we do our best to bring people together at least to advocate for the people. If someone is being wrong, we say that's wrong. Whether the government does that or the opposition, we want to let... Y'all know about that, we go to the State Department, we try to go to the White House, that's not good, that needs to be stopped and I think too, David doesn't agree about doing the same thing but I'll let us do it for ourselves. Well, our communities are very hurt deeply and very angry and if I talk about my hurt it only makes the other side or the other person want to tell me how more hurt they are than me. So we have to break that down, that's just the fact. And I keep saying that we all want the same thing because that's what everyone says. We all want the same thing. Within civil society we have those divisions because we're also hurt. We're not outside of what happened in South Sudan, we were there and we have relatives who have been killed, we have friends, we have just the idea, just the knowledge of what happened, the fact that, you know, we were in Juba and there was nothing we could do. There was nothing, nowhere we could go and nobody knew around us what was happening. The people would call, you know, even my parents, people you looked to to ask to give you an answer, did not have an answer of what was happening. And so when we came together as civil society the first thing we did was basically talk about what happened and how it happened and why, you know. And it was a very painful and exhausting process but we needed to get there. The divisions always came when we brought up the names, Selvakir, Riyadhmacha, SBLM, this person did this, this person did that. For me, I think it's all gossip because we don't really know the details. We don't really know what happened. Why are we suffering? It's because certain things have not been addressed because certain things are wrong. We recognize the cartoon, the North, the Muslim North Arabs as our enemy. That's what we decided to unite with. And I think that was wrong because, you know, a lot of people even now say what we are fighting, what we are considering, if I'm one side, what I consider the enemy looks exactly like what cartoon looked like. For the other side, what they're considering is the enemy looks exactly what cartoon looked like. So is it the people? Is it them? Or is it the issues? And if we stick to the issues then we will protect ourselves from those issues coming up again. And the reason I try to also emphasize that we are all responsible is because we did this. We allowed this. We saw it and we said nothing. If you were not in the SBLM, you were sort of not considered. You didn't contribute enough. You didn't sacrifice enough. But what is a sacrifice if you get paid for it? Is it still a sacrifice? Or how long do you benefit from it? And why did you do it in the first place? Did you do it so that you can replace what you were fighting against? And so us as a people, we have to put all these things up. Parliament is ineffective. It's not had a single public statement since the crisis, you know? And we don't have any checks and balances. All we have is a few people getting more and more powerful. And we have to chip away at that. We have to get it back. Basically. So if we stick to the issues, then we're all really going to the same place. How can you support self-care if you want peace? Can you explain how he's going to bring it? How is he going to reconcile people? Simple question. Value question. Same. If you support Riyadh Machad because you want peace, how is he going to bring it? And if you can't answer that question, then he's not the answer. We all have to be bigger than, nobody should be bigger than the whole nation. And this is what it is. Those two are huge. The nation is like that big. And if we, that's what we need to do. Just focus on the issues and they will all fall away. Their power will fall away. Yeah. As you say, the CPA was difficult to negotiate, but I think it's also evidence of the dangers of not being inclusive in that those people who were excluded from the CPA are the ones who are now wreaking havoc, the White Army, other armed groups. These are the people who weren't included in the process so that when the peace came, it became the peace of the SPLA and justified anything, including the series of pacification campaigns that they've done for the last 10 years. We don't call them that, we call them other things, but in reality it was a pacification campaigns throughout Upper Nile, throughout the Zhongli State, which finally have, they've not been able to stamp out the resistance and it's come back in a very terrible way. So I think the lack of inclusion is really tied to the failure of the CPA, or at least in this respect. But that also doesn't answer your second question, which is how do you do it in a way that works I don't know, maybe after this peace agreement is done we can look back and see if there was something that worked, not really an opposition to give any great ideas. Other than that, we have to set our expectations for what inclusiveness means. And it doesn't mean that we're going to have an army of robots that we call civil society all saying the same thing. The very nature of civil society, wherever you are in the world, is that it has a huge diversity of viewpoints and comes from all different places. And I think that's something that needs to be recognized and people's expectations should be set to acknowledge that that's what the participation will mean. The other asset of civil society is briefly is its youth. 70% of South Sudan is under the age of something, or young people. And civil society too is young and we're in a unique position, I think, to speak to those people who, this conflict is being driven by young people who have faced four consecutive years of dropping per capita incomes, have no opportunities, no job opportunities, a country that should be the richest in the world as far as per capita income is concerned, but in which people have nothing. And so it's very easy to mobilize those people into violence. And I think for civil society, which is young, is in a unique position to talk to them. And then just briefly on Maouyan's point, we're actually holding a conference in Juba at the end of this month in which we're inviting people from the states to come and to set up a system whereby we'll relate to people in the states. We also are using our past experiences of engagement in our networks, particularly around the constitutional review process. Civil society had a huge effort the last three or four years going to all the state capitals, bringing people from the county level, holding events. I mean they're attended by hundreds of people and they were debating the constitution. And you compare this to what the government's doing and it's like light and day. So we're trying to use a similar sort of model, difficulty being, of course, that there's very little space at the moment and we're trying to mediate that relationship. Can I just add to that? Sorry, I'm not answering. I think part of the reason civil society has not had that much, has not had that much reach deep into our communities in South Sudan is because we've also not had the support needed to do that. In terms of you need people to work, to be able to pay those people, to be able to be in the states, to be able to have a place to sit, to be able to reach the communities. So that's the practical issue of that. And that's also part of our message, which is the way the international support, the way the UN was functioning, the way the government did its things, was always top-heavy. Everything concentrated on the politics. Everything concentrated on up here and we need to bring it down and it needs to come from the bottom up. Obviously that's how we're going to get the people that we need to lead the country. And so we're also starting a bunch of initiatives to try and do that now. Now is the best time to start. So one of the things is the public broadcasting of the talks, trying to advocate for that. People will know what is happening, why their lives are disrupted, why they're in the bush, why their relatives are killed. So that's one way of engaging people so that they actually understand and be able to participate. We're also starting an initiative, naming project, naming those we have lost to collect the names of people who have died since December 15th because that's one of the things, again related to accountability or just acknowledgement. We don't want to hear numbers anymore. I don't want to hear numbers. I don't want to hear 2.5 million. I don't want to hear 135. I don't want to hear 10. I don't want to hear 10,000. I want to hear the names because these are people with lives. And this is going to show us about how everybody has lost. We need to move beyond the... I've lost more than you have, therefore, whatever. A loss is a loss, and that will hopefully be able to break down the hate that is preventing us from actually seeing the real picture. Another initiative is actually just recording the voice of the people. What are people saying? The government is saying they speak on behalf of the people because they got 98% of the votes. I wrote it for them. I'm speaking different language from the government. So the opposition is also saying the same thing. We speak for the people, just as David was saying about their idea of inclusivity was six people on this side just to, oh, yeah, come and support what I'm saying. We see this as the voice of the people. That's what they were thinking. Opposition and the government. Because literally, and really, they're the same. Are they not? And, you know, we just have to come to that. And the fourth initiative is, again, just engaging with the diaspora. Because the diaspora, people living in all the countries outside of South Sudan, have a lot of reach to people in the communities. That's where your families are. Where your relatives are. You send them money. You communicate with them. And there's so much positive that can come from a positive engagement with ourselves from different levels. Thank you. Let's take a few more questions. We are going to run out of time before too long. So I want to emphasize if you can please keep them brief. And just one question, please. Give them back to Carol. Thank you. My name is Nixon from the Holocaust Museum in the Center for Prevention of Genocide. Prior to the separation of Sudan and South Sudan, civil society had been faced with the challenges of either taking side as Northern Sudanese or as South Sudanese. Similarly, when the violence broke out in Cuba, the first group of the civil society that went to Ethiopia took side with either the rebels or with the government. So what is your position that you can convince us that you'll be the viable voices for the people of South Sudan? Secondly, the discussion right now is about Nuer and Tienka, Salfa Kier and Rayagmachar, as if the country is made out of these two tribes. What is the position of the greater Ecuadorian in this negotiation? Let's go here, please. My name is Jacob Matour. I'm a student at GW. And I have two questions. One of my questions is the burden of the Civil War right now lies on the people of South Sudan. And as the negotiation is being delayed, four million South Sudanese are vulnerable to starvation. So what is the civil society doing to accelerate the whole process? That's one question. Another question is, as a member of the Asphora, I've seen that we are totally divided to do it again. I just want to know what are you doing as a part of the Asphora to unite these people? Thank you. So let's take these questions. I want to ask you guys to be a bit brief as well because we're starting to run short of time. Isaac, do you want to start? Yeah. The first question by Nixon is very important. I think I need to address it early that the country is not about Nuer and Tienka. That gives about two tribes. And as civil society can help in expanding the conversation between Nuer and Tienka, I think the people that feel neglected should also, I know we have a lot of community organizations that are active in the state. And I think I mentioned earlier that the purpose of us and what we call the coalition for advocates for South Sudan is to bring different groups so that we can hear their voice. If I'm working with the lines for South Sudanese and the Asphora, the idea may be very specific, maybe the goal may be very narrow. So we're bringing all the people that think differently and we see their point of views and we put our views together. Maybe we can expand the conversation. So what I would recommend in these cases that we do, especially for Nixon, is that we reach out. I think the civil society organization, we reach out to people and also hope that the people that are receptive to being part of the conversation, especially at the community level. The second question by Mator is starvation. What are we doing to help? I think I received an email just a couple of days ago asking me if I can provide data for locations in the country where crops can be taken, places that are safe. One thing we can do in the diaspora is to kind of help connect the people there with the people here that want to do something, especially in the question of famine. Those that are not in danger of being killed, they need to be given the chance to plant their crops, to work their palms, but they need to be given the crops and also the seeds so they can do successfully because with the war they have been displaced and most likely they don't have access to what they need to plant. So I think these are efforts that we can use all of us here to make sure that people there get what they need to be able to provide starvation and famine. Thank you. Yes, David? Civil society did take sides. Some of them, obviously. For us, we don't. Our side is the one that is not going to... increase the violence. And that, for us, is very obvious. Taking sides is what has accelerated this. In terms of, you were saying, Selvakir, Yakmachar, Nuer, Dinka, what about Equatoria? Of course, very important. But we as southern Sudanese have a problem, a very deep problem. Right now, we're only concentrating on Dinka and Nuer, but our problem is even deeper than that. Within South Sudan, within Juba, we've always had tensions between the tribes. I think that we were always on the brink, and this is what tipped us, but there were other things as well. When the fighting first started, people would say things like, but why is war being attacked? Why not war? Why is... why Bailead? Why Malacal? Why all this? Why anywhere? That should be our attitude. I think the governors of the three states had come out with also a statement early in January, where they said something about condemning the use of Equatoria as a battleground. I wish that they said that we condemn the violence for stuff, you know? So that's where we need to go, so we have a lot of work to do, basically. But we have to stop the war. In terms of the humanitarian, we're divided in so many different as coalitions, and for instance, we've just signed on to a letter going to Oslo just about actually pleading for more... for the funding requests to be fulfilled because the window is closing. We're already in the middle of the month. We have three weeks left. And other things to be accelerated. And divided diaspora, we're also having a couple of meetings with the diaspora members here, and then hopefully in New York as well, to just try and have that connection because there's a lot of overlap and of course we're working on the same thing. So we all need to connect, to achieve what it is that we want to achieve. Great. Let's take a couple more questions. We're going to squeeze in and then we're going to have to conclude up front here, please. Thank you, John. My name is Neal Chotut. I am with Align for Social News in diaspora, and I'm also with Social News News Online, which is Social News I'm using. Can you talk about the Ugandan involvement also about the rebel laws that are really siding with Cuba, the Kim. Let's not forget also a country is on fire now because that was what so-called coup. Which didn't happen. So if we're not really being honest about how this war is start, where are we going to go? How are we going to go forward? Thank you. Thank you. Just across the aisle here. Please keep to one question. Thank you. Yeah, my name is Iqiel Tons. I'm living here in Washington, D.C. What I want to go is the root cause, the beginning of this problem. It was the easy things that who will lead the party in the coming election? This was just an easy question. When will this problem to be... Sir, I'm going to ask you to please pose a question. We really are running short of time, please. Okay, the question is, the people that are moving outside the reality, the problem now we know is react and self. And for the international community to help South Sudanese to help is for two leaders to step down and form the government, who would believe from the rest of people. Even myself, I can suggest that somebody from Victoria region, because it's like the region who are in the middle. Thank you. These two questions, folks, and any final remarks you might want to say, because we're going to have to conclude after this. Sure. On the regional involvement, it's a hugely important issue. We have Uganda who came in very early. Now Sudan is increasingly drawn in. There are fears that this could continue to expand in that direction, which would be terrible. I think one, it shows the interest that all of these countries have in South Sudan. Since 2005, the oil is flowing. It's been a tremendous benefit to these countries. You've seen housing booms in Kampala and Nairobi and Addis. I think that's sort of the same avenue that one can preach to them for calm and peace, that really everyone will get richer if they can support a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Also, another point worth noting is that the whole region is on the verge of an oil boom. You have discoveries in Uganda, in Kenya, Ethiopia, a huge infrastructure project planned. I think maybe that's what has caused them to rush in on the one hand, because they see it sort of as that they can control it and maybe help to set the way for a boom, and more importantly, is stressing to them the benefits that could flow. Maybe I'll leave it there. I guess the only last point on your point, just to say about people often say that democratically elected government is and we can't touch it for that reason, and I think there's a need to go beyond that, that simply being democratically elected doesn't justify any type of action. So, of course, one can't forcefully push them from power, but to the extent that they can be convinced to step aside, I think that needs to be done in a more concerted way. Thank you. Isaac? Yeah, quickly to the question of Nial, you know, foreign forces. I think the civil society organizations have done, especially us in the diaspora, we brought up the idea of the complication that having these forces in the country will bring, because even if we sign peace, who can control foreign forces from these two sides? So I think the questions of their involvement is very important, and I think if we don't answer that, we will continue to experience difficulties implementing what we sign in our days, because if the president cannot control Uganda or some forces on the other side has some group that they cannot control, and then, you know, they can't say one thing about this, and then the people, you know, will do something different on the ground. So, you know, we have to advocate to make sure that for peace to prevail, this has to be one of the variables that has to be addressed. The other point that Izuki raised, I think, yeah, you know, if there could be a consensus that someone from the Kateria region can lead the interim government, and there is reason for that. Why not? I think that would be great. Thank you, and the last word goes to you. Well, we just have to stop the war. Stop taking sides. Stop taking sides, let's stop the war. I don't think anyone has control. So, if the Kateria doesn't have control over his forces, the Ekmechai doesn't have control over his forces, there's all these people coming in, Uganda, maybe we hear Eritrea, we hear Sudan on both sides, SPLM North, it's just too complicated. And what is it for? I think he said, yeah, there was no coup. It's clear. So, why are we fighting? There was no coup, and no one is addressing that. And if there was no coup, there was also no need to go to the bush. There was a need to say, you know, I feel on that Monday, this thing could have ended. If it hadn't been for the... for taking the opportunity for both sides to do what it is that they really wanted to do. And we should just stop taking sides, because that's how we take the power away from them, peacefully. So, that's my... in terms of the... you know, we need to create the political space so we can get the best for the country. We can't just place people or think this or think that, because we always end up in the same place. I don't know. I just think if we stop the war, everybody, anybody, anybody from South Sudan should be able to take this position. But they have to be the best, because we deserve it. And that's it. Thank you. Unfortunately, we do have to conclude. These folks have a busy schedule here in Washington, but I do want to greatly thank you all for coming from a long distance to spend some time with us. I think it was very useful. And also to encourage you to continue the really important work that you guys are doing. And also thanks to our audience and thanks to the online audience for joining us this morning.