U.S. Congress on South Sudan and U.S. Security Assistance
In January both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate held hearings on the crisis of South Sudan. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield testified both at the House (pdf) and the Senate (pdf), as did representatives of USAID.
Below is an overview of important questions raised at the hearings by members of Congress regarding U.S. security policy in South Sudan.
Preventative engagement
- Representatives Ed Royce (R-CA) and Chris Smith (R-NJ) asked if the United States was sufficiently engaged in the lead-up to the crisis and alleged that the current administration failed to respond to warning signs, including incidences of continuing discord between ethnic groups, reports of corruption and concern about a lack of inclusion in the constitutional process of those outside the ruling.
- Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) stated that the U.S. has not invested enough in “institutions of good governance that can deal with the challenges of the country [and] protect all of its citizens from the challenges of ethnic diversity.”
U.S. arms export & security assistance:
- Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) repeatedly raised the question of U.S. security assistance in light of human rights abuses conducted by the South Sudanese military:
There have been reports of atrocities by all sides in the conflict in South Sudan with at least several mass graves discovered and reports of both Dinka and Nuer civilians being murdered for belonging to the wrong ethnic group. I was especially saddened and disturbed to read in a December Human Rights Watch report that members of the South Sudanese army had targeted Nuer civilians in Juba on the basis of their ethnicity. Given the fact that the U.S. has provided hundred of millions of dollars of security assistance to the South Sudanese since 2005, this raises some disturbing questions. The U.S. has now suspended security assistance and training in December. Under what circumstances will security assistance be allowed to resume? And will there be considerations now paid to the fact that we need assurances that our assistance and training will not be used to commit human rights violations?
Asst. Secretary Thomas-Greenfield:
We have been really saddened by the events that have clearly turned this fight into a battle that is ethnic in nature, and particularly that this is happening inside the military. … Our security assistance raises some serious questions on how we will implement programs that provide training to the Sudanese military after some of these actions have been made public.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA):
In January of 2012 President Obama added South Sudan to the list of countries eligible to buy weapons from the U.S. During fiscal year 2012, the U.S. State Department reported that it had authorized commercial sales of 9 million dollars worth of U.S.-made military equipment to South Sudan, including military electronics and missile related technology, more than 3 million worth of equipment was actually shipped. In contrast the European Union continued to maintain an arms embargo since July 2011. Will the State Department suspend or limit future weapons sales to South Sudan given the risk of U.S. weapons being used to commit atrocities?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
At the moment we are not implementing any of these programs but let me get back to you with a full answer to that. My inclination is that this is likely to be the case, but I’d prefer to get back to you.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA):
The administration in general is in the process of loosening the regulations that govern arms exports. Under the new rules, most types of weapons and equipment could be exported without a license and without a legal requirement that the State Department first review the proposed sales to ensure that they will not fuel armed conflict or harm human rights. … Can you give us your opinion, Madam Ambassador, whether or not we do need a very careful review of arms exports in general, to assess the potential for them being used for human rights violations [Would that be] critical to protecting civilians both in South Sudan and in other countries the world?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
I can speak on South Sudan and I certainly will take your question back. In South Sudan we are suspending right now the implementation of all of those programs and we will be looking very closely at any kinds of support that we provide the South Sudan military in the future.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA):
For my part I think the EU is closer to where we should be on these issues. I think the US has to step back because the long-term implications of anything we do can be profound…if we sell arms to countries that we know have a much higher probability than not of being turned around and used for purposes other than those originally intended then we have the responsibility of reevaluating whether or not it makes any sense going forward.
- In the House hearing, Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA) followed up on the question of U.S arms sales: “U.S. arms exports, can you elaborate on the possibility to reevaluate U.S. arms exports to South Sudan?”
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
We have not provided any lethal support. We provided them with communications and other non-lethal equipment as well as training to become a more professional army.
- Ranking Member Elliot Engel (D-NY) followed up on the question of U.S. security assistance more general: “Given the widespread abuses that have taken place on the part of the SPLA, is it even possible to provide that force with U.S. assistance?”
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
Yes we have to continue to work with the SPLA to professionalize them. They are a huge group; I think I have seen numbers as a high as 120000. Many of them are extra-ordinary fighters. They were militia. They were never trained military. They need to be professionalized and if we don’t do it, I don’t think anybody else will. So that we can ensure that in the future when this kind of thing happens, we have a professional army not militias that have been pulled together under a so-called army.
Accountability for mass atrocities an afterthought?
- In a lengthy exchange lasting almost five minutes, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) raised the question of accountability for mass atrocities, arguing that the U.S. was too often willing to sacrifice accountability to first negotiate peace, or find political agreements palatable to all parties involved. With emotion Cardin said:
You say … that those responsible for human rights abuses must be held accountable. I have heard that before, and we have been through Rwanda, we have been through Bosnia, we have been through Syria, we’ve been through Darfur, and now South Sudan. It seems to me … that [documentation and tribunals] becomes an afterthought rather than a primary thought. … I have been here for too many of these ethnic cleansing problems around the world, and the response to those who perpetrated it has been weak at best.
…
Unless we make this a real priority . . . we will never get the type of attention to accountability for those who commit crimes against humanity that we need.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) emphatically supported Senator Cardin.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
Thank you for your question. I am not sure if my answer will satisfy you because it will not satisfy me. It is hard, but having worked in Africa for many years, we have some examples where we have succeeded. If we look at Liberia, and look at the fact that Charles Taylor was held accountable and is serving the rest of his life in prison that is the example I want to follow in South Sudan. … We are committed to accomplish this.
Are U.S. legislative funding caps limiting UN peacekeeping abilities?
- U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI) raised questions about whether legislative caps on U.S. assistance to the UN have weakened the peacekeeping mission:
As you know, there are currently legislative caps, which prevent the U.S. from fulfilling its responsibilities [to the UN,] unless Congress acts. I think the shortfall in terms of our payments is around 10 million dollars. This means that critical resources to the UN mission there are not available and … that countries, who are providing troops … are not being fully reimbursed for their services. Would you speak you about the capacity of the UN mission and what impact this shortfall has [on countries involved] and what the long-term implications are?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
About a 100,000 [internally displaced people] have taken refuge around UN bases. UN does not have the capacity at the moment to provide the full protection and support needed that is needed. One of the first actions we took was to ask the UN Security Council to increase the number of peacekeeping troops. There was an additional 5,000 troops approved for South Sudan… We have been working with the troop contributing countries and with the other supporters of the UN to try to build up that capacity… Ghana, [Tanzania and Bangladesh have] agreed, despite the fact that they are not being paid, to provide 850 additional troops…
U.S. Training of Ugandan troops:
- Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) asked whether the Ugandan troops, which operate in South Sudan in support of the government, have been trained by the U.S.:
I understand that the U.S. Uganda relationship includes significant U.S. support to Ugandan troops that are engaged in regional counterterrorism and stability operations. Has our support been used in this civil war?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
We watched that very closely and we have not seen any evidence that the support we give in that operation is being used to support this separate operation to which we are not connected.
Child Soldiers:
- Representative Ami Bera (D-CA) asked about how prevalent the use of conscripted child soldiers is:
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield:
That is something we are very concerned about. We are hearing about youth militias; individuals are being armed in communities, and it would not be surprising if some of these would be underage.