 Good afternoon and thank you all for being here. I think we're also webcast as well, so welcome to those who are webcasting with us. And thank you all for being here. This is going to be, I think, a very, very valuable discussion. I've had the pleasure just before we came in of chatting with our very distinguished guests, and I think it's going to be a very important topic. But first, I have to give the standard USIP commercial. So for anybody who doesn't know what the US Institute of Peace is, you will now find out. So the US Institute of Peace was founded in 1984 by Congress as an independent national institute dedicated to the proposition that peace is possible, practical and essential for US and global security. We pursue this vision of a world without violent conflict by working on the ground with local partners. We provide people, organizations and governments at every level with the tools, knowledge and training to manage conflict so it doesn't become violent and resolve it when it does. We are making peace possible, so that is US Institute of Peace. And we're very pleased today to be co-hosting this discussion today with the Simon Scott Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. And we're honored to be with today, as I mentioned, some very courageous and very extraordinary people. We're coming at a time that we are into this conflict in South Sudan. It's hard to believe, four years. And the terrible violence and the terrible cost of the people of South Sudan is just beyond description, frankly. And yet, in spite of so many efforts at peace from within the country, from the international community, et cetera, we are still a long ways from there. The number of refugees I heard this morning from South Sudan is now one and a half million and many, many displaced within the country. There have been new efforts, a revitalization forum by EGAD, a national dialogue within the country, a new envoy for EGAD. Hopefully, these will begin to show results. And we've had some strong messages from the United States government. We had a visit by the new head of our USAID, Mark Green, to South Sudan and most recently, by Ambassador Vicki Haley, who made some very strong statements about not only the situation and the need to address it, but the frustration and the impatience of the United States. And I think that's true of our international partners to be providing assistance over and over again to the victims of this violence, but not seeing enough movement on peace and indeed real problems, even in the delivery of that assistance. But as people work on peace and work, governments work on it, some very important and some very courageous work is being done by civil society. And we know, all of us, I think, who work in this field, that if you're going to have successful and lasting peace processes, it can't only be by, as they say, the guys with the guns getting together and coming to an agreement. Not if it's going to be a peace that really benefits the whole country. And we also know, and there's a lot of evidence about it, and I urge those who haven't seen the evidence to look at it, that when women are at the table, and I mean actively participating at the highest levels and throughout the peace process, that peace processes are far more successful and last much, much longer. And that has to be an important part. And I have to say, in my time as an envoy and in talking with many, many of my colleagues who have been envoys, that's been one of the hardest things to do, and we haven't been very successful at it. We start off, we urge, we have meetings with people who are working in this area, but when you get closer and closer to the formal negotiations, there are pressures to shut out not only women, but other parts of civil society, and I know we'll talk about that here, but without it, we're not going to be very successful. And we have good success stories we can talk about, and we shouldn't forget them. Women's peace movement played a major role in ending the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Women, there's a new book out this by Swanee Hunt on the women who have helped recreate, if you will, society in Rwanda following the Holocaust. I know that in my time in South Africa during the negotiations ending apartheid, that it was civil society that developed the ideas, did the research, and convinced the powers that be about the need for a truth and reconciliation commission. It would not have happened without civil society because, frankly, neither of the powers that be really wanted one. And it's been a very important part of the peace process of South Africa. We've also seen it in other ways. In Nigeria, a country that I have followed for many years, as many of you have, we've seen poor elections for a long period of time. But during that time, the ability of civil society in Nigeria to monitor and evaluate elections grew steadily year by year under the now group together, under the transition monitoring group, which brings 400 groups together. And that work started in 1998, I think, contributed tremendously to what was Nigeria's probably most successful and transparent election in 2015. So civil society plays an enormous role, and it can, but it's not easy, as we'll see today. Now, I'm going to pass the microphone and do Susan to stagant. If you don't know where you should, she directs our Africa program here. I don't know how she does it all. I think she works 26 hours a day. But she has been instrumental in bringing this program together. And lived, as many of you know, in South Sudan for a number of years, very dedicated to the peace process. So, Susan, I'm going to turn it over to you, and thank you again, and thank you, our guests, for being here. Thanks, Ambassador Lyman. And let me add my welcome to all of those who are here today. It's, I think, an audience that follows and knows a lot about South Sudan. I'm glad to see we have representatives from the South Sudan Embassy. Ambassador, nice to have you here. And from other political groups from South Sudan. So I hope that this is a conversation. And I think it's particularly important to see that people around Washington really value the voices of these South Sudanese citizens and leaders. So my job is first to introduce you to our tremendous panel and then to steer a conversation to cover as much ground as possible in a short time with a lot of deep expertise and insight. Immediately next to me, I have Ms. Jehan Deng, who many of you will know from her role as a diplomat previously. She's currently serving on the board of directors of the South Sudan Women's Empowerment Network, was also a policymaker in South Sudan. Ben Gideon is currently a member of the South Sudan Law Society. He also served as a civil society representative to the EGAD-led negotiation process. Reverend James Ninru from the assistance mission in Africa, who's instrumentally involved in many dialogue and humanitarian efforts, particularly bridging together communities. Jeffrey Duke, who's leading the South Sudan We Want campaign currently, and we'll hear a little bit more later. And Dr. Luca Biang Dangkul, who's currently a professor of practice at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies and served previously in various governments in South Sudan, as well as with the University of Juba. So a really impressive group of people here today. And I want to start just by picking up on Ambassador Lyman's description of where we are in South Sudan. And it's rare that we get to hear from people who are living inside of the country. And I wonder, Reverend James, could you start just by sharing a little bit about coming from Juba? What's the situation there, as well as in other parts of the country where your organization is working? It should be on. You should be able to just pick it up. Good evening. Here's as few have heard, I'm Reverend James Ninru. I come from South Sudan. I'm heading assistant mission for Africa. Just to give you a sense of what is happening in our country, nothing is moving in terms of peace talk. Nothing is moving in terms of development and economy. But other things are moving. The conflict is raging. People are starving. It's still the sense of recognizing that we are heading into a ditch is not being seen. That give appreciation and give the initiative that people are making, like the churches, the civil society, even the region, that is not happening. Again, what is disturbing is inside the government also is having its own challenges. The opposition are having their own challenges. And in those challenges, as the saying is saying, when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffered. It is the normal South Sudanese. It is the woman. It is the child. It is the people who are not in high position that are suffering. We see everybody is yawning for peace. Everybody is looking for a help that this country with the hard-won independence and the loss of lives is now slipping away from our hands. And as a result, you have heard of so many people leaving the country into our neighboring countries. Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya. Internally, more than four million people are internally displaced. Having said that, that does not mean that there is no opportunity and there is no window of addressing this. Should we have the political will? Should we have the opportunity of bringing the parties to the conflict into a table of talk? Then I think we will be able to move out of this. But that opportunity is not happening now. You see, sometimes they announce ceasefire. It's just the following day an attack is happening. That is the situation we are in. We are not able to hold somebody responsible of his own word. And that is happening across the board. And I think it's high time we need to pay attention into that. Thank you. Johan, maybe I can turn to you just to pick up a little bit more about what you are seeing, what you are hearing from others within the Women's Empowerment Network. And your experience about the engagement of women in particular as well as South Sudanese and the diaspora right now. What's the feeling? What are you hearing? What are you seeing? Thank you, Susan. Thank you for the audience and USIP for the opportunity for us to come and engage and have a dialogue. This is what I call it. South Sudan since its inception or independence 2011 has suffered the basic thing that I consider which is the identity aspect. And so from the identity of who we are to the fact that we disintegrated into looking into our tribal aspects. Now as a woman, for us within the tribes women have no boundaries. The sense you could be born in one tribe and you can get married to another tribe, which makes a woman to be a neutralizer. And it brings the statement of Ambassador Lehmann that women's role is very strong in bringing about peace. Now peace is crucial for us in South Sudan and we've been yearning for it. Two decades of civil war, peace is a new terminology that we really need to come to understand and bring it along identity of who we are as South Sudanese. Just as tribes and groups, the women groups, long before during the decades of struggle for independence into the current situation, have always strived to cross borders and communicate without knowing or adhering to parties or adhering to political structures or institutions. South Sudan Women Empowerment Network has worked not only with the women but also with the youth. Our focus is to bring the true identity, to empower the women and to see where the roles are. We've done that before independence when we engage in the election 2009 and then we've done that now. We continue to do it when South Sudan gained independence 2011. South Sudan Women Empowerment went into reviewing the basic structure called the constitution. So we engage in the transitional constitution review. We took it to the women at the grassroot. We went and we talked to women. We told them, this document represents you and it's important for you to understand what it is. We came up with the consensus. We came up with affirmative actions and we also got hold of resolution. UN Security Council 1325 to make sure that we have, you know, the engenderment and presence of women at all levels of governance from the boom level, which is the smallest structure all the way to the national. Now, presence of a woman is not just by sitting at the table, by being engaged. So we've engaged in addressing gender-based violence. We've engaged in addition to reviewing the constitution review. We also looked into how can we establish centers in the different and we addressed it from the perspective of the greater three areas of the South Sudan. Greater Upper Nile, Greater Baradazal and Greater Equatoria. And we have centers in the grassroot. We engage with the chiefs and the women at the grassroot to understand. And the greatest challenge we have right now is women with the issue of identity. They are still not able to come under one umbrella per se. Now with the signing of the, after the conflict of 2013, unfortunately with the agreement of resolution of conflicts, conflict resolution in South Sudan, women went in from different perspectives. They tried to be part of the negotiation table. And at some point they were kind of with resilience from them. They were able to be given a platform. And a seat was created for women block to represent the women of South Sudan. But that was not really accepted by everybody. We still had fragmentation of women's group, whether they are from government institutions or civil society. Civil society, we have a number of groups of women. We have the National Women Association. We have the Women Coalition of South Sudan. And that was part of the Women Coalition of the Sudan. That was successful. Ambassador Lehman made remarks into it because 2012 the Women Coalition went and looked at the protocol. And in addressing the protocol from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, we tried to address the cooperative agreement, which were transformed from protocol to the agreement after 2011. Women from both the countries were able to sit. The amazing part is now, which is a very challenging part, is having women within the one country, South Sudan, to sit together and just kind of like get rid of the clothing of we are this party or that party and perhaps, as I said, together and look into the linkage on how do we reduce the impact of conflict. Because we were impacted greatly. We were hurt the most. We were injured the most. We encountered different types of violation, from rape to aggressive killing when a pregnant woman is killed and how, you know, fetus is killed. It's very horrendous. But women, South Sudan Women Empowerment Network wants to be able to focus on the positive energy, on the identity aspect, on strengthening the institutions of the identity of the Sudanese women and citizens. Thanks, Jehan. I want to pick up on this question of inclusion, which has come up consistently as part of the negotiation processes and the various other processes that are underway and the question of what does inclusion look like and how should civil society be engaged in a way that's constructive and adds up to a better peace agreement. And I wonder, Ben, could I turn to you on this? And I'd be curious about any reflections on your past, your participation in the past process and any reflections on how civil society is currently being engaged either by the EGAD process or in the national dialogue. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honor to be here and share the development. Generally, let me first underline from where my colleague talked before, Nenro, that the war is still going on and there are three things that have clearly pictured as a result of that war and the three things are not in the interest of everybody. I mean, from the humanity point of view. There's a continued total near-economic collapse. There is a political instability and finally the continued destruction of the social fabric. And if the three things are allowed to continue, we would not have the country and that's the only country we have. Back to the engagement of civil society in the EGAD peace process. Of course, the previous experience shows quite problematic. When I was involved in the previous negotiation, it's happened that we didn't have one unified civil society interest despite the fact that of course civil society is an interest group that has nothing called unified civil society position or anything. This is all about like-minded coming together and poaching for your call. When we were involved in the previous arses, in the previous agreement, we were having our challenges of representation, our challenges of different views of how each and every one of us could contribute to the process. And so with some identity, this civil society group is supporting this and the other civil society group is supporting that, which is better said. I mean, it actually questioned the sense of independence and neutrality. Even when we were continuing the peace process until the end, it became very clear that civil society didn't have one unified position to push for that cause. Nevertheless, now there is ongoing high-level liberalisation forum, the EGAD high-level liberalisation forum established by the head of states and government. And civil society have been consulted in Yuba. It's unfortunate again that the pre-consultation timetable only consult non-state actors or civil society groups that are only in Yuba. I thought the same consultation could have been extended to other civil society that are outside South Sudan because not everybody that is outside South Sudan is a rebel as others may consider it to be. There are those who for their own security reasons cannot be in Yuba. They can be outside Yuba but not necessarily members of the opposition. So the consultation which has been done, has already been done with the civil society that are only in Yuba and the civil society that are outside Yuba have already spoken, have already disapproved the consultation and that is again another plantation of problem within the civil society. So it is something to still engage the EGAD in order to consider inclusivity of talking almost to every sector of society so that we arrive at a positive process. So I think so far that is what I could give as an highlight with regard to the consultation. Thank you very much. Thanks. I'm going to turn to Dr. Lukano who was involved in one of the experts consultations from EGAD and has also been following these various processes. And I guess I'd ask a similar question of what are the best modes for citizens civil society to engage in this in these various processes and what can be learned? That first of all, thank you very much for the year, for this event and for creating this space. Maybe what I would like to do is to zoom in about the current situation that may give us even a hint of the level of the situation. The crisis in Yuba currently between the government and the former chief of general staff is a reflection of a failure of state and the legitimacy and lack of capacity for the state even to put its house in order. Secondly, it's a clear case also of a lack of a social contract between the people and the state because it is no longer about DINCA because the agenda of DINCA is being tested and has failed and it's a clear case. It's for me it is a good example, but the implications are following. Although I will come to the issue of the year, it is a clear case that the peace agreement will not survive and it's actually dead. But importantly also that's why some of us were engaged with the EGAD as experts about 18 of us and were called from about 80% of these people came from Yuba. And we say there is a clear case, there's a lack of political will by the government and even for the and then the opposition. And then it is clear that we need because the government is going to face a legitimacy by next year and then legitimacy cannot be filled except by a credible mechanism that can create that condition. But we said even for these two parties they need to have an exit strategy for them. But it was good because for the first time the EGAD managed to involve what is called high level experts. And we were actually some of us coming from different places but we're saying one voice, our voice was one that the current status cannot continue. And for me we hope the EGAD revitalization is facing two fundamental questions. EGAD itself is divided into two. You have Uganda, you have Egypt to a certain degree Eritrea and I could say even Morocco and Chad, they believe that they want to go to the process of the unification of the SBI. And to weaken the whole lot of revitalization process. And then you have Ethiopia and Sudan that are actually for the revitalization. But I came from Sudan, I mean from Khatum, but it's a clear case that each of these forces, they divided the two groups, actually I could say they are going to weaken even to kill the revitalization. And that one is bringing me to a point that we should think about what if the revitalization fails. And this is the thing that I feel that we should look forward and to see because it is imminent that the revitalization is not going to succeed. Thanks Dr. Luca. I wonder if I can ask each of you because we've talked a lot about what's happened in the past and where we are today. And what I'd like to ask is what could a workable outcome look like? And maybe not the whole picture, but maybe one piece of it. If you could make a recommendation to EGAD, the AU, the US, what needs to happen to help to move South Sudan out of the violence that it's currently experiencing? And I would ask each of you to maybe speak to one thing so that we can add it up. And I'll come back to Jeffrey in one second, yeah. Do you want to start? Jehan, do you want to start? You can take this one here. Yeah, I think one thing that I could contribute to end the ongoing violence is what Dr. Luca talks about. South Sudan has been held hostage by EGAD and so I would love if the multilateral organization, the African Union and the U.N. and the U.S. could put collective pressure on EGAD to leave holding South Sudan hostage. In other words, allow this forum that has been created, the high-level liberalization forum, as an honest platform for South Sudanese to dialogue among themselves and to reach a makeable solution. I'm saying this from an experienced point of view when I was in the previous process that we sometimes can reach a degree of reaching consensus, but because of the geopolitical competition over South Sudan and South Sudan is being used for long at the testing ground for geopolitical development by the region. So we can easily get interrupted. So let the United States in particular use it for relationship with the poor, foreign-line states, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Egypt. Let them get off from South Sudan. And this principle of subsidiarity, in fact, has proven putile. I mean, when we call for leaving the process to the African Union, then they come in the question of subsidiarity. And the law says if you fail the principle of subsidiarity, then definitely it has to go back to the higher level. The principles of subsidiarity, in fact, begin with the government of South Sudan first, that they are obliged by the constitution and the law to solve their own agenda problem. And if they fail, then it goes to the regional economic community level like IGOT. If the IGOT fail, then it has to go to the African Union. And if the AU fail, it has to go to the UN. That is the meaning of the principle of subsidiarity. It couldn't work any more. The IGOT has been given enough opportunity, but they have been proven right. Now they are given last chance, which of course everybody is aware of that. The high-level revitalization forum is the last chance. And if they continue to play their politics of dividing their interests, of putting their influence in the government of South Sudan, then definitely we have to call off this principle of subsidiarity and give to the African Union. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. I think all efforts have been tried. The agreement on conflict resolution was an external idea that was brought in. And none of the warring party really agreed to it. They all had reservation. And so it turned out into increasing conflict, 2015, 2016, and so on. The current situation, from my perspective as a woman rep, has two approach. One of them is to engage the citizen. You know, during the referendum, the citizen actually participated strongly, and they had a full understanding of what they wanted. So then it comes to the national dialogue, which is a people-to-people engagement. The social fabric has been torn. So whatever peace agreement you're going to do without re-repairing the social fabric through the dialogue among the people is going to be very challenging because the element of trust needs to be brought among the people and then the people and the government. So the revitalization process also can help. And I would recommend reduction of external other countries. We have too many countries that are involved in the peace process in South Sudan. The region, we have, what, nine countries that are surrounding us? And so if each and every, the region has its interest. So when you're coming into negotiating the peace process within South Sudan, you're coming with your own package. You're coming with consideration to the interest of the citizen of South Sudanese. So then reduce that, bring in the key actors, if South Sudan and Sudan with the help of the U.S., because the U.S. have supported the birth of South Sudan. And so what happened? Why was suddenly a vacuum that created an increased conflict? There's a need to strengthen the institutions. There's a need also for humanitarian aspect. Because really, when you bring all these papers and we agree upon them, and a humanitarian crisis, the hunger that is going on, which was caused not only by the conflict, but it was also caused by the economic collapse, which has so many other implications, whether it is the drop of the currency, the local currency has weakened against the dollar, lack of production because of the conflict. So hunger itself is a conflict. Leave alone the arms. So that is another aspect that international community and the people are forgetting. And while the focus is on other areas of where there's conflict, you need to strengthen the few spots that are actually farming. It's amazing the news we got from women's group and other societies that are involved in farming and cultivation and production. That is completely being ignored. And the cry on humanitarian aspects is the one that's being lauded. What I'm saying is that let us also look into what is positively being provided by the citizen of South Sudan. Great. I knew it was a more complex question than one answer, but Reverend James, one recommendation to try to get South Sudan out of this situation? Well, before the recommendation, I think I have to stress this point, that if you start with a wrong mediator, then definitely you are going nowhere. I think EGOT in the first place is wrong mediator because of the interest that everybody have said. Therefore, the recommendation that I would put forward is that enough is enough and EGOT has taken its chances. I don't see a magic that will turn this round and make EGOT credible again. I would love to say that EGOT should hand over the file of South Sudan into another credible organization. And here I suggest, I don't know how credible it is, but I think the African Union logically is in place to take it over. Dr. Luker, do you want to come in and then we're going to get to Jeffrey. We're saving his, his, his, his stocks. Yeah, for me, two things on the process. I think it is very important the issue of subsidiarity is critical. I think these countries, when you look at them, they have a very special interest in Sudan, in South Sudan, whether it being economic or even security. And I think we have a comparative advantage because they have a vested interest. The way they are divided now to a certain degree are influenced by some other actors. So I believe that we need to invest more of what you have bill on it. Don't, don't lose it. If you take it counter factually, if you take it to African Union, you are having complicated, the same even complicated, even further. And that's why it is very important to have hybrid processes whereby you may need to have, for example, between African Union and the EGOT, and the possibility of making use of the former heads of state and, and to use them to come in with a certain, with a certain weight based on the regional representation. For me, I think that's a very important. The other one, issue of sanctions. I come from Khotum. I visit Khotum and there was a lifting of sanctions and I was amazed, the jubilation. The American flag that used to be burned on the street is being raised and people carrying it high and, and, and then there are now the elites in Khotum talking about the course of the year of, of, of sanctions. Sanctions do bite. And I think the decision by the US government to impose sanctions to targeted sanctions is actually helpful. And I want to link this one to the Guardian report on the letters of credit, which actually expose a very clear case of how elites are using and benefiting from this war. And it is important that this, this, this sanction to be extended. And the, and I think Kenya did it now. Canada took the same, the same. And I hope that the United Nations should do the same. But even the, the African Union and the good thing African Union peace and security council in the last meeting, they actually show that if the parties fail to engage positively in the revitalization, they will be imposing sanctions. And I really encourage this issue of sanctions are very important. The third is we need to involve the parties, especially the leadership of the two parties, of this incentive for them to, to give, to give space for a credible mechanism that can help the people of South Sudan to express their views, the leaders that they would like. With the current government in Cuba, or even the opposition, they will not be credible enough to create that conducive environment for the people of South Sudan. Thanks. Jeffrey, I haven't intentionally been leaving you out of the conversation, but I wanted to use you to remind us to come back to this notion that it's not just about what's happening at these formal political processes. But we need to think through what needs to happen through a civil society citizen-led dialogue. And I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about your thoughts on what are the recommendations, what needs to go forward, as well as the campaign that you're leading. Thank you. It's an honor to be here, and thanks for everyone for coming. What needs to be done, the answer I would say I would begin with is let the South Sudanese talk. And you know that we cannot talk when the guns are still sinking. That's why this whole idea of national dialogue that is being pushed right now is not going to achieve any meaningful outcome if the guns are still sinking. It makes no sense for people to talk when they're still hostilities. Moving on, if we look at the peace process since in the aftermath of December 2013, we have seen citizens' voices have largely been left out. Discussions at the table has mainly been about those who had guns. And my colleague here, when he was civil society rep in the talks, but just as sort of a minor, he couldn't take substantive decisions with votes on the table. Why? Because his constituency doesn't have guns. And that is a culture that we have been perpetuating since the CPA. And especially following the 2010 elections, where we have seen a wave of uprisings. And once someone rises up, picks up arms, fights for a few weeks or months, the government then talks with them, gives them a government position and some money, and then they shut up. And that has encouraged more people to pick up arms. So discussions about the future of South Sudan has mainly been had by those who have guns. And unfortunately, we are still stuck in that form of status quo, seeing from the last few talks. And right now, the upcoming revitalization forum, those who have been considered as the major stakeholders, the armed actors. And there's no doubt about that, that there's going to still be a conversation about those who are armed. So unless we depart from that mentality of saying that it is the armed that are supposed to shape the future of this country, we are going to just be beating around the bush and cycling around, rewarding rebellions and another peace talk and rewarding other bunch of rebels. So moving on to the next, we also have to appreciate the fact that following the independence of South Sudan, we have not had a crucial conversation of what kind of South Sudan we want to build. Without that conversation, we just began a journey of saying, let's go, we want our independence. Let's just continue as a country without having a consensus on what South Sudanese states do we want to build and which conversation should have either been had in the run-up to the independence or immediately after the independence so that we have an idea of the state that we want to build. So in the absence of that national vision, there is sense in saying that the crisis in 2013 was partly as a result of a class of visions or the absence of it. As we saw the conflict within the ruling party, especially among the members of the political bureau, was that you do not have a vision, I have it. No, no, no, you do not. You have lost a vision. And that graduated into hostilities. So while dissecting the causes of the civil war, you would see sense in this as a class of vision. So civil society have taken upon themselves this context and decided to launch a campaign called the South Sudan We Want Campaign, which is joint civil society initiatives that I am coordinating at the moment. And the idea of the campaign is to give South Sudanese from all walks of life an equal opportunity to speak about the future of South Sudan. And that is now taking South Sudan beyond the table of the armed. And especially at a time where there is widespread lack of trust among citizens due to the crisis and how incredibly difficult it is to bring the ruling parties on the same table to talk. The campaign becomes a handy tool to foster conversation among South Sudanese on the future that South Sudanese want. There is a saying that if you do not know where you're going, even if you have the best car in the world, it will not get you there. And that is basically what the campaign is trying to make sense of. That we need to build a consensus on a disnation for the South Sudan of tomorrow. And to paint a current mass, absolutely we need to try to paint a better future. Ultimately, the future that is worth building is that which the South Sudanese want. And there is no other way of knowing it other than listening to them. And that is essentially what the South Sudan we want campaign is trying to further. Thank you. Thanks. So we are going to share one of the first episodes of the South Sudan We Want campaign for those who haven't had a chance to hear it. And then also to add another voice to our panel for someone who wasn't able to be here today. Yes. Can you see? You can see? Member James, you can see? Can you see the screen? Thank you, Jeffrey, for sharing that. And just for everyone to know that there are other episodes and videos that are on YouTube under the South Sudan We Want channel. Nice to see a lot of familiar places, including some of the stars who are on the panel here today. Oh, yours is on the next one? Okay, so for the next one you have to go online to see it. Let's open it up for questions and comments from the group who are here. If people are following online, we're also happy to take those questions either through the hashtag. Yes, we'll start here. Thank you so much. I just ask you to wait for microphones to those who are watching online can hear as well. Thank you so much for the great presentation. My question is to Dr. Luca. I'm really curious to understand your thoughts about the national dialogue that's going on. And then I'm curious to understand also the issue of foreign support and maintaining conflict. So when you talked about the 80% of you participating in the IGAT or invited by IGAT. So I'm wondering if there's any opportunity for South Sudanese to find out by themselves what they want. Thanks. A question at the very back. Thank you so much for the opportunity. My name is Atem Malak. I'm a South Sudanese obviously. So thank you panelists for your contribution. One of the questions that I would like to get a response from each of you if possible is, what do you do with the current situation where we have a camp or break my charge here and the other rebels that are in between agendas? How do you convince those parties to come together? And most importantly with regard to Kira and find a solution because he has a camp that really is loyal to him and the same to react. So how do you reconcile those two into building a country where there are peacemakers than being instigators for conflict? Thank you. Thanks. Take one more at the back and we'll come up at the front and then we'll do a round of answers. Thank you everybody. My name is Samuel Garang and I really appreciate the kind of work that many of you are doing in South Sudan having also been there with you guys and understanding the difficulties that you go through to be able to conduct your activities. And so one of the things and the reality that we know is that at the heart of the conflict that we are going through as a country is the disconnect between us the elite and I would be honest. We who are here, who are educated together with the government, together with the rebel groups that are fighting for the control of the authority or I mean of the country, constitute the elite and we know about what is happening to our country in spite of the challenges that we have. The biggest, you go to Equatoria, you go to Upper Nile, you go to Baraka. These are the people who are not benefiting from the country itself and these are the people who are affected whenever the conflict arise. I just wonder not that I think you guys should know and it's a challenge to myself is how do we really get to the heart of the society, the people who are in these villages who get confused by the different factions. I've done a number of researches and I've gone to villages and I've seen these people they really dream of nothing but to live peaceful lives and they have no hatred against each other but they easily get confused by what is happening at the capital that they don't even know about. When peace comes like it was signed in Addis Ababa, it just comes, it's about hearing or power and then when they get confused in Yuba they start fighting and then everybody gets dragged in. So how do we disable this power center in Yuba and really get to the people? Thank you. It's a great question. I'll ask the audience to try to keep their questions to questions as much as possible so we can get to the answers. Angelina? Thank you very much. My name is Angelina. I'm actually from the SVLM in opposition. First I want to just make a couple of remarks and then I'll add my question and this is very important because we want an effective civil society that would contribute to solutions and I'm saying this because we had an experience and I was part of the peace talks and SPLM IO, our proposal as when we were discussing the security arrangement was for total demilitarization of South Sudan. Now we thought we would have an ally from the civil society but unfortunately we didn't get the ally we needed from the civil society because we thought that was the most, for example, most obvious thing maybe that would dismantle the power center that was just being talked about. I want to say the dialogue has been going on and I would wish that the civil society do not think that they're starting this dialogue and it's important to really look back as to what happened in 2011 as we were discussing the transitional constitution of South Sudan. That's when the dialogue started and that dialogue is what went wrong. So instead of ignoring that, let's take the courage and start from there and propose what in that dialogue because in that dialogue the question was what kind of South Sudan are we going into. Somewhere disagreeing that we do not want to inherit institutions of marginalization. Others were very happy with the status quo and that lingered on up to today. Good cause is right, you will not get the correct solution you need to diagnose the problem, you need to diagnose who said what and who's done what rather than just taking the shortcut of let me say making statements of generalization because it has become... Could I ask you to get to your question please? We want to give time for everybody to lay them out so... Yeah, thank you but I want to say this about the civil society as well and this is very important. The civil society, the best place for you to start from is the premises of honesty and speaking the truth and that will help all of us. Thanks. So why don't we invite the panelists to respond to any of the questions that you'd like to respond to? Please don't feel you have to respond to all of them. I'd like to get to at least one other round of questions. Maybe Dr. Luku can start with you on the regional issues and I'll just ask the panelists to hold the mics close too so everyone can hear. Let me about this national dialogue. I think national dialogue, I think this center I think Suzette is here she did a good job in terms of what is a good dialogue but context differs. I think definitely this national dialogue for some of us we believe it is not credible enough. It is a way of how the government would like to legitimize itself because as Godfrey said you cannot start without the gun is still there. So the peace agreement is that one is creating as environment to have a religion with national dialogue. And I think some of us were very clear and it's good now it has reached a dead end with this crisis now happening in Yuba. Even the very people actually involved in national dialogue. How can you talk about the national dialogue? When you have one individual with 16 officers or army, I mean 16 soldiers and you just put the whole country into standing still and they are unable to resolve that one. Leave alone the whole people of South Sudan. So I think that's that one which is not the time, the sequencing is not the time. The second one is about the, I think let me come to this issue of Kyr and Rye. I think all of us the South Sudanese they know. There's no way if you talk about the revitalization today that Kyr and Rye will be able to work together. That one absolutely it will not happen. And people know two of them courageously on the base of the peace and the stability of South Sudan. They have a moral ground to create that conducive environment and allow others. But we cannot do it. We have to do it in a way that it should allow them also a good dignified exit strategy. And for me, I think that's the debate we need to have with our leaders because they are unable to deliver and they don't have even the political will to do that one. Let me come today and I would like to pick up on what Angelina said. It is very clear that even though we are talking about among ourselves our South Sudanese we have deficiency that we should recognize. Capacity deficit and trust. And we cannot build institutions with such two elements. And that's why it is critical. Like for example, Liberia was so courageous enough after the war to say look we cannot have a national army in the way we are today. Let us go to the drawing board. And it's a good thing we have a united nation. We have the regional protection forces. And then it's that afresh building a national army that can actually reflect indeed the image of the people of South Sudan. Or even the banking system, the corruption we are seeing about the letter of credit and I believe there will be also another one especially what is called Nile Pet. A lot of things will be exposed. We are seeing for example the Bank of South Sudan. There is no way we can have a non-South Sudanese to manage that one. Or even the oil sector, we can bring it. So these are some of the things we discussed when we were together in the as an expert, what we are called high level expert of South Sudanese. But at least we talked and some of these are some of the issues that we discussed. I think let me just conclude one thing. The political, the sounds that we want cannot happen unless you have a credible political parties. These political parties are the one going to engage with a vision, crafting a vision and to engage with the citizen. And even the civil society, I believe that one. It is when we have these credible political parties that we will be able now to engage with the citizen. I love this very big gap and I think she is right between the elites and the citizen. And that's why we want this credible environment so that we can engage the political parties to come up, the versus of society, so that to come engage with the citizen so that you can forge this house that they want. I will just be very brief on two common. One is what do different parties or armed groups? What do you do with them? I mean, the opponent is already a bail now through the Agad High-Level Reputalization Forum and different armed actors and political opinions have been consulted across the board. So it's an opportunity that as time goes on they will be consulted, they will come together and definitely a final solution to the armed conflict will be sought in that forum. So it's a question of a political process. The only one is that to give them audience and have a political process and political dialogue to agree together. On the question of civil society and starting from the point of honesty and as Madame Angelina put it, I could actually agree with her that without capacity, without knowing what you want, you can't be credible. And as she's speaking from the experience point of view when I and her were involved in the previous Agad peace process, we know what went wrong. The fact that civil society movement is something new is a question of people involved themselves, a polarization that is going on because there are those that submit to polarization and there are those that do not. So it's a question of integrity, whether are you able to stand your ground and do what is required of you or are you able to submit in. And not until we come to that realization, we forget that we will have a unified civil society that will speak the voice of civil society movement like other countries and does it. So that's the problem. There's a challenge. South Sudan is undergoing. But nevertheless, we will continue to speak out. We will continue to make ourselves relevant to issues. We will continue to say and do what is required of us, whether anybody is ready to listen to it or not. That will not stop us from doing what is required of us. Thank you very much. Talking about the disconnect between the elites and the grassroots. I think the grassroots have no much problem, but they have been brought into this chaos by the elite. So the first dialogue should take place between the elite themselves. And I could give you an example where I operate now. We operate in two areas, an area under the SPLA-IO control and then another area under the government. That is Yerul and Payinjar and Rumbegis, which is among them. We have peace committees in those areas. The peace committees are in contact. And three years ago, it was not possible for normal people to move, but today they are moving. They have gone to the extent of that they want to dialogue themselves. But guess what? The commission of Yerul would not agree for his people to go to Payinjar. The commission of Payinjar would not agree for the peace committee of Payinjar to go to Yerul. So the problem is not the grassroots. The problem is us, who are instigating, who are giving wrong messages. So the dialogue should begin here with two conditions. One, inclusivity. How come now you say you have a national dialogue? If a national dialogue, if the members of the national dialogue could not visit IDV camps, which are about three or five miles from the president office, then what national dialogue is it? You could not visit an area that is being controlled by IEU or an IEU could not visit an area that is being controlled by government. What is it that national dialogue we are talking about? So the missing gap here is we need to avail opportunity for people to talk and starting with the big ones. Now, this talk is not made possible by the mediators. You remember I started with that. If you start with the wrong mediator and then you are going to end up messing everything. How come now you say you are doing revitalization? You say I don't want Riyag Masher. Let Riyag Masher send his delegation. But why are you taking so many steps? If Riyag Masher is available to talk, why do you take a junior person, bring him? If Kir is one who wanted to talk, why do you take Mukwei? Bring Kir. These are the shortcuts that we need to do. And it's not happening. And the region is behind that because they want this country to remain peaceful. Thank you. I just want to make one remark about the connection between the people and the government. We have made a mistake and it comes to the issue of identity. When we started identifying a group of people as elite and identifying the others as non-elite, you're already making a distinction here. The South Sudanese people, and I want to remind you, went out on a referendum massively. And that was a political move. It was not distinguished that you are educated or elite or a politician or a farmer. They all went on one line and voted in country, in diaspora, different environment, different circumstances. What is it now we can do the same thing? Why do you distinguish groups of people and then put them in groups and in tribes? Dr. Jongerang, during the liberation movement, he said a government of weak people becomes a weak government. A government of poor people becomes a poor people. So then it comes back that a government cannot operate even though it's the decision maker without the people. Now, when you come back to the element of distinguishing or dividing the people into groups, our people have knowledge and understanding. I happened to have participated in a survey. 2006, I went to the grass root. I was uphold. I was really amazed when I met the chiefs, the women groups. They were organized, 2006, before independence, right after the signing of the peace agreement. We need to reflect back into history how did South Sudan come about? And then look into what is it now? Why are we calling ourselves as in you are an illiterate and you are an educated? Whereby the illiterate can sit and reason with you. We have judiciary laws. Let me say in the common person we have chiefs on the grass root. And the chiefs had powers before the steady structure came in. And those powers were dismantled. We need to come back to those. Empower the people, give them the rule of law, and give them the self-confidence. When you look at a person and tell him you are nothing, what you're doing you're weakening that person. So we do that to ourselves as South Sudanese. We need to really acknowledge our strength and build on it. That's when the trust will come among us as a people. So I really encourage you to not only just talk about why you're calling me this name or that name, but then how you are identifying me. I'm a citizen. And yes, I did not have access to education, but I have common knowledge. Here in the U.S. education is addressed when you are going to university. Actually, there is a common, what do you call it? There is a general study that you take before you specialize, even in the high school. And there is a subject that you have to have common sense. Guess what? South Sudanese have a lot of common sense. And that is out of many of us who have been to the grass root and have engaged with them. And then when we come and we gain our degrees and PhDs and so on and so forth, we feel like I'm better than him. No, you're not. The knowledge you have, you are there to give it back to the people that needs it. And that is the element that we really need to focus on. In order for us to engage in dialogue and see who's right and who's wrong, is that we have to address ourselves as equal human beings. Jeffrey, please. Let me jump in just for a minute. It's absolutely important to appreciate the disconnect, but I would rather call it the connect between the elite. Let me use it for the purpose of this conversation. We're not defining anything here. And the local, we like to look at it from the perspective of who is doing the actual fighting of the war. Is it the elite or the locals? The actual battlefield, who is there? It is the locals. And we all know that without, cannot sustain that title. So they survive. Both the rebel and the government survive on these locals for sustaining the hostilities. The government drowns the narrative that we are protecting the constitution. People want to grab power by force, but it's supposed to be through elections. And the rebels are saying these guys are not legitimate anymore. They're corrupt. I mean, you know these familiar narratives being drawn by both sides. And at the end is the locals who are confused. It's like, which side do I take? And then others come there and say, you know what? Your tribes are being finished. This is an existential threat. You rather pick up arms or you wait for your own slaughter. This is the kind of confusion that is going on in the grassroots. And we, as part of civil society recently, a few colleagues under the auspices of the South Sudanese Forum, Youth Leaders Forum, had a closer look at this problem. And we were trying to, I mean, some of us were trying to say, the youth, I think, are the next leaders, the elders of mess this thing up. But then we realized that no, the youth are the ones in the battlefields. We can't say, we can't act sanctimonious and say we are the ones who are out of the problem and want to lead this country. So one of the things to do that came out in that conversation is that we have to face this threat on. These are the same communities that both parties are going into. We have to go to these communities and redefine the narrative. And trying to confront the narratives being advanced by both the government and the opposition, if we want to really follow that path of independent civil society. And without a doubt, these guys are also being drawn to the different sides because of economic hardships. So what incentives do these sides offer? If it's economic entitlements, what incentives are we going to offer a civil society? That's the question. Thank you. I know there's, okay, we'll take, I'm going to take two last questions or comments and then we'll shift over. Ambassador, please, yeah. I will ask people to please keep them short. We're running your time. Thank you very much. I'm Reyes Mosh, former member of the National Legislative Assembly. I have just a few questions and I will go just in brief. I will not take long time. I want to thank the South Sudan We Want Team for the good work you're doing. This is what we should really do to make sure that we see South Sudan that we want. You know, South Sudan is our country and we know it better than anybody. I used to tell people that you read us on papers and on books, but we, the South Sudanese, we know ourselves and we know the problem. If we have the power, we can bring the solution. If two people are fighting in the hours, for example, I just want to give an example. A woman and a man or a husband and a wife, they are fighting in their own hours. And you come as somebody who wants to resolve the problem and you say that I don't want to talk to a man or a woman, but I will talk to the children. You will not bring solution to that family. You are destroying it. I want to say that because, you know, we know all the root causes of the problem and we know the two big parties that are fighting actually have the people on the ground fighting, like the SP element opposition and the government. And now the world has turned out to isolate the SP element opposition, trying to say something that somebody who wants to mediate should not say, telling people, for example, the SP element opposition, you remove your leader. We don't want your leader. And if you remove your leader, then we will have peace. And how can somebody who is a leader of certain group be told, you know, to go away and telling the people that we don't want your leader and then we will have peace? Actually, the peace is between an enemy, it's not between friends. If people are actually friends, you don't need peace because they are friends. If they are enemies and then you have to mediate them so they come together. The narrative that, you know, self-acquire and I will go, I don't like self-acquire because self-acquire has turned out to somebody who is killing people. But for the sake of peace, I will accept to dialogue with self-acquire because there is no place where self-acquire will go. We are all sorts of denies. The same thing. I'm sorry to... If you have a question, please. Peace agreement need a credible body. And EGAR has failed and EGAR need to give it up because we have given EGAR so many chances and they failed. And I would suggest the UN should take the peace agreement for us to appease. Everybody have an interest, for example. The EGAR have interest. Even USIP may have their interest because they may choose who they want to talk to and who they don't want to talk to. Everybody have an interest. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to pass it. And one last thing. Can I please ask you to pass it to the ambassador so he has an opportunity to comment please. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Make sure that I'm not going to talk like you. I'm going to referee. Thank you, Susan, for this forum. And also thank my colleagues on the floor there and also my best regards to my friend, minister Dr. Luca. Well, those who don't know, Luca was a minister. In the office of the president, eight years ago, nine years ago, I will just have a lot of comments but I won't for several time. I will not make them but I will throw two questions to my friend Dr. Luca. Honorable Dr. Luca, you talk about the government that is currently running the country having failed. And you are prescribing a solution but you are not seeing it clearly. But we read between the lines that you are trying to pass the solutions that are prescribed by your friends in FD's group that is the government of technocrats that should take over. And also if that doesn't work, the country should be handed over to the UN. These are my accusations. The second, you are saying that this government has lost legitimacy up to next year would not be legitimate. But how will you legitimize the prescription that you are trying to put in place? Where will they get the legitimacy from? Thank you. These are my two questions. Thanks. I'm going to have to close the questions here and actually we are running out of time and what I'm going to suggest Ambassador if it's okay this is actually a separate and sustained conversation and I think one worth having and so if you are interested in coming back perhaps we will have a specific conversation on that. I would like to thank all of the panelists and I would like to thank everybody for the dialogue. I think you set the tone at the beginning to say this is a dialogue and it truly has been that. And I think particularly Jeffrey this picture of ways that creatively people can be asked the very simple but critically important questions about the South Sudan that people want. I mean it's there's a lot of complexities but at the end of the day it could end up being quite simple. So let me thank all of the panelists and welcome John Teman who is currently a fellow at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum just to make a final remark and thank you. Yes thank you very much to the panel and let me just add my thanks on behalf of the Simon Scott Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to my friends and former colleagues here at USIP for organizing this event. They did most of the heavy lifting and did a wonderful job as always. Let me also thank the panelists for sharing some very important thoughts with us today for some of them from coming from very far away and working very hard this week and for all of them for their very brave and courageous and obviously very important work on the ground in South Sudan. I think all of us would probably agree that any solution to the crisis in South Sudan is going to come in part from people like those we have on the stage today. Let me just highlight a few of the things that I thought were particularly interesting and important in the conversation today. Benny I thought made some very interesting points about the peace process being held hostage by IGAD and about the principle of subsidiarity failing and Reverend Ninru made similar points about how if you start with a flawed mediator you're not going to get very far and I would agree with some of these points. I think if the African Union is going to be the champion of African solutions to African problems and if the UN Security Council is going to be the guarantor of international security they have a lot more work to do in this instance. I thought Dr. Luca, you as well, made some very good points and asked some good questions about what comes after a revitalization process. I'm sure all of us would like to see that process succeed but the odds are stacked against it I must say and so much of the conversation I think does need to be about what comes after this current process. And Jehan I think you made some very important points about national dialogue and the need for it to knit together the national fabric of South Sudan. I think the main question now is given a flawed national dialogue which we heard about from our panelists what comes next and how do you do it over perhaps so soon after a flawed process in an environment that is not conducive to national dialogue. And then finally Reverend Ninru I thought you made some very interesting points about dialogue amongst the elites because I think there's a general assumption that dialogue needs to happen amongst the grassroots and start there and that may well be true but we don't hear as much about the need for dialogue amongst elites at your level and that I think is absolutely worth following up on. We'll also note I find it interesting that in all this conversation there was actually very little discussion of accountability issues. I know those are issues that our panelists care deeply about and work a lot on but it just goes to show how many issues there are to talk about in South Sudan but surely the accountability piece of it is a big part of any sort of solution. So again thank you for coming let me just end with a quick plug for something we are doing at the museum next week if you want to continue the conversation on South Sudan. Next Wednesday November 15th at 7 p.m. we will have a public event discussing the crisis in South Sudan that will start with a keynote address from Ambassador Nikki Haley from South Sudan recently and then a panel discussion amongst some experts who are coming who know the situation very well. That event next week is part of an annual effort we do at the museum called Our Walls Bear Witness where for several days we project images from a certain country affected by mass atrocities on the walls of the museum. That will happen next week Tuesday through Friday and so if you come by particularly in the evening you will see some remarkable and stark images on the walls of the museum so I would encourage everybody to do that. You can RSVP for the event on our website if you go to the events page we hope you will join and again thank you very much to the panelists thank you to USIP and thank you for coming.