like carrots versus sticks or south versus darfur. instead, we need that dreaded word, comprehensive strategy for sudan as a whole. we should begin by identifying our objectives. our primary goals in sudan are

helping to achieve peace and security in darfur and the surrounding region, maintaining and strengthening peace between north and south sudan, expanding cooperation on counterterrorism and promoting democracy and conflict prevention throughout the country. these are our principal objectives and the question is how best to achieve them. i believe the ongoing consequences of the genocide in darfur, and i called it such way back in 2004, as a candidate for president, and the on-rushing potential tragedy of a renewed north/south war together create a dynamic engagement. as a president envoy, general scott gration has attended the region multiple times and he and he comes to the task with a passion for the region, i might.

last week general gration was in sudan at the center of north/south tensions. his presence on the ground when the hague's permanent court of arbitration announced a decision on the borders symbolized america's recommitment to the peace process. we need to make the same commitment to finding peace in darfur. almost five years ago, then-secretary of state colin powell testified before this committee that the united states had found a consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities that constituted genocide. he recommended that america increase the number of african union monitors and today the african union monitoring mission has been merged into the united states peacekeeping mission. i can tell you from first-hand gift as well as the data that we get, they are making a difference but it is yet to be

fully deployed or full tactical mobility. millions of people remain in camps. under conditions made even worse when khartoum expelled 13 humanitarian organizations placing over a million people in potential jeopardy. general gration was right to make his first priority a special envoy the restoration of life saving assistance but we need to go further. when i was in khartoum, i emphasized to the sudanese that restoring lost aid was imperative but also insufficient. our goal should not be to recreate the conditions that existed before the ngo expulsion. it should be to move beyond those conditions. maintenance of a miserable status quo is not a solution. i strongly support the efforts of the african union, the foundation, and others, to bring the voices of civil society into the discussion and particularly ensure that women are heard.

at the same time, we need to recognize that even as we work toward peace in western sudan and in eastern chad, the clock is relentlessly ticking down the hours between now and 2011. and 2011 is a critical date. that's when the critical agreement allows southern sudanese to vote from the unity or separation of the north. if the people of sudan are to transform a ceasefire and an uneasy power-sharing agreement into lasting peace, we need to think of the cpa as the ongoing process stretching into the future, not as an event in the past. today crucial elements remain unresolved, including borders, revenue-sharing. a central focus of my visit to sudan was to convince both sides to embark on a series of tripartheid discussions with the united states to tackle these remaining challenges.

rising violence in the south is also a matter of growing concern. and underscores the need for peace dividend. but even as we move forward, we must not fix our gaze on the 2011 referendum alone. we also need to consider what sudan could look like in 2012 and 2015 and beyond. all of these issues and more including complex regional forces need to be balanced within a comprehensive united states strategy for sudan. today, we have an impressive array of witnesses to help us explore these issues. general scott gration serves as president obama's special envoy to sudan. before that he served as a major general in the united states air force. we're eager to hear his insights on the situation in sudan and the direction that our policy will take. earl gast is the acting administrator for africa, for

the u.s. agency for international development and he too has traveled to sudan to advance humanitarian access. our second panel, former ambassador david shinn is currently teaching at the elliott school of international affairs at george washington university. he served in the u.s. foreign service for 37 years including three in sudan. and he was also director of east african and horn of african affairs in the state department. dr. mohammad eisa is a physician in the sudan for human rights and peace-building. in 2007 dr. mohammed was known as the human rights laureate and in addition to his work as a physician he is a respected community leader, peace negotiator and human rights advocate. and finally susan page is the regional director for southern and east africa for the national democratic institute. from 2005 to 2007, miss page directed the rule of law program for the united states mission in sudan and she's advised those

involved in both the cpa and the darfur peace process. senator lugar? >> i thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing and for your very thoughtful opening statement, which in a comprehensive way sets forth many of the problems. i enjoy also in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. i appreciate that general gration has taken time to join us today. i know that he understands congress' deep interest in this issue. and i applaud the appointment of a special envoy underscoring the president's intention to provide international leadership on the darfur crisis but time is perhaps not on our side. the crisis is in the sixth year.

in the face of destruction, its humanitarian efforts probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. but millions of refugees continue to be at risk of violence, malnutrition and these and the expulsion of 13 humanitarian organizations -- the safety net of organizations now operating in darfur is doing its best to shoulder more responsibility. but the sheer number of displaced and the difficulties presented by the rainy season are strange their capacity. in july 2007, hope for security were raised by the united nations security council approval of the peacekeeping force in darfur to 26,000 troops. unfortunately, two years later, the peace-keeping force still

lacks elements key to its success. the force does not have sufficient helicopters, other types of equipment that are essential to achieve mobility and to deliver humanitarian supplies. moreover, the overall stability with of a comprehensive peace agreement between north and south sudan. with the referendum of the independence of the south due in 2011 most voters will choose to separate unless some formula for stability can be constructed, the tensions between north and south will be highly volatile and could inflame the entire region. general gration is charged with one of the difficult assignments. given president bashir has been entitle for war crimes and his government has demonstrated little interest in resolving the political situation, the darfur problem does not lead to

straightforward diplomatic negotiation. any successful strategy is likely to involve building broad international support for measures that pressure the khartoum government to accept a settlement to the darfur crisis. such a settlement should allow refugees to return to their homes, establish procedures that guarantee their security and extend some level of autonomy to darfur. the united states must lead in finding ways to address these political and logistical shortcomings. the obama administration is conducting an ongoing review of sudan policy. and i'm hopeful this review will soon yield a plan that clarifies and galvanizes united states policy and encourages far greater multilateral support for a resolution of a crisis that has produced immense suffering. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the united states plans and efforts are progressing and what more we can do.

and i thank you again, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. general, and mr. administrator, thank you for being here with us. general gration, would you lead off, please and your full statements will be placed in the record as if read in full so you could give us summarys, it will give us is chance to have dialog with you. >> chairman kerry, ranking member lugar, i wanted to thank you for the opportunity to stu our strategic objectives in sudan and outlining what we're towing to make them a reality. mr. chairman, we greatly appreciate your leadership on these issues, your commitment to resolving the significant challenges that we find in sudan. i know this commitment is shared by all members of this committee. we sincerely appreciate the dedicated efforts of chairman feingold and senator isakson, the ranking member of that committee.

i just returned as you noted from sudan last week. and as i visited darfur and the south, i was reminded of the great humanitarian tragedies that have occurred in that kin. many people in sudan have suffered terribly from the pain and loss that conflict brings. it's for these people, for future generations of sudanese that we are striving to make a difference. let me tell you what we want to achieve. we want a country that's governed responsibly, justly, democratically, a country that's at peace with itself and its neighbors. that's economically viable. that works together with the united states for a common interest. we want an inclusive endurable peace in darfur. we want full implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement. we want a peaceful post-referendum period whether single, stable and united sudan or a sudan that divides peaceably and orderly into two separate states. we want only what's best for the

sudanese people. that's our vision. and to make it a reality, we're using all elements of national power, diplomacy, defense, and development. we're currently engaging with all relevant parties inside of sudan to bring peace and stability to that country. we have weekly discussions with leaders from the two parties of the government of national unity, the national congress party and the sudan people's liberation movement as well as regular talks from representatives from critical parties. the other parties and movements and civil society. to accomplish our goals we're also engageing with sudan's neighbors an international community and that's why i traveled to chad, china, egypt, libya and the united kingdom to meet with key leaders who share our common concern, who want to work together with us on shared objectives. we're dedicated to carrying out our vision of success. i report regularly to the president and to secretary clinton about the progress that we've made.

and i visited congress to exchange views with you and members -- a number of your colleagues. i look forward to speaking with you many more times in the weeks ahead. let me detail some of the specific aspects of our strategic approach. most urgently we seek a definitive end to the conflict and the gross human rights abuses in darfur and a justice for its many victims. we can never forgive the lives lost over the last five years, the millions who continue to be displaced, families still crowd into makeshift housing in idp camps, women continue to gather firewood in fear, children are growing up without a hope for a better tomorrow. that must end. to resolve the humanitarian tragedy, we're striving to facilitate a negotiated political settlement between the government of sudan and the parties of the conflict. our goal is to conclude an agreement that would bring a sustainable peace to darfur that

would allow people back to their home villages or places they desire to move to, to resume their lives in safety and stability and security. the second aspect of our strategy focuses on sustaining that fragile peace between the north and the south. sudan, as you said, will hold let the record reflects in eight months and a referendum in january of 2011. our timeline is so very tight, our task is so very great but we have no option but success. the third aspect is to prepare the government of sudan and the government of southern sudan for the post referendum period, in unity or peaceful coexistence. our strategy seeks to find a delicate balance between improving security forces and developing the economic infrastructure required for growth. the last aspect of our strategy seeks to increase and enhance cooperation with the sudanese government to counterterrorism and to promote regional security. i believe we have a golden

opportunity now to make a big difference in sudan. and as you can see, we're aiming high, we're thinking big and we're expecting much. failure cannot be an option. we must proceed with boldness, with hard work. to make this proactive and preventive approach work right now. mr. chairman and members of this committee, i thank you for your leadership, for your support to end the suffering in sudan and thank you again for allowing me to be here today to discuss these issues, concerns that need our urgent attention, critical problems that must be resolved for all the people of sudan. thank you very much. >> thank you, general. mr. administrator? >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member lugar and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to update you on our support for comprehensive peace and stability in sudan and on humanitarian issues. united states government has provided more than $6 billion in assistance to the people of sudan since the signing of the

comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. our overarching goal in sudan has been to help those affected by conflict and to establish a just and lasting peace. we have saved lives and we have improved conditions for millions of sudanese. but less than 24 months left and the cpa's roadmap for consolidating peace and with the continuing challenges of darfur, our most critical tasks lie ahead. you say it's doing what it can with governments that are able to deliver basic services whether the people of southern sudan and ears choose unity with the north or change the refuse rennum in 2011. however, the changing of improvements in governance is running out and the critical window in which we can contribute to genuine confirmation be the cpa roadmap will soon close.

in southern sudan development gains have been slow and a recent physical crisis has highlighted many fundamentals of good governance still need to be established. infrastructure remains extremely underdeveloped and the burden is on international donors to foot the bill. four years after the cpa's signing, our collective contributions are a drop in the bucket of what is needed but considering the state of development in the south and the three areas, one of war finally ended, our work has just begun and it will take decades to cement our progress. meanwhile, the situation for the 4.7 million persons affected by the conflict in darfur remains intolerable. although we have managed to fill many of the gaps left by the us expulsion of 13ngos -- 13 ngos in march, the resources are not

sustainable. compounding the situation, carjackings, break-in ngo facilities and campaigns still impede the humanitarian assistance to darfur. constant insecurity and violence continue to be the primary factories limiting the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. we must institute a sustainable long-term strategy for darfur that is finally accompanied by sustainable long-term peace. we look forward to the day when the 2.7 million persons who were driven from their homes by this conflict can voluntary return safely to their villages. you say it will not deviate from its responsibility to safeguard the rights and protection of displaced persons. and we call upon the government of sudan to support the operations of the u.n. high commissioner for refugees and the international organization for migration so that they can undertake the vital task of

certifying any returns as appropriate and voluntary. the violence we've seen recently in darfur and more recently in pockets of the south are a jarring symbol of the legacy of negative trends that develop during sudan's conflicts and persist to this day. the absence of the rule of law, a dearth guilty of governance and an abundance of weapons and unresolved grievances. we must strengthen governments and communities' ability to deal with tension, constructivively and nonviolently. the alternative is a failed state where chaos will reign. before concluding, i want to express my appreciation of senator kauffman who recently in a statement on the senate floor paid tribute to john granville one of 91 agency employees who have lost their lives in the performance of their duties overseas. in honor of john danville and

others, there will be a staff care award which will recognize employees who make significant contributions to the morale and well-being of agency staff. in addition, the john granville secondary school is due to open this fall in sudan's blue nile state. john had a special attachment to the blue nile state and the fact that a school is being built in his name with the support and cooperation of the u.s. government, the sudanese government is a dedication of a man who ted indicated his life to helping the sudanese people. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on u.s. aid. we certainly appreciate your continued dedication to the sudanese people and your commitment to peace and stability throughout the conflict. >> thank you very much, administrator gast. general, share, if you will, your perception of this

situation on the ground, the dynamics on the ground in darfur now, particularly, the current status of activities of the principled rebelled groups. >> what we're doing right now subpoena trying to cope with a situation that is very dire and very severe. obviously, the camps continue to have grave problems and we're trying to ensure that they have the basic necessities to ensure the essentials of life. on the ground, we still see instability and insecurity and what we're trying to do right now is achieve a lasting endurable peace. to do that we've gotten agreements from the government of sudan to put a unilateral ceasefire in. we're trying to reduce the tensions between chad and sudan and reduce the cross-border

rebel activities that has continued to stir instability, and we're working with the government of sudan to come up with a plan to disarm militias that have been put along the border by the government of sudan and we're working with unimid and we're coming up with a plan, a law enforcement type of plan to ensure warlords who sponsor ginger weed, autonomous ginger weed and other people that continue to terrorize populations are dealt with. this is a tough problem and needs to be done comprehensibly and this is very important. >> gem, i take it is still receiving support from chad and across the border and operating cross-border fashion. >> they are currently operating out of sudan, but it's true that they get medical support and other support from within sudan -- i mean, in chad. what we're working with is the

government of chad to reduce overt support and even quieter support in terms of logistic to this movement. >> the government of chad would argue part of their support stems from the fact that the government of sudan has been supporting efforts against them and you get this back and forth. can you comment on that. >> yes, it's very true. gem has been as far as in threatening khartoum and it's also true sudanese khartoumi groups are supporting. it and we want to get rid of the surrogates that are destabilizing. we're also working with several groups to come up with a monitoring agreement so that the cross-border areas are monitored so that the forces can't go back and create damage. >> and what conclusions have you

been able to draw about the current relationship and support structure between the government and khartoum and the group. >> it is very clear that the government of khartoum used the group to destabilize the population to wreak havoc. it is now my view that some of these groups have gone autonomous and some are not totally controlled by the government although i believe there are still linkages that we have to pursue. we're taking a look at this problem in a comprehensive way, to take a look at what motivates them and how can we stop them both from government support and also local law enforcement. >> and what happens as you raise that issue with khartoum officials? >> initially, there was a denial that they had anything to do with them. now we're getting more acceptance that they have a role in fixing this problem and we're making progress on working together of the government of khartoum to stop their

improvement. >> what would you say to the committee is the level of darfur today? how would you describe the on the ground situation with respect to killing and raids and so forth? >> it's getting significantly better but that doesn't mean we have to stop our efforts. it appears last month that there were 16 people that died a violent death, and 12 of them were from criminal kinds of things. we need to keep working. one death is too many from violence. and we'll continue to work with law enforcement agencies but we have been able to reduce the violence because we've been able to turn off to a large degree the proxy war and some of that happened when the government of sudan blooded the nose of the group so that resulted in a decrease in activity. >> it was my perception, as i

met with and listened and talked to the various representatives of factions over time and just looked at the situation on the ground, that some of the rebel groups have sort of withdrawn from a major kind of activity that there's -- that over the last year or more, there has been a significant reduction. i think the leaders that i met were saying to me that there were maybe a total of 500 folks over the course of the entire year who lost their lives and many were in criminal activities as you described. so where does that put us in the context of a debate that people have about the events of 2004 and '5 and the genocide that colin powell and myself and others and others have referred

to, the atrocities that took place. is there a distinction? is it a distinction without a difference or does it matter how we affect our policy in your judgment? >> sir, looking at the facts i believe there is a significant difference between what happened in 2004 and 2003, which we characterize as genocide and what is happening today. we are working very hard to make sure that we can close the gap, and close the violence. we are looking to work with rebel groups, from yaya, we're bringing in other people to come together and work for a comprehensive peace and to be part of the solution. there's more that can be done, but you're exactly correct. the level of violence that we're seeing right now is not a coordinated violence but it is violence that we must end. in fact, there's other areas of

sudan where the violation is considerably greater. >> which raises, obviously, our deeper concerns about the north/south peace and the cpa. just the last question, quickly, my time is up -- well, i won't ask it. we have a lot of senators here and we need to get through, so senator lugar? >> general gration, the sudan program group was created at the state department to deal specifically with the complex issues associated with sudan. and originally was focused on the 30-year north/south conflict. now it appears to be focused on the whole of sudan. i have three or four questions which i'll ask and ask you to bring us up-to-date. first of all, is the sudan program group still independent of the african bureau at the state department? and if so, what rationale is there for the continued independence? secondly, what role does your

staff play in the sudan program group? are you adequately staffed? and third, what bureau and office handles the day-to-day diplomatic affairs for the united states with regard to sudan? >> yes, sir. we are now separate from af although we worked together and we make sure because we bump up against chad and we bump up against everything else that johnny is working we have to be in very, very close coordination and we are. but we are the sudan desk. we have taken over the administration responsibilities. we've taken over all those kinds of things where we support the state department and so, yes, we are independent and i think right now until we get the situation stabilized, and i believe that will probably be into 2011 -- i believe we should remain as the sudan desk in the

state department focusing on a comprehensive approach but integrated with them in a way that works sense. we are working to get more staff. right now i believe that we need to have more presence on the ground in sudan. our activities in darfur are four-pronged with a rebel process and pulling together with a civil society. we need more staff there.;háhe we've been working on 12 areas and we reached agreement between sblm and others working on wealth-sharing we need someone on the ground to make sure those things don't fall apart and we met the deadlines. we need people in catokhartoum if we go to doha, we need someone to help us and we need more help to get us more people. >> you have made that request

within the department and have you outlined really how many persons are sort of -- a battle plan for what's required now? >> yes, sir. we've gotten through detailees. i think we filled up our personal staff and our office staff okay. we've made a request for three more full-time equivalents and we also made a request, if we couldn't get that, to use contractors. both of those were turned down but we're in the process of raising them to the next level. >> well, i appreciate that. and that's one value of these hearings is sort of raise the next level that consideration generally because we all describe the comprehensive dilemmas but you have to get into the knitty gritty who does the job. who physically is there and how many persons in a vast area quite apart from the variety of topics. so we would like to be supportive and i raise the

question just to make certain we all understand the requests that you've made and the importance of that. secondly, getting outside of the united states, for the last few years we've had close coordination with great britain and france on sudan issues. but much poorer coordination with china, russia, the arab league, the african union. and these latter actors in the drama have considerable opportunity, obviously, for influence with the sudan government. what additional policy tools are available to us in diplomacy? that is, working with these actors who may have disparate views regarding sudan, us and their role in all of us but describe the international situation and its promise or difficulties. >> you're exactly correct. we have the unity there and that's what we've tried to do. we have several initiatives

before i go into the specific ones that you talk about. we've reactivated the troica and i was in oz la a few weeks ago to meet with the u.k. and the norwegians. that was a very important process in bringing about the cpa. we have a contact group in europe that we've elevated up to again give us inputs and help us work issues but more specifically i was in beijing a month and a half ago and the ambassador is a great friend and we served in africa together in the early '80s and now the chinese are working with us so we're not building roads in parallel we're putting one in front of the other one. russia, and others are working on a conference in the first part of october where we'll get together in moscow but there is an effort to bring these players in. we now have what we call the envoy 6 where countries that have permanent envoys get together on a routine basis.

we actually have a bigger group where countries that have representatives in addition and so we have 15 people that get together periodically to try to work these issues. we've shown support to the doha process, all the envoys showed up, all the envoys came here to washington when we had the forum so we continue to build that team in the international community. it is so important that we do that together. >> what is the situation at this point of oil deliveries to china? in the past, allegations have been made that the chinese were less interested in cooperation because of the unusual ties they had for energy needs in china. presumably those needs continue and perhaps the flow of oil but can you describe what the situation is on that front? >> so they only get 6% of oil from sudan but it's significant.

the south gets all their income from oil proceeds. and so oil is significantly important to the south and even to the north. and so -- but china and the united states and other members of the international community who have investments or responsibilities in sudan had exactly the same agenda. we want security. we want stability. they wanted to protect their investment. we want it because of the people and the future of their region and the security and prosperity of that region. >> thank you very much, sir. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. senator feingold. >> first let me thank you for calling this hearing today and i want to know the trips that you took and senators corker and isaacson have recently taken to the region. it's been very helpful to the overall effort for keeping this critical country on the agenda. and i felt for a long time and i've been saying for a long time, as you know, as we need a coordinated approach to all of sudan and horg up the cpa must

be a central component of the policy and the administration has made this a policy. at the same time, special envoy gration, i do have some concerns and questions about the administration's strategy. thus far, on your public statements you've pushed a relatively new approach to the government of sudan emphasizing engagement and incentives. i would like to know if this approach is linked to a more detailed strategy that's agreed to to the interagency and had this approach been selected because khartoum has demonstrated actual willingness to cooperate and live up to its commitments? or is it more because there just aren't alternative options? >> we have been in the process to come up with a comprehensive and integrated strategy. the national security council is leading that process. of course, we've had input as have other agencies in the department. we anticipate that within the next few weeks, that we'll be

able to have a roll-out of this strategy and i think from this strategy that you'll see it's very comprehensive and it's based on what we're trying to achieve which is a better life for the people there. we're trying to achieve a peace and a security and stability and economic viability and the things you talked about, the cpa, the peace in darfur, making sure that the whole region is secure. and the strategy includes both incentives and pressures. and it includes ways to judge if we're making the progress that we all want to make. this isn't just about my judgment. this is about coming together and making sure that the united states' objectives are being met and we're doing it in a way that makes sense for our country and i will continue to coordinate with the command process, the interagency process to make sure that we stay on track and we'll

certainly consult with congress to ensure that your views and inputs are incorporated. >> i'm pleased an attempt is being made to create a real interagency strategy but it does appear to me that the constructive engagement approach was engaged in prior to this process being over. or being done and ready to go. so i have some concerns about that sort of leading with that before the interagency process is complete. so i'd like to know specifically what tangible evidence have you seen that khartoum is actually acting in good faith? >> let me just step back and explain what happened and why we started this process. when i became the special envoy, the ngos had just been kicked out. my mandate was to get those 13 ngos back in and it wasn't clear we would not be able to do that and the president gave me a mandate to save lives and in an effort to save lives we worked to get new ngos in, to restore the capability but not only to restore but to create an

environment that would actually be significantly better than it was on the fourth of march. but this meant two things. if we were going to get this, we needed to have a relationship so we could discuss with khartoum. and i realized if we are going to solve the cpas we need to have a relationship with the groups. we had to have a foot in both camps. if we were going to solve the problems along the border with chad, we had to have a foot in several areas. so it became very clear that at some point we had to have a relationship so that we could discuss options and that's what we did early. but that doesn't preclude or negait anything that the strategy is trying to do. and the fact is it gives a foundation for the strategy and the strategy builds on having relationships not only within sudan but with its neighbors and the international community. >> i understand that rationale but, of course, the concern is that the message is possibly

given to khartoum that they don't have to do much at all in order to have that kind of constructive engagement. so i'd like you to say more -- you've alluded this about the stick side of this, not just the carrot side. i realize you might not be able to go into specifics in an unclassified setting but can you assure this committee that the administration is actively assessing the viability of meaningful punitive actions in preparing them in the event that the government of sudan continues its historic foot-dragging and, of course, that has been the hallmark of their record. >> there's no question. i'll be happy to come up and brief you in a more secure environment on what those are. but i believe we have a very balanced approach that includes both incentives and it includes pressures. and in many ways, the lack of incentives is turning out to be also a pressure. we will continue to use all methods, all incentives and pressures in a balanced way but

one thing i would like to say as a caveat to this is what we're finding out as you already know this is a very complex issue and there's a lot of multiple things happening at the same time. and so we're having to take a look at this not in terms of specific actions and sticks and carrots and things like that associated with specific actions but them in concert with everything else that's going on in the country. we're looking at a integrated approach. what are the actions being done on the cpa? what are the actions being done on the humanitarian front and the action being done to put together a political process so people can have their will known and carried out? and what is being done to increase security for the whole region? and that's what we're judging this on, not specifics but more of a general way. >> and i agree that should ideally be the approach but will you commit to briefing us on the sort of punitive or stick side of this and the appropriate

setting? >> i'd be happy to. >> i think it's very important. we're in a tight timeline as you said with southern sudan scheduled vote on succession just 18 months away and we have to make sure that those mechanisms are as much or more in place as the other things you've mentioned or i'm quite sure khartoum will follow their historical pattern? >> i totally agree. i'll be happy to come and brief you on these. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator feingold. senator parker? >> mr. chairman, thank you for having the hearing and general and mr. gast, thank you for what you do. i am very appreciative that we've heightened our efforts. senator isakson and i know as have been mentioned we were in khartoum and the darfur region not long ago and i -- i want to get to darfur in just one second. but the comprehensive peace agreement seems to be the most crucial issue that exist there

is now because if we, in fact, are not successful, all of us, sudan and all of those who care about that region -- it seems to me that all the gains, the minor gains have taken place in darfur are out the window because the cpa reaching a not-good end is something that i think causes the entire region to implode. so i appreciate you putting effort there. i appreciate the efforts our chairman and others. there's been discussion about the humanitarian efforts already so i won't go into that and the 13 ngos that have been expelled. one of the things, though, that i think is most striking in the iep camps there in darfur is the lack of security for women. here they exist in a home that none of us would call a home, a little area on sand.

and yet they're confined to those areas because of the gender-based violence that's taking place and we're talking about an area smaller than the area between you and i right now. where sometimes cattle is kept, they themselves are there. they cannot wander outside of that area, especially, if a young woman without being concerned about gender-based violence. and i wonder if there are security measures that we might change inside these camps which are already unbelievably undesirable places to be. is there something there that we might do that is more tangible than is occurring there today? >> you're exactly correct. it's something that really bothers me. in fact, i learned the sudanese can't even go in those camps, the government and the security and the security is inside.

i think there's one ultimate answer and that is to be able to have a security over the country and stability over the country and so these people can return to their homes and live in dignity with respect. but how do you draw the dots between where we are right now and where we're trying to achieve? and that's very, very tough. and so what we've been doing is working to come up with a plan to security sectors. that's underneath the overall ceasefire secession of hostilities that we're trying to get. we're trying to make concentrated ceasefire zones and corridors so that people will be able to go out and collect firewood so they will be able to go out and start farms so they can start an alternative form of getting food as opposed to just getting the handouts and it's going to start by moving in ring or corridors where these camps are so people can start moving out in safety. you're exactly correct. the situation that we face today is unacceptable. the gender-based violence is

unacceptable. and we are working very hard with our humanitarian groups, ngos to stop this because it's not right. and it has to end. and that is a high priority for me. >> the forces were able to accompany us inside these camps. and yet when we went out to actually meet with them at their headquarters to talk about their mandate, which i know their efforts are really more out in the region trying to control the rebel groups -- i know their mandate is being reviewed right now. and in listening to them regarding their mandate, would one would have to say that it is an incredibly weak mandate. the things that they have to do to counter the rebel activity out there, you know, by the time they get through going through all their protocols, the rebels are gone. it just seems like a no-brainer

that that mandate would be changed to allow them to be far more productive to do the things that you just mentioned. i want to ask one more question if you could briefly respond to that i'd appreciate it. >> we've submitted our suggestions to the mandate that was in july. and we're now working with several groups to come up with a better mandate in anticipation of a political process that ends up in a comprehensive ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities. at that point the mandate will have to include more things like monitoring that ceasefire, like working the borders and working these zones. and you're exactly right. as currently written, i don't think it's strong enough and we need to fix that and then we also need to ensure they have the capabilities which may mean more aerial assets to do surveillance and it may mean a new command and control system that allows them to work with local law enforcement agencies work with a local government and rebel forces that exist in that

region to have a comprehensive law enforcement and the cover that we need to do exactly what you're talking about which is that security piece. >> and unless the mandate is changed, even getting back, though, just to the protocol when they encounter a rebel group out in the desert, by the time they go through the things they have to do which basically is waving at them almost, the rebel groups are gone and it seems something to me, regardless of what you're talking border boxes what everyone acknowledges it can be changed and getting back they are going to become permanent cities because no one will go back to their homeland as long as the type of security that we're not providing continues to exist and i hope you will work stringently with the u.n. to get that changed and i hope all of us will too. the final point -- we met with a

central banker while we were there. and they talked about the various our sanctions are creating for them. i'm going back to the cfa because if he end up having the train wreck on the present course will occur, okay, darfur as terrible as it is is going to get far worse and it's going to spread to other areas. so we met with our intelligence agencies there. and i know many folks here have done that here. the fact is there's no evidence today, in spite of the atrocity that is we all are aware of, there's no evidence that sudan is involved as a state sponsor of terror. none. so the unintended consequences of that defined term existing, i think, may be hurting us as it

relates to these other efforts. and i just wonder since there's no evidence of that and since we understand the importance of this comprehensive peace agreement, achieving its desired end in 2011, i'm wondering if we're again on one of those paths of unintended consequences and i would like for you to respond to that. >> yes, sir, you're exactly correct. there's no evidence in our intelligence community that supports being on the state sponsor of terrorism. it's a political decision. what we have found, though is the consequences of the sanctions that have resulted from that and other sanctions are preventing us from doing the development that we absolutely need to do. the heavy equipment that must come in to build railroads and roads has to come in through sanctioned areas and what's happening is we're hurting not only at the local level, humanitarian level the people because they can't download educational programs and that kind of thing, but in addition

to that, we're actually hurting the very development things we need to do to help the south become able, if they choose to secede, a viable economic state. those things are now sanctioned. and so you're exactly right. at some point we're going to have to unwind some of these sanctions we need to do the very things we need to do to ensure a peaceful transition of a state that's viable in the south should they choose to do them. >> so we're cutting our nose to spite our face today? >> that's probably a fair analysis. >> mr. chairman, thank you for this timely hearing. >> thank you very much, senator. senator shaheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not sure which of you would like to address this question. i'd like to follow-up a little bit on senator corker's questions with what's happening with women in sudan and the gender-based violence that's been going on there. when the government expelled

those 13 ngos, there was -- the programs that they were doing including many that addressed sexual and gender-based violence were lost, can you address what the current status of those are? have any of them been restored? and the government of sudan obstructing efforts to restore those gender-based violence programs? >> thank you for your questions. you're absolutely right. when we lost 13 ngos during our expulsion, we lost our capacity and the international capacity to support gender-base programs including prevention of violation and how to deal with gender-based violence. what we are doing now is working with existing ngs ons on the ground to expand their capacity

so that they can expand the women's programs into other areas. it's slow in coming back. in those, if one were to look at the very sectors that we lost, when the ngos were expelled, that is probably the slowest one in coming back on extreme, but it is critical and it's something we're very mindful of. >> thank you, i appreciate that. senator feingold and senator boxer held a hearing earlier, several months ago, where we heard directly from women who had been -- and people who had been working with women in darfur who talked about the deliberate effort to use sexual violence as a substitute for genocide. i think whatever we do can't come fast enough and be important enough to address the very difficult issues that women

and families on the ground there are facing. so i would urge to you continue in every effort possible. and if we on this committee can be helpful, we would -- i certainly stand ready to do that. you talked about the unimid mission in darfur, i know it was authorized in 2007. we still aren't supposed to be one of the biggest peacekeeping forces assembled particularly in africa and yet we've seen real delays in its deployment. so can you talk about the gaps in their capacity about how we're working to address those gaps and what the prospect is for increasing their capacity to address the challenge on the ground there? >> what we found if we're going to fix the problems in sudan, we have to start with the women.

if we start with the women, the communities come along. and so you're totally right. we have to restore their respect, their dignity and their safety and we have to use them as the centerpiece for really working the humanitarian, the development things that will come later. but we're at about -- between 65 and 67% right now. and in talking to the u.n., while i was there on the field, they basically said that by the end of the year they should be at 92% of forces. as you know we've been working very hard trying to facilitate the groups in ethiopia. in addition to the mandate, elements, strategic planning, logistics planning are probably things where we need to help beef up the support.

in terms of soldiers, i think we're beginning to see a fill there. but in the technical piece if we have to get in this monitoring piece, if we start doing intel-sharing on border activities between the two groups, we're probably going to need more analysis and more work on the intelligence side and certainly if we start the monitoring and we use either overhead aerial platforms for reconnaissance and surveillance we're going to need more of the high tech peace. -- piece. i believe we need to start planning now so that we can get these elements in if we're successful in the peace process. >> so what's our plan to do that? >> our plan is we're looking at africom coming up with eight individuals that fit that and also with helping the command and control element. as we continue on in the peace

process and define the requirements better -- i'll be very honest with you, in the past we had not defined the requirements. it was just send us six helicopters, send us eight people, send us is regiment and we asked why and it wasn't really clear. right now i think we've reached the point where we got the bulk of people lined up to come. now we have to be specific to tailor the requirements such that the people when they come in now really fill the niches because what we have there now is good in the general sense. we need to really add on to the specific side. >> thank you. >> senator isakson. >> welcome. it should be pointed out you brought the charts and didn't refer to them. i want, if i'm reading it right -- i want to compliment you because i believe you were appointed in april; is that not correct? >> march. >> march.

>> that in march we were as less than 50% capacity in food, medicine, water, nonfood items. if i read it correctly now, august we'll be at 100% on everything but nonfood items; is that correct? >> that's correct. but there's a caveat there. one we have been able to do that because earl and his team have put together some stop-gap and emergency matters to make that happen and the other part is that we haven't really been able to take that capacity and fill all the gaps. first of all, there was a lot of preexisting gaps that were there. secondly, just because of the way the distribution been, there's still gaps that exist. the good part is that that is the current capability that we have and we have four new ngos coming back in and as we continue to work this -- what i'm trying to show is that we're going to fix the emergency stop-gaps and make them more permanent and that's our effort and what earl and i work on on a daily basis and we're going to try to get back in through

efficiencies with working with the sudanese and the additional capacity of new ngos coming in, i believe we can have a significant impact and the future is significantly better and that we've averted what we thought was going to be a major crisis in the rainy season. i think we've been able to avert that. >> well, you and mr. gast are to be commended. i was there in play when you were at the 80% there, and looking at the deplorable conditions you're to be commendend for making up that gap. and on the question on the four goals on the khartoum government and the fourth being cooperation in the counterterrorism effort, in following up on what senator corker said regarding the designation of sanctions, isn't it true not only is there not any evidence that they're cooperating with terrorists but, in fact, they were helpful in stopping the flow of weapons that were coming through the sudan. ..

point. next, one of the keys to the cpa is a legitimate election in the sudan in 2010. i think originally it was established by february. that has been pushed to april, is that right? is it being pushed back any further or are they legitimately moving towards those elections? >> we are trying very hard to hold to april but both sides are

reluctant in some ways to have elections then. we believe in the international community, those elections are so important not only for who gets elected but the processes. if we can push through an election laws, if we can push through the voter registration and education programs, if we can push through the administrative process and get people to the polling stations, that gives us a chunk on making sure the referendum has a chance of being fair, free and credible. if we skip the elections will be very difficult to have free, fair and credible referendum. >> not only of we skidded but if we have been eligible election in will ensure that february 2011 referendum in the south will be over secession, i would think. i recommend you continuing to push on that as fast as you can. lastly, regard to what the

senator was thinking about, what senator jeanne shaheen was thinking about, the levels of influence in the fourth level, in your fourth level, there is the united nations. i don't know if that is the level at which their influence is or if you just put it out, but it does seem having been in darfur as recently as two months ago and seen what deployment is and seeing the expense of the darfur area, a lot of people don't realize how big the sudan is, it is huge, we don't seem -- they don't seem to have a tactical or infrastructures to carry out the mission the u.s. intends to have. is that the un's fault or the fault of participating you and nations not falling in on the un plan? >> it is a combination of a lot of issues.

speaking for the un, there are things they could do better, without the un and the support to this mission for security and without the un's participation in food programs and ngos and the support for america act, we would not have done half the stuff we are doing. it can be looked at as the glass half full, glass half-empty, i look at them as the glass half full and i'm a cheerleader for the un and we need to work hard to help them of the capacity they need as opposed to downwind when they don't measure up. we are working hard to ensure they get the capability, there at the capacity that can be used productively on the humanitarian side and the security side. they are not there yet but they can be. >> my statement was not to be critical of the un. it is to make an observation that 15 years ago in rwanda,

failure to act on a timely basis to make a difference, a tragedy took place and we are on the cost of a tragedy again if everything falls down in darfur in the south with the elections. it is critical, i think, that the u. n. forces in concert with the african union get the manpower, but also have the tactical and logistical equipment to secure the roots of those women to get firewood. it is going to take the high-tech things you were talking about as well as aerial support for at least helicopters, continue to work to push them because if that does fail in 2011, the southern referendum where we have a breakdown before that, it can be a catastrophic situation for africana and the whole world. >> i would like to add, you are exactly correct, but the fact that they can't cooperate, that is disasters. if there's a problem in those

three areas, southern sudan, those forces in darfur can't come over to assist, that is something that has to be changed and we start to work between the un command and a more effective way. >> i appreciate your hard work, mr. earl gast. thank you very much. >> i will recognize momentarily senator kaufman for a quick comment. >> i ask for the courtesy of ten seconds to respond to the statements by senator corker and senator isakson, these characterizations are overstated and do not state the actual situation. i laid out my concern in a classified letter. i would be happy to repeat them in the appropriate setting. of like the record to be clear and i look forward to dialogue. >> it is a very important issue with respect to any kind of

policy determination that we make. and the committee will have classified session in order to explore this so that we can make an intelligent set of judgments and i appreciate you raising the issue and it is one we need to go at any way and we will. we will do it in the right setting. i was struck by your notion that this was not the most secure setting in the world. i can't imagine why you thought that. senator kaufman? >> thank you for holding this hearing, this is an incredibly important but difficult problem and i thank you for working on this problem. and i thank earl gast for the comments on my friend who died in sudan. and the 91 employees we had. i myself was not aware it was not the one.

this is a dangerous place. people died almost in anonymity. as i said time and again, federal employees better doing this work are incredible people doing an incredible job for all the right reasons. john rambo, when he died, was distributing radios to improve communications in the area. what are we doing in terms of communications in the area? >> one important part of our program is education, education by radio. the newest shift in our assistance is civic education and getting prospective voters ready for elections over the next year, the next week to nine months and voter education and specific education are critical components and obviously a lot of people in the south don't

have access to schools, so we have devised radio instruction programs. >> is that the substance of it in terms of communications? that is it, what we are doing is trying to educate folks in preparation for the actions. >> and general civic education programs. >> what are we doing to prepare the rainy season which is coming? to have food there? that is when we have famine? what are we doing about that? >> we have stocks, the rainy season is coming up. we have had experience in the last four five years, how to operate in the environments. we, as the general mentioned earlier, a number of the interventions we have had to take, the international community and ourselves, are not fully sustainable. with regard to food assistance,

there are some things that are not sustainable. for example, instead of relying on ngos to deliver food and being able to monitor that, we are relying on local relief committees. we are trying to analyze the impact of the rainy season on local relief committees that are distributing. >> general scott gration, senator kerrey talked about how we have to surpass what we're doing. is cartoon willing to cooperate with us in increasing military aid? >> we have been taking a look at this and we have a stoplight charged that evaluates what they have said and what they're trying to do. we do that every week to make sure that they are indeed holding up to the agreements they have made. they said they would hold up to the 2007 joint communique, we'll

need notification as opposed to permission to travel. we are seeing evidence that that is working. they made an agreement that they would start issuing multiple entry and exit visas and they're starting to do that. we have reached other agreements in terms of technical agreements. we had a backlog of six months. they have signed 90% of the technical agreements. we are now working details. right now, what was brought about the organization for migration, we know that if we are going to get peace, if we are going to start thinking about people moving out, we have to do this in a way that human rights guaranteed and this is not an involuntary turn but it is an involuntary turn in security. we are working with the government to work those aspects, we are working with the world food program to think about how are we going to move from humanitarian assistance into development so we can start

putting in social networks of water and school and health so that people can move into these areas where they want to make their homes in a secure and stable, with the human rights that come along with that. i see a lot of positive change. we have a program that says not just to verify, but verify, then trust. we are in the verification mode. when we see more and more things happening, i can tell you honestly it is very positive. we also know what we are up against so we are making sure these are verified and continue to be verified. as words turn into deeds, there is more trust and more confidence and we can build on that confidence not only on the humanitarian side but the security side, the political process side and the south. >> you also mentioned the need to expand the mandate and the need for additional training. what roles will in be involved

in international training? >> we have a meeting scheduled in africa to discuss this very issue. i am not sure. i know what our requirements are. our military is strapped, not only what we have going on in iraq but afghanistan and other missions around the world. i don't speak for them but we will lay out our requirements, things we need to do, we will try to do this in the most effective way, recognizing they have commitments they have to do. thank you. >> i am looking forward to that security briefing. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this meeting. it is a testament to bipartisan concern, eight senators have

spent most of the hearing listening to the testimony and have taken a considerable amount of our time today to stick around. i am sure you are aware, general scott gration, there's a concern that the it ministration is not speaking with one voice on the area at -- on the issue of sudan. as you know, during the campaign last year, senator obama vehemently denounced the government as practicing genocide. ambassador susan rice stated on june 15th that it is on going. however, you have stated the situation in darfur was at worst, the remnants of genocide. i would be interested in you commenting about that worst.

it seems to indicate your doubtful that there was ever a genocide. it does seem in that respect, are you -- ambassador, presidential candidate obama taking on position, you're taking the other. also, ambassador rice praised the international criminal court's issuance of an arrest warrant for president bashir. that is a statement that seems at odds with the administration's engagement strategy that you have outlined today. i would like you to comment on that. >> thank you very much. the president has referred to the genocide that has taken place in darfur. that is very clear to me. he has also -- >> indicating it is ongoing. >> you can read that how you

need to read it. that is his statement. what he has directed me to do is to reverse the dire ongoing consequences of genocide, that means to ensure militias are disarmed and people, persons can return to homes when they want to and where they want to and the people of darfur who have suffered so much can continue to live, can live in peace and security and dignity. >> don't you think it is important for us to know to the best of our ability whether there is a continuing genocide on going, as ambassador rice stated? >>-only describe what i see. >> have you had a conversation about the seeming difference? >> i will tell you in public that susan rice is one of my

dear friends. i love susan. we talk and we disagree in some issues. is not a personal thing. >> no one is suggesting that. but it is fair to say -- i am heartened, the administration, you are fond of each other. >> we are. susan on one side and me on the other, there was honesty, we have the debate so that we can come up, a comprehensive and integrated approach. all elements were taken care of.

we are focusing on saving lives, making sure people who live in those camps can live the best they can and they have a future. >> are we dealing with only the remnants of a genocide that is over? >> i am not saying the genocide is over. what i am saying is my focus is on recovery. i have been a refugee myself, we lost everything we owned when we left condo. i live in people's clothes. i don't want people to go through that situation. the don't want people to live in that environment. it doesn't matter what we call it. we have people living in dire desperate conditions, we have women that fear for their lives and they have their souls ripped out of them.

that has to stop. my view is to get involved in a debate that is not required. that is my mandate, that is what the president asked me to do and why i have dedicated 24/7 to do that. >> let me move that to another line of questioning. did senator feingold asked you what tangible evidence that cartoon is acting in good faith? i would like you to elaborate on that. a number of senators have expressed their concern about this policy of national engagement. we need to talk about a comprehensive approach but it seems to me that any kind of comprehensive approach is going

to have a combination of carrots and sticks. senators have asked for a plan, asking for concrete progress. they called for benchmarks. they have asked the administration not to rule out further punitive actions, more muscular steps in our approach to the national government. what is your response? >> i will give you example. we have 12 areas where we have major goals in implementation of the comprehensive agreement. we started with 12 hours a day

meetings in washington. we expanded to the final two. we have agreements on those 12 except for the senses and i talked to the leadership on both sides and resolve that at a political level. there are benchmarks, timetables and i would be happy to share with you all of those agreements that were made not because of us but because we created the environment so that the two parties could make the agreements. that is the way i see our role, to be able to create the environment, to help push in areas that we can push, to use the leverage of international community to push not for the u.s. to make policy but to create the environment so that those views from the south and north can be rationalized and problems resolved. we will go out to raise the

agreement we got at the working level of 15 key leaders to the two vice-presidents. we are not pushing the rebels to unite the same with civil society, we create environments where they can come together and identify the issues and their leaders and we facilitate them going to go on where we can build a comprehensive peace agreement to bring peace to darfur. what i see is we are not giving anything. we haven't given anything yet and we got an agreement, 12 pages gruff, of things they have agreed to not necessarily with us, but things that will move our shared vision. that is what we are trying to achieve. >> i would appreciate if you would respond on the record about those specifics that you just alluded to.

>> for the record. i will turn them in to you. no problem. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for your service. i had a meeting in the office listening to your answers. what i don't understand, what i fail to glean from what i heard, you are the third or fourth echelon avoid we have had to the sudan. we had real engagement by citizens in this country on this issue, my home state in new jersey and across the country. we have thousands of letters of that engagement by people. we have the political engagement the highest levels of our government. we have funding for humanitarian programs, that listen to us in

our efforts multilaterally. i have difficulty understanding what is missing that we cannot move forward. if i am sitting in a camp facing pretty dismal conditions and worried about our security and/or my life, the councils of patience and delay did not satisfy. if it was one of us sitting in those camps i am thinking we will not be satisfied by what we year. i am trying to grasp, what are the elements we are missing here? despite everything we hear, the third or fourth special envoy, the greatest country on the face of the earth, what is it we are missing here that we cannot reach the conclusion, the successful conclusion that we want in turning the tide on the lives of these people.

>> very difficult question. i don't know. all i know is we have a plan to try to make a difference. that plan includes five tracks in darfur, which is the political process, the security elements i have spoken to, humanitarian assistance in solving the problem, we have an integrated comprehensive way to fully implement the cpa. we are thinking about what we can do to stabilize the security pact and the ngos on the eastern side. all i can do is work these problems together as far as i can. we assembled the best team that i can. we have great people that are helping us. we are fooling and expertise from the whole international community, we're building in a national organization to help us do this. we don't say the united states can solve this problem but we believe there is a solution and we believe we cannot fail. there are too many people whose lives depend on our success. that is why we are putting

together every effort we can and that is why president obama has given me the support he has given me and secretary clinton has been totally supportive because we all understand that this is a the one. >> what is there a time frame? >> we have and a election in april of next year and we have a referendum in june. the number of days left, working days, is 174 to the elections, 362 until the referendum. that is almost mission impossible. but i believe there is hope. we can succeed and i get every day and work at 6:007 days a week to make this thing happen. we have a compressed time line. we have an almost impossible job to do but if we sit back and do nothing we will certainly fail. i'm giving it everything i can because i believe -- >> i have no that you give it what you can and i am not an advocate of nothing. i have been an advocate on this committee, i included legislation in one of our previous legislation is giving

the you and resources from the federal government. genocide doesn't have an offset as i was asked before. the reality is i am trying to get a sense, what is it that you don't have that you need, or do you have everything you need. what is it that you don't have that you need outside of sounds like time? >> time is a big one. the second thing is we need space on sanctions. there are things we are doing and sanctioning that are hindering me from being able to bring development to the south. there are things that are hindering me because of sanctions that are keeping the people of sudan from getting the education they need. i have a simple radio that connects up to five leading institutions so that doctors in darfur and the south can call in and get the latest medical help and i can't even distribute them because of the sanctions. the very elements that we need,

the women we need to develop the south can't come through sudan because it is all sanctioned. we have to take a good look and say what can we do to in short that the southern sudanese have every opportunity to be breast as a nation not as an incubator but one that can survive on its own. we have worked issues and put ourselves in the box in some areas. we will need some help from the congress and those areas. >> let me ask you another set of questions. what does this say? we are talking a lot about the intelligent use of our soft power but what does it say about our ability to succeed with soft power in terms of trying to get the goals of saving these people's lives and changing their lives? >> the elements we are trying to use, what it really comes down to is making a difference with the ngos, increasing the

capacity with the ngos, in means more development and it means having a more integrated development program, reduction plans, the sudanese themselves come of with. that is why we are asking, come up with a plan, figure out how we can work with them on their plan to be successful. it really isn't about us doing it, it is about us helping them help themselves in the african region to help itself. >> one last question, earl gast. win in go out to get firewood and end up getting raped in the process. there's a lot of promotion of alternative stoves. have you looked at this and thought about what is the best alternative so that we can better secure those who are in the camps? >> thank you for your question. we did have a discussion of women's issues, you are

absolutely right. if there were good, effective, fuel-efficient stove, it would reduce the exposure of women outside of the camps. what we have found is the early models of fuel efficient stove living up to their promises, we have oversold them. they're not as efficient as we led them to believe. we are working on a study to help identify them. core it truly is fuel efficient. it is in progress. >> we want to know your progress

on that. >> it is a debate that is important, obviously, with respect to our policy and the choices we have available to us, it is also a debate fraught with some difficulties at this point which is why intelligent and committed people can have differences in opinion. according to article ii of the genocide convention, that means any of the following five acts in whole or in part, are killing members, causing mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group bringing about physical destruction in whole or in part, there could be significant

debate about the camps and people's abilities to move back to where they are and the lack of provision by the government, imposing measures--the children in the group are on another group. international law includes within genocide, this issue of the creation of physical conditions that lead to the destruction of the group and so forth. there's a lot of room for argument here. what scott gration is saying is there are ongoing impact. we are living with it. darfur is a day to day hell in terms of the impact. obviously the kinds of activities of 2004/2005, how

many people were killed? what is the best judgment? today we have largely criminal activity as a result of the conditions people are living in which takes some lives, but serious questions, independent acting, government driven effort in the way that it was in 2004/2005. ease of things we can argue about. if we do that all the time, we won't get those things taken care of. earl gast talked about the unsustainably of the condition. point that picture, what do you mean by an sustainability in the context of post march 4th events? >> when we referred to and sustainability, what we have done is we had to ask act is to

take on roles that they're not used to doing. it means we are not implementing programs that meet acceptable international standards. i mentioned the delivery of food aid. we have a monitoring element, monitoring element built in all along the way. we don't have the resources to do that. >> can the government of cartoon facilitate our ability to do that better? >> the government of cartoon can facilitate the ability to do it better by doing what it is doing now. >> those are technical agreements since scott gration's visit, there is a sense that they are more engaged? >> the problem is -- the problem is rebuilding that capacity. the progress the government has

made, in issuing technical agreements, not requiring travel permits. the one area that they have not fully implemented is the return of assets so assets that were seized have not been returned for the most part. we are rebuilding capacity to the point where we will have full sustainability and greater coverage than we did prior to march 4th. we had doing that by expanding the existence of eight ngos. we are expanding their programs, they will bring in more internationals and the general mentioned four ngos that are coming back to sudan. >> there is more to be covered but we don't have time. >> i wonder if i might have

another moment or two. clearly, the chairman's comments are well taken. however, if ambassador rice is correct, and if there is an ongoing genocide, then clearly the congress and the united states's approach to dealing with the government should be different. i wanted to ask one question about the secession vote. i would be surprised if the south did not vote to secede under any circumstances. do you expect the khartoum government to honor this vote, and what are the implications of that? >> i believe they will honor the

vote. the agreements we have made, the north and south have agreed that the vote will take place with or without the required legislation. i believe that the vote will happen and what we understand, if the vote happened today they would vote to secede but we will see what happens in 2011 but i believe they will allow it to happen. >> cartoon will allow the seceding south to go quietly and peacefully and orderly? >> that is what we are working for, full implementation that will allow the vote for their to be unity and peaceful coexistence. that was what we are striving for for our negotiations and the work we're doing. >> let me just say, i want to be declared is here because it is

important. i believe that general scott gration is on the right track. the agreement is to save lives, it has advanced our ability to be able to advance the peace process in darfur, and north and south. the consequences of not doing both would be disastrous. we are presented with a difficult situation. i also believe that what was happening in the over it manner of 2004/2005 is not happening today. i am not going to get caught up in the argument. and general scott gration has appropriately said we can spend our time doing that. the key is the government of khartoum moving to address the critical humanitarian concerns and advance the peace process itself. if it is, we have to rely on our exports, a very different

situation confronts us. that is the key thing we have to look for in our policy. there are real measurements in what they're doing, and we advance that process and that is exactly what scott gration is doing. this time frame is critical. it will take heavy lifting by heads of state and special envoys and others to advance this. with that said, let me invite a seamless transition to the second panel. i'd -- i need to meet with some folks, senator lugar will chair in my absence, so scott gration and earl gast, thank you for being here. there will be additional questions that will need clarification. i know you didn't -- we didn't have a chance to get to some of the things we need to know about the usa/id program. thank you for being here. we invite the second panel to

take their seats. senator lugar, if you would share, i would appreciate it. >> we are able to progress with our distinguished panel. i will call upon you in this order, first of all, prof. sham, and mohammed ahmed eisa and susan page. would you please proceed, david shinn? >> the situation existing in sudan today very much involve

the entire region, surrounding region. i would also suggest most of sudan's nine neighbors would prefer to see problems between northern and southern sudan resolved with southern sudan remaining united with the rest of sudan even though that is not the way it seems to be headed today with egypt perhaps being most forcefully taking that position. it is clear that a geographical unified sudan is dependent on the willingness and the ability of deng xiaoping -- khartoum to make the unit the attractive and southern sudan's willingness to leave the door open to that possibility. some observers might argue that a breakup of sudan, and i would suggest that a breakup might very well go beyond just northern sudan and southern

sudan, but possibly the breaking off of parts in the north and in the south. some would argue, that that might be a good thing. i respectfully disagree, so long as khartoum can make unity attractive to the south. should that fail, it is incumbent upon khartoum to allow the cpa to move forward, to allow the independence to proceed. there's a lot to criticize in sudan but i want to focus on a few things, a few areas where there has been progress. one has been talked about already today, whether sudan should be considered -- should be left on the list of state supporters of terrorism. i would argue it should not, it should be removed from that list. it is often said that if you remove sudan from that list, you remove sanctions on sudan. that is a misnomer.

the web of sanctions against sudan is so long and so entangled, it would take years to undo that jungle even if you remove sudan from state sponsors of terrorism list. we have talked a lot today about the highly emotional charge of genocide. i happen to be in the camp that would argue that today, what is happening in darfur does not meet the definition of genocide as defined by the 1948 convention, and i think it does not serve u.s. policy well to continue to call it that because of the heavy emotional baggage this brings to the question. i suggested a series of specific policy suggestions, some of which have been alluded to today, just to mention a few of them, i would try to make one last gasp effort to make unity attractive in sudan, perhaps by

pulling together a small group of international experts that can sit-down with the sp l m and national congress party and try to identify the agenda where that might still happen. the odds are not good but nevertheless the effort is worth trying. a much greater effort should be made in resolving the internal difficulties in chad, working closely with france and libya. that plays out very heavily on what is happening inside sudan itself. i think that u.s. policy would be well served if what is going on in sudan in fall more directly some of the international key actors, and scott gration mentioned that might be the way, it is important that the international community press hard on both the s p l m and the government in

khartoum to demarcate the border that has just been adjudicated by the tribunal. finally, i would suggest that there ought to be pressure on the s p l m and in c p to reduce the amount of money they're spending in the military and to rebuild their agricultural sectors. very briefly, a few considerations, i would make the argument for upgrading you as representations in khartoum to the ambassadorial level. more importantly, i agree with scott gration that there must be more on the ground ability to monitor what is happening in sudan and i would try to make the case for the american presence program idea of one american officer positions scattered around various locations in sudan with maybe one or two local nationals. that would give a greater

vantage to understanding the situation. >> thank you very much. >> my name is mohammed ahmed eisa, and diana native of darfur, sudan. first, let me thank you for the invitation today. i also want to thank the kennedy center for civil rights for their support. i am honored to testify today before you on an issue so dear to my heart, yet i am saddened by events which brought me here

today. i am of the four tribes, i am a leader in my community. in preparing for this testimony, i have consulted with a number of darfur leaders on the ground and in the diaspora. i stand here today talking about their views. i have a medical doctor and have worked in darfur since 1989. since the genocide started in 2003, i have provided medical treatment to hundreds of civilians as a result of the conflict. they have come in various forms, gunshot wounds, raped, tortured, beating conlan other forms of violence. we are particularly concerned about the deep horrible human situation in the displaced camps. they have been aggravated by the

expulsion of national organizations by the sudanese government. there is a shortage of food and clean water in sanitation, and conservation of wildlife, raids and killing. a few aid organizations which have been allowed to return to sudan have not been able to start operating on the ground because of the lengthy bureaucracy. further, local activists such as myself are being targeted by the government making it impossible for us to provide much needed services to our people. many of us live outside of sudan and fear for our lives. for more than 6 years, we have been crying for piece in darfur.

piece is urgently needed in darfur. the comprehensive peace agreement signed in 2005 between the sudanese liberation movement and the government of sudan tests a good president for the type of negotiable peace agreement needed in darfur. the cpa pays the way for democratic transformation, provides for equitable wealth and power saying -- freedom of religion and the right to cultural identity. these are the same issues we are fighting for in darfur. a similar peace accord is needed in darfur. further, any peace agreement for darfur must address the issue of accountability. for crimes committed by all parties to the conflict.

a conducive environment for peace in darfur must be created. people in the displaced towns, have been occupied by settlers coming in from chad. these lands must be returned to their white voters. in order for this to happen, the militia must be disarmed and economic force must be strengthened. this creates a safe environment for people in displaced towns to return. for the sustainable peace in sudan we commend the following. the united states should help the government of sudan to allow the functioning of the transition in march 2009, removed the red tape, we should prevent a organizations from commencing operations. the u.s. should insure civil

society groups including representatives from the leadership of the displaced refugees and women organizations in the entity's process. as a key player in the peace process the united states should call for the implementation in the cpa, we appreciate a priority the united states has given to sudan. we have to continue working with the united states, and we are counting on the united states to play a key role to bring about peace in darfur and sudan. thank you. >> thank you very much, sir. i would like to call up on this page. >> thank you very much, hon. members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. as you know, years after the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement, the agreement remains

very fragile and full-scale war between the north and south is always at risk of erupting. inter ethnic violence in south sudan has increased, in darfur violence continues and in eastern sudan a shaky peace deal holds. on june 28th, the national elections commission postponed elections for a second time, from february 2010 to april of 2010. political tensions rose in the south when the foreign affairs minister created a political party for democratic change. despite these challenges important progress was made. the government of national unity agreed to allow government to organizations into the country to replace ngos that had been expelled after the indictment of president bashir. significant advancement had been

alluded to. respect for the tribunal's decision and a newly drawn map has been agreed to. and to the senior leadership of the two parties on the ruling was announced. in the eye has worked in sudan since 2004. it represents the most extensive qualitative information on the opinions of the sudanese people. ndi has completed six in southern sudan, two in the three areas of the island, two in northern sudan. as part of these studies, focus group discussions have been held in 71 locations across the country. ndi is assisting the capacity of 75 southern, nonpartisan civil society and faith based

organizations to serve as domestic election observers through a network for domestic elections. the organizations have stressed the importance of working together across regions and to coordinate efforts of the north with those of the established networks in the south. amidst the numerous challenges in sudan, such expressions exemplify a desire for collaboration, regardless of the outcomes of the elections and referendums to build a just and accountable government at all levels. our focus group research in the north, south and three areas showed that the sudanese strongly support elections as the best way to choose their leaders. they are strongly committed to participating, they hold a deep desire to hold their elected officials accountable, something they cannot currently do with

appointed officials. interestingly, though many people expect cheating to take place, a number of participants say that they would quote accept the broad, yet still vote for the candidate of their choice. nonetheless, misinformation is widespread including the number of positions for which people will be voting. a number of people erroneously believe that they will also participate in a referendum. ndi's research demonstrates sudanese citizens's frustration with incomplete implementation of the tpa. technical assistance and government capacity building for the electoral implementation, including the two referendum are crucial ways to support the government of national unity, the government of southern sudan and the 25 states of sudan in implementing the next critical phase of the cpa.

additional support for civic and voter education programs is crucial. in order for elections and referendums to be viewed as credible, the electoral framework must be understood and regulations put in place as soon as possible. donors should continue to support the national a elections commission to ensure that it remains an independent and viable body. political parties must be able to compete and campaign freely and media must be permitted to provide equal access to all competing interests. additionally, domestic observation of the process of the electoral process provides sudanese citizens the opportunity to participate in the democratic life of their country and to make informed decisions about their future. collectively, an independent alike durrell commission, adequate citizen education, responsible media coverage, a political tolerance for campaigning and the freedom for domestic sudanese organizations to observe the electoral process

will contribute to minimizing the risk of free and post a election and referendum violence as well as to help to ensure respect for the will of the sudanese people as expressed through the ballot. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. let me just follow up on suggestions, clearly the information that the come from a focus group as well as the findings as you will publish them and discuss them, are critical for these referendums, as you suggest, to bring about decisions, when citizens have confidence or more importantly, that they do not engage in violence, because of what they perceive to be their incompetence in the administration or fraud and abuse, a national cryonics institute and public institute

have cooperated for many years in latin american elections. i can recall vividly the attempts to trend ballots that were clear or signals or signs to persons who were illiterate as to what the choices might be in terms of movements of political parties. quite apart from the counting suggested, people sitting around a table, these ballots being raised, and everybody examining it, the procedures we would find in the united states, beyond the point, in the case of first elections in many latin american countries, this was critical in terms of credibility, because all of us are looking towards those elections, and clearly the amount of education about the numbers of positions to be filled, who, in fact, is going

to be of for election. i ask you first of all, what sort of resources to have that kind of information available in 25 states in sudan. that is a daunting figure as one considers all of the differentiations. >> our research from the focus groups are consistently published, we published them, we do briefings in the field not just for the political leaders, north and south, and at the state level, but also for citizens so that they understand what people are saying in terms of the election. i don't think in a country the size of sudan