senses you want to find out about the defendant and you gave him the opportunity to find out about it. .. without a trial. the judges write an opinion, and each opinion is only in terms of losing cases because those are building timestamp to write an

opinion. so overtime the judges begin to think these cases are trivial. they cannot imagine what discrimination is because they are constantly dismissing the cases. it to get in the habit of saying no, you lose the ability to see what yes looks like. i've seen that now across the spectrum from discrimination cases for criminal cases. if you constantly are excusing air, harmless error, balancing, you lose the ability to be able to see and are when it happens. for me it was even more clear. when i was in baby judge school, the trainer was someone who had been training judges in the previous administration. he got up in front of all the judges and says, and he said, here's how you get rid of these cases. talking about civil rights cases. and he probably would've had to give us a checklist of all of the technical ways of dismissing

cases. at that point i was not yet confirmed. i was at the baby judge training because i've been through the senate hearing but had not yet been confirmed by the full senate. of course, i raised my hand and said, that's not to the enterprise, how to get rid of these cases. one of my colleagues took my hand and said, would you be quiet? [laughter] i was quite on that occasion but i was never quiet again. it's not just a question of what you schedule and what you privilege by your schedule. it's a question of complaints where the judge has to decide what is possible. if you can't envision discrimination because you never saw it in your life and never litigated it, you will have a different view of what's possible. there are discovery rules that are now pending before the federal judicial center, the judicial conference, rather.

in which judges are supposed to evaluate whether this discovery is proportional to the issues involved in the case. some of my colleagues have said, you think a 10,000-dollar case is, 10,000-dollar discrimination case is minutes, then your view is very different. i didn't, from wealth. in my view, $10,000 is not a minimalist case. those are the kinds of decisions that essentially adjudge has to make from beginning to end. plausibility, credibility, allinson questions that are come in which you have to judge. the dean of the harvard law school put in a wonderful way. she said there's no escape from choice on the bench. the choice about what the the doctor, how elaborate the hearing, the choice about what's possible, the choice about which credible, the choice about which proportional. and if you are making these

decisions, having no concept of what is at stake, then you make them very, very differently. let me and buy one of the point. know we'll have a large discussion. it's comforting now for many judges and lawyers to talk about the costs of litigation. transaction costs, and we are revamping the federal rules or trying to revamp the federal rules to minimize transaction costs. stand back a bit from that. what is oftentimes going on in the debate is we think the transaction costs of litigation are more important than the problem of an redressed right. when you think about that, we think costs are more important than the problem of people having access to justice. so in discovery, i'm going to be

concerned, some judges would say, that this litigation is going to cost this major corporations the money to find out about policies and practices of discrimination. i care about the cost of litigation. i try to be an efficient judge but i also cared that underneath that pile of static was evidence and practice of discrimination, and the costs were not tromping the concerns about unredressed right. so it's not just a question of getting on the bench, wearing the robe and then suddenly having a lobotomy with respect to everything you've ever had in your life. in fact, your life experiences affect what you do from procedural decisions to substantive decisions. you have to struggle with those experiences. not a one-to-one correlation. i can get on the bench for the purpose of inflicting anyone set

up right. not a one-to-one correlation. but it enters into the calculus, and if you don't have these kinds of perspectives in the calculus at all, then the balance is very different. thank you. [applause] >> i have a series of questions. and then we are looking forward to many of you asking questions as well. before i begin i also want to thank one more cosponsoring organization, justice at stake. so i'm going to call you nancy. >> you can call me nancy. >> i'm going to call you nancy. in an interview you did with

amarillo school in 2012 -- emory law school, he mentioned you find law students today to be quote extraordinarily cautious and afraid to take positions. if more lawyers with advocacy backgrounds are appointed to judgeships, do you think that would encourage law students to be more outspoken? >> i think there's no question that that would make a difference. there really is a sense that in order to be a judge you have to keep your head down throughout your life, avoid making controversial statements. and that's the only way you get on the bench. what happens at that point is, first of all, becoming a judge is a little bit like lightning striking new. you can't really count on it. you never know whether it's going to happen or not.

and so what happens is the new created a generation who has got into the habit of keeping their heads down, got hi into the habt of not engaging with the issues, lest there be consequences in their career. i am so grateful that i was able to have a career that i had, and still become a judge. and i wouldn't have changed anything in that career for a nanosecond. >> you were on the bench well over a decade spent 17 years. >> seventeen years. what changes have you observed on the bench? you know, in the years that you served. >> it's interesting, something i'm trying to write about, i felt, the pressures i felt on the bench were not ideological, not the way people talk about, judges are, that they are political pressures.

they were not political pressures. they were pressures tpp or head down. they were pressures to push people to settle cases, and to encourage people to plead guilty. there were pressures not to write, as i -- to in the course of our training as a judge we were told if he wrote the decision, you failed. that led to the dynamic that i prescribe, which is if you are denying summary judgment, which means the plaintiff can go on to a jury trial, you didn't have to write a decision. so that meant that you never described when the plaintiff one in any legal opinion. so the pressure is not to write an opinion, pressure to push people to settle, russia's to accept pleas of guilty. pressure to keep your head down in so many ways. when i would write a decision i get a lot of sentencing, and i would write a decision about

what i had to sentence someone to a particular outcome. i would meet a judge on the street to tell me that was a courageous decision. this is an incomprehensible statement. i have life tenure. what were they going to do, vote me off the island? but the notion, i was trying to understand what courage meant in the context. i think that there was a sense that you didn't want to see her name in the paper. that you didn't want to be on 24/7 news coverage. and i think that this conspired with the view of being, manager of justice, which michael is just to move the case. if you follow the move of cases, avoid transaction cost model, you can't be criticized. and i had a sense that that was animating a lot of the pressures that i felt.

and that was a change. that was a change. and i think we're seeing it now in the debates over new discovery rules where the concern is the cost of corporations of having to produce discovery. that maybe one thing when one major corporation sues another mega- corporation. but when rights are involved, the rights of consumers or the rights of people claiming discrimination, or prisoners, there has to be some concern for that side of the balance as we well. >> i think we can agree, or at least it's conventional wisdom, that people with public interest backgrounds will have a more difficult time getting a judgeship. i think those are the realities of the process, but i think our view is if you don't try, we will never succeed. we can learn from previous

presidents who put up dozens of certain kinds of candidates, and if you have 12 or 15 candidates from public interest backgrounds, it's hard to shoot them all down. what's your sense of how we change this conversation? i mean, today is i think the opening of that change, but how do we continue to really impress upon senators, nominating commissions, the white house? and i think most importantly all of us who are afraid to enter into this field because of the kinds of obstruction, even with this new opportunity. what's your sense of? >> i think senator warner's committee, which i chair, is the way to do it. she talks every member of the

committee. this is a committee to recommend judges to her, judicial nominations to. and she talks to everyone and she said i want wonderful people. i want highly qualified people. i want bright people but i also want people from different corners of the profession. i want to see consumer advocates in the next. i want to see public defenders. i want to see people from small firms who know what it's like to struggle to make a living. i want to see all of that, and we got the nomination. and the nominations that were recommended to her included a labor lawyer, a magistrate within a public defender, a district attorney who had run for office prior to that. he had been a criminal defense lawyer. and now there's another round of nominations. i look at th them very briefly,d once again we are now getting people who just look different than the nominees had been seen before.

essentially, she led by her example. she said to me, the corners of the profession, and we polled people in the bars that represented these professions and said, we really mean it. we really mean it. this is not just a sham. we really mean it. and now the people saw who she recommended, that the present been nominated, they understand that we really mean it. let me just tell one story, just a bit. a level of abstraction to all the. there's enormous pressure to move the cases, that you have to be patient and understand that. one day i case came to me. it was a guy who lost his arm in an accident. he sued the company, he won a bunch of money, went up to the court of appeals, it was reversed and i got it the second time around. the man had died while the case was pending. the lawyer had to file a piece of paper called the suggestion of debt. yet to file a piece of paper and

the lawyer did not. he missed the deadline. it was at the time of the month that i had to report my ending cases and it was pressure to get rid of cases. my law clerk came in and said, there's a case, judge, that the lawyer has missed the deadline. you can deny this, the estate a second trial, and it will look good on your certificate. then he looked up at me, this 20 year old law clerk and said, but justice in the world suggests you let the case go forward. [laughter] and that's what i mean. we don't -- if you cared that this family had a sense of access to justice, had a sense that the system was not looking for tripwires, not looking for technical ways of getting rid of cases, which i very much cared about because i had been a lawyer, because i've been an advocate and you let the case go

forward. and it went forward in the name of his estate and he actually lost the second time around, but the family had a sense that the federal court was not about technicality. that made a difference to me. >> so i have one last question and then we're going to open it up to our audience. judge nancy, how can a judge blend the responsibilities of neutrality with her identity prior to her judgeship, whether that was as an advocate, an activist or a trial lawyer? does becoming a judge mean the creation of an entirely distinct professional identity, or is there more of a relationship between one's prior professional life and one's work as a judge? >> i had that question many times. i actually think it was easier for me to judge precisely

because of my advocacy. and here's why. i knew exactly what i believed in. i knew exactly what i believed in. i did not believe that i've spent my life not reading a paper and not taking the position. i did not believe when i got on the bench i would suddenly purge of every opinion i've ever had in my life. i knew exactly what i believed in. what that meant was i knew what to struggle with. i understood then that they shouldn't translate one-to-one with being a judge. that i was not there to carry out what my advocacy have been. so i struggled. judging from you was about having a belly ache. i'm sure there's a fancy word, but it was a struggle. i like to think about it, i've been a criminal defense lawyer. i had sort of been on the bench

at times when i've seen police officers we believe lied. so there i was on the bench the first week and an officer took the stand. you know, i have had this experience. the officer took the stand. i believed him. i simply believed him. and i knew then that you could separate out what you had been before with what you are now. you could struggle with it. you could envision a police officer lying, that when the evidence suggested he did, you were not about to say oh, that can't possibly happen, as some of my colleagues might. but i also come as i said i could separate out my advocacy. i had a death penalty case. i've been opposed to the death penalty all my life. i knew as part of the job this day might come that i would have a death penalty case. and it was not easy.

it was complicated, and i thought that the way to address it was to make sure that it was the most fairest trial i knew how to give. the outcome could be death and i would have to go along with that, obviously. i would have to implement the law, but i was going to make sure that the process was fair. so i certainly, i knew what my advocacy was. as i said, i was convinced that made it easy for me to be a judge because it was right out there. those people who will become judges and pretend that they don't have a life experience and they don't have biases, then don't struggle with the. so i knew where my advocacy ended and my judging begin. and now i'm writing about my career as a judge, and i can go back over cases i wish had come out differently. i didn't want him to come up that way but i knew that the law lead in that direction. so it is a struggle and it was

an explicit to struggle with me, which i think made it easier. >> i'm going to break a promise. i have one more question. if you had two minutes with president obama, what would you say to him about federal judges? >> it matters who you put on the bench. i mean, it matters in so many ways. it matters whether you have a judge who is sitting there in a constitutional issue is raised and the judge says, how interesting. i'm going to go and read everything i cant about it, versus a judge will say, don't you think you should settle the case? i would just as soon not have to deal with this. it matters whether you have a judge who can understand access to justice issues. i had a civil rights case, a wrongful conviction case. a man was called wrongfully

conviction -- convicted. he went to city authorities that had been responsible or his conviction. i read in the globe one day that he's about to be deported. he had been released from jail and was about to be deported. i called a hearing. how does this happen that he is deported now when his trial is only months away? i just wanted to understand it. did someone put their finger on the scale is all i wanted to know. did some would say, by the way, he's illegal, perhaps just go ahead and deported? i held a hearing. the globe covered in. it turns out the deportation order was erroneous. if i had not stepped in he would have been deported, and who knows how difficult or easy would've been to get him back. for me that was and access to justice issue. not an outcome issue.

it was, gee, shouldn't we all be working to make certain that his rights were litigated here, that his rights were reflected here? so access to justice is in neutral term. president obama should care about rules that take away access to justice, and judges who are more concerned about their numbers than about people litigating rights. >> if all of our nominees were like judge nancy over your we would be in good shape. [applause] though, thank you. we would love to entertain questions that some of you have. and please identify yourself. >> who my name is march baker. i'm an executive vice president. thank you so much for being here and it's so incredibly inspiring. i want to ask a couple questions

about judicial selection committees. your committee is ideal. you've been functioning incredibly well, adding to diversity. that's not true in all states where we have some judicial selection committees that take months if not years to come up with recommendations, and some are still waiting. a question on that is, is there any reason that could possibly explain why a committee should take that long? is there any if i should give us in terms of challenging what might be going on in those committees? i think the suspicion is it's really a delay tactic. the second question, massachusetts is ideal because you've got senator warren who is taking the lead in terms of insisting that the committee be diverse and you get diverse recommendations. that's not also true in all states. question is, when you have a judicial selection committee that is maybe not balanced, what can we do as advocates? what can we does organizations that are interested in this

process? what can we do to help diversify those committees so that they end up finding more diverse set of nominees of? >> part of it is that which are doing today which is named the problem. i don't think that people named it before. in other words, somehow if a corporate logo is getting on the bench was a democrat and you said that's fine. of the court order, if the prosecutor was getting on the bench was a democrat, we have satisfied these issued or if it was a woman or a minority who said that exactly the same career as the white collie, then you say you are okay. i think naming this issue and its implications for the bench is terribly important. as far as the delay is concerned, we have to cover my's between, on the one hand coming up with a very expensive search and on the other hand, dealing with the political realities in washington. the reason things moved as quickly as they did is that senator warren had no problem

calling me day and night. none whatsoever. nancy, what's going on? she would say. and i would have to tell her what's going on. i want a name by this day. i think you have to call out those committees that are waiting. you have to make sure that, i mean, you have to name it. you have nothing else except press and political pressure, but we haven't named this before and i think it really makes a difference. the other pattern by the way which is a process of maybe the previous procedural review in the senate, while there are wonderful state judges that get on the federal bench, there's no question that there are, just as there are wonderful corporate lawyers and prosecutors acted on the bench. the desire to have nominees without controversy has led to a pattern which we never saw in this country before, which is state court judge, magistrate, federal judge condition court

judge, court of appeals. on the one hand, there have been wonderful people through that mechanism. but it also promotes a certain committee. you're not going to go up the ladder if you declare this law unconstitutional. you're not going to go up the ladder if you do -- if you depart and sentencing cases. and to some degree we have created a recruitment process back in fact encourages judges to keep their head down. i think we want to look at that again. again, there are wonderful people, exceptions but all i'm saying, we're talking now about the patterns. >> anyone else have a question? >> good morning. i'm lois frankel and i'm here because i spent many years working in massachusetts on gender equality issues in the state court system and i'm curious about what comes before

what we were just talking about. i think in the electoral system people have figured out unique national organizations getting women in particular through emily's list and so forth, thinking about getting on that ladder in the first place. and i think getting to the federal bench, especially for advocating for many pipelines to that career, i'm just curious if there are efforts underway to get people thinking about that? and how do you, especially for diversifying, how do you do that? >> we tried -- we took her committee and we told are committed to go to as many meetings, as many bar associations as you could possibly go to. so we went to whatever organizational meeting. we had all the deans of the law schools in massachusetts do essentially an e-mail blast to their alums to let people know that there was, afterward vacancies in the federal court. and also to describe whether

dashing what elizabeth would have said with respect to those vacancies. we would are looking for nontraditional candidates in a way that she described. i think we also what about this in newspapers. we let the newspapers know about and then there was a sample of having done it. the choices that we made made it clear to people that senator warren and senator markey andy dement, met with hussein. there were lots of ways of getting on the bench. i might add it was not easy. the american bar association process which is a very important process, the american bar association typically calls big firm lawyers. so if you're selecting someone from a small firm or selecting someone who isn't a prosecutor or isn't a well-known corporate lawyer, discover that the vetting processes of the bar

association just don't know how to deal with this person. finally, they want of looking at the people who actually knew her work and came up with fabulous recommendations. but the system has been structured in such a way that people get to the top of the list are only certain kinds of people. >> i think we have time for one or two more questions. >> when senator kennedy chaired judiciary i did the judicial nominations. and luckily we had a president who was as bad as kennedy was on diversifying the bench. and i've helped two other centers set up commissions so my first question is, when there's another supreme court vacancy, are you potentially available? [laughter] but my other question relates to

the american bar association. back then, which is now 25 years ago, the aba's view, apart from the familiarity, which only big firm lawyers was that if you were a title vii lawyer or an environmental lawyer, you couldn't possibly handle a great range of federal jurisdiction. if you were security's letter to you on wall street, no problem. and i wonder to the extent that you were, nancy, have a sense that that has abated, or whether it's as much of a problem as it was then because of the role that the aba ratings like? >> i think it's as much of a problem, something went to work on. just an analogy that. so if i was asked after i'd been a criminal defense and civil rights or how i could possibly be a judge, we don't ask

prosecutors those questions. everyone has to change on the bench. everyone has to move from neutral and it's only question of where you started, but everyone has to do it. i think that the aba process has to be looked at more carefully. they have to understand that the premium is as much on diversity as we understand it. but really, if anything, i think the issue that defines my career as a judge, is more that i've been a litigator than anything else. it almost didn't matter which side, but as a litigator i saw things in the courtroom that i'm not sure that others would see. and so if you're looking for litigators, people who simply know the courts, they could be labor litigators, they could be civil rights litigators, they could be corporate litigators, could be all of that. i'm a massachusetts crazy sports fan, and it's like basketball where there's some players who

see the court. i would see the court. i would understand what's going on and cared very much about people, having everyone have access to justice. as i think we have to begin to open up a discussion. in a way that we haven't. the public sees only supreme court confirmation proceedings, which candidly are a kabuki ritual. so as to the other question was on available for the supreme court, not com, not after i've n speaking out as i have. one of the reasons i left the bench was in order to speak. and as my husband likes to say, now that i can speak, i can't seem to shut up. [laughter] >> nancy, judge nancy, thank you for speaking today. it really -- thank you for your openness -- [applause] to sharing your reflections, and really in reaching discussion

that will be brought forward by all the wonderful people in this room and people participating on live stream. so, wow, if your glasses -- classes are anything like the story, we are all signing up at law school. not really. i couldn't do it again. i would like to think we could go back. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and we are so sorry that sherilyn couldn't join us, but she has written extensively on this topic and we will make her writings and articles available on our website are all of us to look at. and again, thank you all for coming. it's been a great morning. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> tomorrow's "washington journal" a discussion on the affordable care act with the health policy scholar from the american enterprise institute and executive director of families u.s.a. also a look at the future of homeland security department under the new secretary, jeh johnson with an associated press immigration and homeland security reporter. and a look at the days headlines with your phone calls and reaction via twitter and facebook. "washington journal" start of seven in eastern on our companion network c-span. president obama is en route to california where he is a number of stops including fresno ways is expected to pledge dispute federal assistance to help california recover from a drought that is threatening the critical agriculture industry. the ap writing that the president will promise to make available within 60 days up to $100 million in aid to help california farmers who lost

livestock due to drought conditions. the assistance was contained in nine to $56 billion farm bill that congress passed and he signed last week. he will also meet with community leaders and later visit with king abdullah of jordan. this morning he spoke to house democrats holding their party caucus meetings and here's a bit of what he had to say. >> we can get a whole lot more done if we've got congress working with us. and this caucus has shown time and time again under the most difficult circumstances the kind of courage and unity and discipline that has made me very, very proud. and i was just talking to nancy before i came out here. the fact that we are no longer going to see i believe anybody trying to hold our government

hostage and threaten the full faith and credit of the united states of america in order to contract policy concessions, the fact that were able to pass a clean debt limit is just one example of why, when you guys are unified, you guys stick together, this country is better off and i could not be more thankful and more appreciative, proud of what you're doing. [applause] just a couple more points. number one, you've seen reports over the last couple of days that we actually broadly exceeded our target for aca sinus and enrollments this past month. in the month of january. [applause] we now have well over 3.5 million people who have signed up and getting insurance through the marketplace is for the first time. that does not count for close to 79 folks who have signed up for medicaid because of the law that

you passed, or the 3 million young people are staying on the parents plants. we are starting to data already that the uninsured rate is coming down. we are going to keep on pushing on this to make sure that here in america, everybody can enjoy the kind of financial security and peace of mind that good quality health insurance provides. [applause] and i just want to say thank you for all of you hang in there tough on an issue that i think 10 years from now, five years from now, we're going to look back and say this was a monumental achievement that could not have happened had it not been for this caucus. >> one of the things that we worry about, cyberattacks but physical dangers. and what i always think is what keeps me up at night when i think about what can happen next. and i wonder what your greatest fear is as a physical attack here in our country. general? >> i just would answer by really two things.

on the cyber side i think an attack against our critical infrastructure that would have potential damaging effects in our transportation health care, clearly financial is an area that we have to pay very, very close attention to. our energy sector. on the kinetic site, there's a range of things that keeping up at night. when you see like these mumbai style attacks, what happened in the mall in nairobi, i mean, what happened during the boston marathon, those are the kinds of things that we have to continue to work together in the intelligence community to make sure that we are working as seamlessly as possible to share everything we have, not only within the defense side and the national side, but also on the federal, state, local and tribal level. i think those are, that's an important aspect of what we're trying to do in the intelligence community which is to work on integration. >> this weekend on c-span, the senate armed service committee looks at worldwide cyber

threats, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction saturday morning at 10 eastern. and public tv watch live daylong coverage of the savanna book festival. >> as part of this presidents' day weekend on american history tv on c-span3, to her porch the power, the american president and the national portrait gallery monday night at eight. >> cotton avenue serves as a metaphor for macon's history. when macon was first laid out in 1823, they laid it out in ninth square blocks with alternating large, wide boulevard, wider than washington, d.c. boulevard. savannah has its squares, macon has its linear parks. but anyway, as they were laying it out, a farmer with a loaded gun on his wagon headed towards the river to market it

downstream road right through the state that the engineers have laid outcome and the engineer simply wove the angled road into the layout of macon, georgia,. >> this weekend, booktv and american history tv looked behind history and literary life of macon, georgia, today at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3. >> u.s. special envoy to sudan and salsa dance donald booth called a civil conflict in south sudan devastating with the roots of the problem run deep. is one of the panelists at the africa center for strategic studies discussion on the violence that erupted in south sudan in december. the vote was made possible by the copper is a peace agreement

of 2005 which ended over two decades of civil war between the government of sudan and rebels in the south. this is just under two and a half hours. >> it's my pleasure to welcome you, national defense university and the africa center roundtable discussion on south sudan charting a path -- [inaudible] microphone. >> we've been doing this for 18 years. and i think we have become an honest broker and good friend of our african partners, and certainly within the office of secretary of defense. we have achieved a level of

support and recognition for that level of support for the strategy and the policy to develop a process. we also conduct in part of this, part of today, conducting policy relevant research on africa's security issues and to facilitate a dialogue within the policy committee on africa security. of this debate is certainly a key piece of that. these roundtable discussions facilitate a dialogue, a very important dialogue in south sudan, today, in action over the past many years has risen and fallen in a crust of critical issues facing our policymakers for africa's security. but today what's taking place in both sudan's is critically important, and joe siegle, our director of research, has put together a tremendous panel of scholars, practitioners and senior leaders to discuss this

with you. this is a dialogue. it's a two-way communication. so we encourage the complete dialogue and communication that will take place. we hope to take place. we are very honored to have the very distinguished panel of speakers with us today. but especially i would like to recognize ambassador donald booth, a good friend of the africa center, the u.s. special envoy to sudan and south sudan. we weren't sure that he was out of going to be able to be with us. he was on the list, off the list, on the list. and i think it was even as of yesterday we were able, he was able to break away and come be part of this morning's session. so ambassador booth, thanks. thanks for your continued support and we hope this is helpful to you in your very important mission. my job is to open this, to make their short comments, but we want the dialogue to continue

and to be robust. so i would like to turn this over to dr. joe siegle, our director of research will moderate today's program and be with you all day. so thanks. and again, welcome to the africa center. >> thank you very much, mike. my name is joe siegle. i'm the director of research here at the africa center for strategic studies, and i would also like to extend my welcome to everybody for coming out this morning. i would like to especially recognize those from african diplomatic community who are here with us this morning, notably ambassador koch from south sudan. so thank you very much for being here today. -- ambassador khoc. one administrative issue before yes, sir. there's been a change in the program from the last transition that you would have received. one of our guest was to be on the second panel coming from africa had some logistics issues getting here and so he isn't

going to be able to join us, and as a result we decided just to consolidate the two panel. we're going to go with one panel this morning but it's going to be a two-hour panel. we'll just go all the way through, have each speaker speak for about 15, 20 minutes and then we will open it up for questions and comments and some broader discussion. all right. the world's youngest country has suffered a major setback in its nationbuilding efforts since the outbreak of fighting in december of last year. and the cost of this conflict has been as devastating as it has been swift. thousands of people have been killed. there have been hundreds of thousands of people who lost their livelihood. 865,000 people have been displaced, according to the u.n., and there's an estimated

3.5 million people who will be in need of food assistance between now and june of this year. the fighting has also taught at the social fabric of south sudanese society. divisions that were there have been pulverized and there's been a fracturing of the nascent political and governance institutions that were evolving chemically within the security sector. skimming this devastation has been the focus of intensive diplomatic efforts in the region and by international partners. this resulted in the cessation of hostilities agreement of january 23, and its continuing efforts to sign a longer-term cease-fire peace agreement that continue to be the focus of attention now. and because of the critical mess

of those issues, that will remain the focus of most international tension in south sudan for the coming days and weeks. and necessarily so we've organized this roundtable today to look forward beyond the immediate critical issues, to look over the horizon about what's coming next. and in other words, under the merit of challenges that south sudan faces today, what are some the strategic priorities that we should be focusing on over the next six months to two years that will help south sudan to achieve stability in a sustainable manner. if we can help identify some of the strategic priorities then we would be in a better position to chart a path to get there. and so our goal today is to

really to stir up this discussion, to try to help sketch out a vision of what the situation can get a, if we're going to see stability in south sudan. and in this way we are drawing from a west african proverbs that says he who does not look ahead is always destined to remain behind. and so to help us in this forward-looking discussion we have a really highly knowledgeable panel who has been working south sudan issues for a long time. and i will have each person speak for about 15-20 minutes and then we will save our questions and comments for the end. i'll introduce each person as they speak, that way we will be able to launch right into discussion. and we will start here to my left with ambassador donald

booth, who as mr. garrison said, is the u.s. special envoy to south sudan and sudan. he's a member of the senior foreign service. he served previously as the ambassador to zambia as well as to liberia, and prior to that he has held many diplomatic posts within the state department, including within the bureau of international, organizational affairs, he was the director of the office of west african affairs. he's the deputy director for the office of southern africa affairs, and he's been a division chief of the bilateral trade affairs at the state department. so with that let me turn it over to ambassador booth. >> thank you all very much. good morning. thank you for coming. thank you for the interest in south sudan. i think that we really are all terribly care we disappointed

that three years after the historic referendum for independence and nine years since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement that south sudan is again driven by conflict. only this time the conflict is not with the government in khartoum but it is a conflict within itself. the fact that south sudan faces into challenges is not in and of itself surprising. i think anyone here today. internal political tensions have been building for months. political space and space for civil society has been shrinking since independence. intercommunal tensions have been long-standing, and the country's institutions i think are understandably week. nevertheless, the speed with which this conflict escalated once the events of the night of december 15 occurred was i think astonishing. the conflict is devastating to

the people of south sudan, and for those of us in the international community who have all made tremendous investments in the country in the hope of seeing it as gave a terrible cycle of violence that marked its past. the cessation of hostilities agreement upon by the parties on january 23 was a critical step. unfortunately, the fighting continues in south sudan. we are deeply concerned about the reports of fighting, particularly in upper nile and unity states as follows other places. this includes the recent spla, or government forces attack on n the leader which is the hometown of the former vice president and opposition leader week machar. the conflict has already exacted a terrible price on the people of south sudan who already face some of the most daunting development challenges in the

world. the numbers are grim and while we may never know the exact number of casualties, undoubtedly thousands have been killed. the international crisis group a few weeks ago gave an estimate of 10,000. it could well be above that. we do know that at least 875,000 south sudanese have fled their homes, and of that number, over 130,000 have sought refuge in neighboring countries. there are reports of forced recruitment, sexual violence and use of child soldiers by both sides. and as political rivalries have taken on ethnic dimensions, atrocities have been committed and continue to be reported against many women and children alike. now that cessation of hostilities been signed we must not lose focus or allow momentum to fade on making progress not only on implementing that secession but i'm making

progress on the key issues that must be addressed for south sudan to return to stability and a path to development. first, the cessation of hostilities as i said must be fully consummated and monitored. in order to great a space from evil and inclusive political dialogue and to begin creating the security conditions and confidence that will allow that 10% of the population that is fled their homes to begin to return. we welcome the arrival of defense team at the joint technical committee, of the monitoring and verification mechanism which arrived in juba this past week. and it will help establish the monitoring teams which will ultimately allow both sides a mechanism to report breaches of cessation of hostilities agreement. we continue to urge all parties to the conflict to help facilitate the important work of these teams. but i must say that i'm concerned by initial reports that the government may intend

to obstruct some of the initial deployment. of the monitoring mechanism. and it is also limiting the full deployment of new i miss the units were trying to move into juba and south sudan -- unmiss. it is critical these institution, the monitoring and verification mechanism and unmiss have unfettered access in south sudan to fulfill their mandates. the monitoring, cessation of hostilities, the reporting of human rights violation and in the case of unmiss, the protection of civilians on to something the delivery of humanitarian assistance. second, those responsible for perpetrating abuses in violation need to be held accountable. and the nation was fully invest in a reconciliation of process or processes that can support political dialogue and reform going forward. the african union is currently establishing a commission of

inquiry for south sudan which we believe can serve as an important and credible mechanism to ensure accountability for atrocities. we are urging that this mechanism move forward expeditiously on its work. third, although the period of fighting thus far made in relatively short compared to other contemporary conflicts in the region, the roots of the crisis run incredibly deep, meaningful political dialogue both between the two sides and along with broaddrick sensation of others in south sudanese society must begin immediately. i return to business as usual with a quick fix and political accommodation for the elite would be a recipe for renewed conflict in short order. finally all parties should permit immediate and unconditional humanitarian access to all in need to the hundreds of thousands of south sudanese for the real victims of the violence.

for our part the united states is working to help bring an end to the fighting and to encourage and support progress toward a process to build a new south sudan. and to address the underlying causes of the current conflict. along with ambassador in juba, ambassador susan page, national security senior director smith and harris, deputy secretary of state burns, assistant secretary of state for africa linda thomas greenfield, and i have all traveled and engaged directly threatened the region as well as with president kiir, former vice president machar. and the heads of state and foreign ministers in neighboring countries. secretary kerry common access card advisor rice and other high ranking past as well as present officials have engaged south sudanese leaders. we have focused our efforts on supporting the igad led mediation efforts. galvanizing support to open a broader dialogue between the two

sides and director supporting the launch of verification and monitoring mechanism. let me just mention here, unity of effort behind igad mediation has been incredible, and they think it has been extremely valuable in ensuring the effectiveness of that mediation effort. and igad has put forward some of the very best people to run this mediation effort. ethiopia's former foreign minister of 20 years, and the mediator of the cpa, general lazarus from kenya. so we've been engaged with other diplomatic partners as well, trillion of, european union, china all have been engaged on the ground with their envoy in juba and throughout the region. we are working to support the cessation of hostilities agreement and the launching of the needed political dialogue to address the roots of the problem.

we have also been unanimous that outside parties should not take any steps to escalate the conflict or regionalize the conflict. as this crisis began to unfold we propose in the security council unanimously adopted a resolution nearly doubling the authorized troop ceiling for unmiss, the u.n. mission in south sudan. we are now actively encouraging member states provide additional troops and former police units to that nation. including through the transfer of contingents from other nations in the region where they can be spared. these additional troops simply have begun to arrive, we've also committed an additional $50 million of u.s. humanitarian assistance to address the immediate pressing needs created by the conflict and we will be doing for the assessments in the coming days. i continue to be encouraged by igad's leadership and convened the parties, and believe that the igad led negotiations offer the best hope for south sudan

and the region. we'll continue to support the mediators in carrying out their mandate as instructed by the communicate of the 24th sensation of a heads of state which met on the 31st of january. key to this mandate is its instruction for the mediators to, and i quote, develop a framework for the next phase of negotiations in south sudan, including specific modalities on structure, representation and timeframe so as to ensure dialogue is truly inclusive, and to ensure such a framework is developed with a view to involve a broad range of south sudanese government's, political and civil society actors in a reinvigorated constitutional process. further, the communiqué calls on the meteors to organize a series of public consultations with a wide range of south sudanese actors with the aim of generating input for a framework of political dialogue and national reconciliation.

were allowed to stagnate while the political elite power in an ever-shrinking political space. development efforts were given a backseat to individual ambitions. the government attempted to contain and corral intercommunal violence without fully on addressing the causes which include economic disparity, historical grievances against other communities and political grievances deal to real or perceived underrepresentation and disproportional influence in all levels of government. south sudan's leaders have broken the promises to their own people. while we don't know the scale of the atrocity that have been committed thus far, there is clear evidence that targeted killings have taken place. and each violent act threatens to return south sudan to the cycle of conflict and destruction that south sudanese voted to end when they voted for

independence in 2011. but just as each act of violence made retribution, each step toward peace offers the chance to rebuild. breaking the cycle and ensuring that africa's newest nation continues to move forward rather than backwards is the highest priority of the united states and the international community. i want to thank everyone here today for their continued engagement and wisdom throughout the crisis, and i look forward to hearing what the other panel lists have in term of recommendations and analysis of the situation. i thank you very much. >> thank you very much, ambassador booth. you've started us off very strongly and set up where we're hoping to go with the rest of the panelists. ambassador booth makes the point that the challenges in south sudan are deep-seated and as a result they're going to require

some fundamental changes. we can't just go back to business as usual if we expect to see stability. that's really where we want to pivot now and start to look forward what that is to change. and where go things need to go with our other panelists? and so now we'll turn to. a professor of history at loyla in california. he's also worked as a humanitarian aid and development worker earlier this his career. he's the author of numerous articles covering the -- political violence, humanitarian aid, conflict, and the politics of identity in sudan. he's the author of three books including "sudan: religion and

violation." please take it away. >> thank you very much, joe. thank you to the africa center strategic -- thank you to giving up your morning to be together with us to guiding the future of south sudan. since the round table is designed to help us think about what the future hold south sudan, i've looking forward a little bit of reflection on the past. i'll make a few remarks on how we got here and then suggest a few steps we can take to move forward. what happened in south sudan in december of 2013, was shocking

by all accounts. to at lough people who have been watching south sudan since cpa and the referendum and independence. to very visibly in the making for the last eight or nine years. many wounds of the liberations wars were left and treated, and this was one of the promises of independence that those wounds would be tackled and mended. for example, 99-1 split in the spla when -- [inaudible] the former vice president who is now the leader of the ongoing rebellion split from the spla. the spla became involved in numerous and very extremely

violent episodes of confrontations among themselves as well as between the civilians and the liberation army. what it left behind is gaping wounds of in the hearts and minds of south sudanese. something would have needed to be tackle soon after the independence came. many episodes of violence between ethnic communities have been going on and intensified, in fact, after the cpa and after independence. the need to consolation between the communities and to those risks that were thus created was evident all through. but this was not done. the military i.t., the spla, the country's national deafen laws

is the biggest institution in south sudan. , and it is the most expensive institution to run. it estimates anywhere between 45 and 60% of the national expenditure goes to the institution. but it is also the most dysfunctional of institutions to the extent that many south knees south sudanese will say that the spla the security force of the nation has been a time source of insecurity. the spla -- the party -- the nation's biggest party

actually in south sudan as a one-party system, but it has remained unwilling oren able to transform itself to a democratic party with many, many contentions. contentious issues among leadership within that party. the larmest part of population of south sudan was excluded from the gains of independence. especially the young people. because of the unwillingness of the political party to be the people's party that it ease spouses -- that it claims to be. in the 3 percent of south sudan's population is below the age of 30 according to 2008 census. 40% between the age of 14 and 30. and if you exclude all of these

people from the gains of independence, as has been evident in south sudan, i don't know what sort of society you are going build. then continued violence after the cpa and intensification of it after independence in the form of theft, revenge, and repealon from the spla continued through the period of relative peace sin the spla. and i trapped in all the excluded young people from the gains of independence. when you have 14-year-old up to 30 have no investment in themselves and having read a

little -- to live for in this situation where there is a militarized community there is no way to expect the people that kind of hope and things to invest in themselves. that exclusion is not just obstructing. it is not one of the highest expectations and assumed capacity of the state, and willingness of leaders to take up the responsibility for welfare. it is not an assumption, it is the divide -- its visible everywhere. with south sudan having so quickly become in a deeply divided society leaving so many people with very little

investment in their lives. it is visible everywhere in the area. heart breaking incident situations. but the lavish expenditure in the state capitals and in juba is visible. it's not some form of abstract, disappointed population assuming that the leaders are corrupt or -- it is something they see every day. all was was bound to cause an explosion. it was just a matter of time. what we didn't know with certainty was what shape these explosion was going to take. the uprising resembling the

african protests, perhaps. or more rebellion by army commanders and suddenly there are many of those. or intensity in the more familiar describable militia force or more civil contest of power within the splm leadership. we didn't know what form it was going take. it could have been any one of those or a excision of -- combination of this. it was only a matter of time but it blows up. its capacity to bring the country to the brink of shattering the way depended on how the government was going to react and manage this explosion. what it did, no matter what you call it, accrue with them the

mute any or civil war it was poorly managed. on december 6th, the group of splm leaders held a press conference in which criticized the government and the president for what they call the tendencies, they made a lot of good points about what the party should have done or should be doing to govern the country. it but instead of upon dent in the manner of dialogue since they are all members of the same party, the vice president issued a letter in which he described

this people as a bunch of disgruntled leaders who have lost office and that was the reason why. because they lost office. not because of yemen problems within the ruling party choose to do with democracy in the party. issues to do with the corruption that people have been talking about for years having play south sudan among the most corrupt countries in the world. according to various reports. transparency, international ranks south sudan the fourth most corrupt country in the world. and which these issues were raised, because corruption is something that very difficult to -- but to be discussed within the

party is extremely crucial. to dismiss it as a case of people who are disgruntled because they have been fired back in july of 2013, was it began to fall apart. the president also gave an address at the national liberation just two days -- the meeting begun two days before the 15th of december, when the whole thing blew up in our faces. in the address, he reminded south sudanese of incident as vice president with 99-1 split. and many people think that this is -- this was the wrong time to

bring up such wounds and perhaps that is what a sign of another case of mismanagement of the confrontation within the political party. but this -- the army -- looking forward how do we -- we know how we got here but how do we get the country out of this mess? we have to look at some of the institutions of government. the army has collapsed. there's no question about it. as we speak -- they are still happening. the army is -- was put together haphazardly. it's made up of spla proper, militia that used to fight the spla in the immigration war. made.

up people who used to be members of armed forces. and the result is that huge and the institution that is expensive to run and difficult to manage. with no clear agenda. with no shared culture within the force. the members of the force don't have one particular they subscribe to. and the result of all the history is that many people kept breaking away and the president has done the government -- the government has done something that is commendable over the years nap is to seek the consolation with the militia leaders and absorb all of them to the army, which has made the army so huge. the result is you ended up with the army that is made up of

actual 50, 60% one ethnic group that did not reflect the ethnic diversity of the country, and this army cannot anymore become the national institution with the agenda of social cohetion anymore. if it remains the way it is today. much people and broader consolation between the communities the consolation process that everyone will buy in to. not the current process where arch bishop of the -- sudan is the leader of and the

bishop of the sudan is there's nothing wrong with having the lead of consolation have to look at the history in south sudan where it comes from an ethnic group that is accused by all the other ethnic groups for all sorts of issues and to lead it you need somebody who is more acceptable to everyone. as one person told us when we were at the institute was investigating the possibility of doing a more -- the consolation process and one person told us that the problem of south sudan cannot be away. and so look at the more comprehensive consolation process that everybody will buy in to is out so of the question. then accountability, which is critical for the consolation.

to succeed you must have the impunity of the past has to stop. it is the impunity that become the bit -- one of the big liaison for the current revenge and counter revenge that is going on currently in south sudan. they need to be built in to whatever political settlement that will merge if it were to be made with commitment, financial commitment, political commitment, if they were to be processes that every leader, every south sudanese are committed to. they have to be part of this settlement that will come from it. the ambassador just said cannot be a simple return to the that titus quo, but a comprehensive one that the new promises that independents had represented to the people of south sudan. i think i'll end it there, and

thank you for listening. okay, thank you, jok madut jok. as i warned all of my panelists, going press you to talk about what your parties are. what i heard you say, jok madut jok, is your parties are one to use the army as unifying institution within south sudanese society and really focus on making sure it represent ethnic diversity of the society, and can be a true symbol of national identity. that was one of your recommendations for us to focus on. the second was to broaden the reconciliation process. and to make that process acceptable to all groups recognizing the efforts already made are commendable but needing to make sure that for this to be

truly sustaining, it needs to be more inclusive than it currently is. and thirdly, i heard you talk about the need for more accountability. and that actions by government leaders need to be held up and there needs to be a movement passed. that currently exists. have i got that right? [inaudible] >> okay. we'll come back and elaborate further as we get to the comments and questions. thank you very much, jok madut jok. we'll next move to kate almquist knopf. she is an adjunct faculty member here at the africa center for strategic studies, and she is the author of one of our research publications. which was released in september,

and which really highlights some of the underlying tensions that ultimately erupted in the conflict we saw in december. kate works on a host of africa security issues, and global development policy issues. she has an extensive background working in south sudan, including she was assistant administrator for usaid for africa. and the commission director for sudan and south sudan. kate represented the u.s. government in the international assessment and evaluation commission charged with overseeing the implementation of the cpa agreement in south -- in sudan and south sudan. so, kate, please take it away. >> thank you, joe. thank you to the africa center

for the opportunity to be here this morning. i just wanted to offer a few comments and to -- i've written far more in the research paper, so i'll try not to repeat the entire thing here, but i think a few things that are worth highlighting as we think forward how south sudan can come out of its current moment of crisis and. to start i note south sudan's transition is not a surprise. in fact, it is to be expected to some extent. the current crisis and scale of violence in south sudan is the district result of the absence of constitutional alternatives to manage political competition given the failure of itself leadership namely president and former vice president. it's the failure to avoid resorting to violation in the

absence of institution. the country; however, is not doomed to two years of instability and conflict. progress can be made during a transitional period toward a new -- given responsible leadership and inclusive processes. whiles caping cycles of violence is hard, imperial evidence tells us it can be done. the world bank 2011 world development report captures the experiences of countries that have successfully exited from cycles of violence and provides a framework for prioritizing state building and reconstruction efforts in south sudan. if, and when the immediate fighting ends and a transitional political agreement is reached. it finds, and i quote, to break cycling of insecurity and reduce the risk of their recurrence, national reformers and international partners need to build the legitimate institutions that can provide a sustained level of citizens security, justice, and jobs. end quote. such substitutional transformation, however, takes time. at best case scenario is within

a generation. and requires a first a restoration of confidence and trust in government and across communities. for south sudan it will be imperative to address the underlying issues of political accountability of the executive branch and the ruling political party that precipitated the outbreak of fighting and intercommunal relations that the violence has caused. for this to happen, the current political leadership faces a critical choice. to use the crisis to recommit itself to going inclusive accountable institutions, by seizing actions that perpetuate the dominance of the executive or to continue to alienate society from the state through the pursuit of power. neither is independenceble to a stable, peaceful, democratic south sudan. but either one can decades more death and destruction courageous

leadership is required to rise up above personal ambition and animosity to emigres mechanism and processes that can generate renewed confidence in the state and ultimately systems that can endure. such accountability mechanisms can be a state-based such as substitutions, elections, legislature, courts, political parties, sub national government, merit-based civil service, a professional security sector among others. they can also be society-based. for instance, having an independent media and access to information, a robust civil society, deep social capital, and the support of external norms and standards. the development of any particular mechanism is somewhat less important than the density or the wearing the mechanism across the state and society. sadly, the government's record since independence is one of deliberate undermining and erosion of accountability

mechanism between state and society. this is the route of the current crisis and the fundamental issue that must be addressed once the fighting ends. political leadership that is serious about restoring confidence in the state and ending cycling of violence would dedicate i.t. to building more inclues i have coalitions to support key constitutional reforms to expanding face for independent voices so as to enable a national dialogue and to realizing tangible successes to demonstrate the state's responsiveness to citizens expectations during the moment of political transition. particularly with respect to drafting a permanent constitution, fostering national and local reconciliation, and conducting fair and peaceful elections. let me say just a little bit more about each. to begin with, the state needs to make a far more concerted and genuine effort to build collaborative partnership between the class of elite who will have dominated the political arena thus far. the partnership building process

must also transcend societal fault lines and engage youth. by partnering with trusted institutions in society such as churches and nongovernmental and civil society organizations, identifying mutually beneficial priority and complimentary strength such would improve the government's engagement with local community. it would simultaneously diminish the justification for violence by communities that feel they have been excluded from the political process. whether it involves matter of security, political processes, development needs, or other issues, the practice of building inclusive coalitions would make initiatives and reforms more viable, more sustainable, more effective, while fostering trust for future state building efforts. beyond actively cultivating coalitions and incluesivity it must -- to eases exfrees themselves if the processes of state society dialogue are to gain traction.

on which a stable democratic developmental state depends. rather than trying to monopolize state society relation, the government and the is plm should recognize independent civil society actor as citizens that can contribute to a stronger and more stable south sudan. harassing, intimidating or otherwise inhibiting these voices sends the opposite message that the state does not want to genuine discussion with the citizens and continues to dominate access to power and wealth. the outcome of a approach is per perpetual resistance and instability. since the challenge of building a national consciousness as much a culture exercise as a political one, efforts to foster a new south sudanese identity

should compliment reform to protect and expand political and civil rights. south sudan's provides deep reservoir of culture appreciated and respected for their diversity can foster a new national identity. current facts do not wear it out. to change this, a period of political transition is needed during which inclusive processes will matter as much as the outcome generated. for it signals how committed the government is to citizens participation and input. for strategic priorities are imperative to restore legitimate sei to the state so vital constitution reform and security justice and livelihoods can proceed. first, the current transitional constitution gives extraordinary power to the president with almost no checks afforded to

other branches of government. as well as any justice or judge. a national constitutional review process was to have been completed by january 2013. even before the violence broke out, review process was behind schedule raising serious questions and the adoption of a new permanent constitution before the current terms expire in 2015. it the review process should be an opportunity to educate citizens about what a constitution is and solicit their views about what kinds of checks and balances the people of south sudan want on their government. it also leaves the product

forever open to serious challenges of the legitimate sei. in light of the current crisis, the time line for adopting a new permanent constitution and conducting national elections will need to be revised further. these are critical issues need to be resolved on the transition. there's an opportunity to make the process more inclusive, participate story, and transparent. most importantly, the draft constitution should be put to a popular referendum to demonstrate societal commitment while significantly boosting legitimate sei of the state. and open and legitimate constitutional review process represents the most significant opportunity for south sudan to lay an enduring foundation for national unity. a closed and exclusive process; however, will result in extended political grievances and perceptions of injustice. it will seriously call in to question the political leadership commitment to

democracy. second, an integrated process of national reconciliation truth telling and justice is needed to drive progress toward citizens security and justice as jok madut jok mentioned. these are two critical requirements for ending the violence. not mandated in the cpa they announced in early 2013 an initiative for a national reconciliation process in recognition of the country's long history of intercommunal fighting and grievances. the further deor it your ration of intercommunal relations spawned by the current fighting renders the initiative out most importance. a new committee of national healing and peace and reconciliation was established in april 2013. it is imperative that the process be kept apolitical and managed by independent and

trusted demonstrate constitutions given the role of many of the senior political leaders not just in the current crisis but the long hit i are of south violation. ensuring every community has a opportunity to air the grievances will be vital to the credibility of the process and the difficult question what form of justice will be administrated and response to the findings of the reconciliation dialogue comprises another significant challenge for the committee, political leadership, and for the south sudanese society at large. the question must be answered in south sudan. third, the political transition should make preparations for elections but these should not proceed without first restoring confidence in the country's political processes. specifically there should be first a credible and process to draft a new permanent constitution as said. and the adoption of internal splm party reform to restore

strategics. there should be the privilege for other political parties to organize and develop their capacities and progress on national reconciliation in healing should proceed elections. without progress in these areas first, contest will continue to be seen as winner take all competitions that heighten the likelihood of violation. finally. these critical processes all depend on the movement of people, goods, services, and information across the country. this was construct bid u.s. aid. huge flaw of cub remain inassessable by road during the raney seasons. political, security, economic,

humanitarian, and objective for the country. roads and radio coverage must be extended to every region as quickly as possible. as long as as communities remain cut off from each other and from the government, physically and the exchange of information, insecurity and political exclusion will persist. to conclude, a period of political trants suggestion is needed to generate renewed confidence in the state and provide the social capital needed to build the institutions. security, justice, and livelihoods. most immediately the fighting must end. political detainees must be released, humanitarian aid must reach all needy populations, and human rights abuses must be accounted for. the united and the international community should employ all diplomatic measures available to impress the priority upon the

president. both of whom are -- brought by nearly two months of fighting. going forward the leadership can set a new course toward legitimate sei, stability, and sustained development if it prioritizes above all building trust, accountability, and social cohesion across the population. there is no more essential state building task than this. the foundation of the state cannot be an after thought. thank you. >> thank you. you have given us a lot to focus on. and it seems within everything you've said, you have emphasized the themes of trust accountability and social cohesion. there are these constitutional processes that are important. the constitution building process, and you are emphasizing

the importance of process to build legitimate. you talk about reconciliation. it's the propossess doing so in a integrated way. you talk about the importance of election making sure there is trust building before those elections so they serve the purpose of their intended for. you talk about roads, communication, building infrastructure not just as as itself but a means as trying to help build more national unity and cohesion within the south sudan. thank you very much. that will give us a lot to respond to. and the question and answer. let turn to our final panelist, mr. jason. he's senior coordinator which works in support of the sudan and south sudan transition of conflict mitigation programs.

jason has 20 years of experience working on humanitarian and peace building and post conflict recovery activities with various international organizations in sudan and south sudan. he worked as an adviser, the car nateer and support of initiative directly supportive of of the comprehensive peace agreement in sudan and south sudan. >> thank you. thank you the organizers for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. i was asked to look at the next six months three years. i think we all were. look at goal and constraint. and look what might be benchmarks of success. i think the first question is really about who sets the goals and clearly it's a south sudanese discussion. more importantly that the process of achieving these goals, these transitional goals is essentially the factor that

make them successful. the south sudanese achieving these goals is critical. i'm going it make basically three points. three main points. first, is that i think there can be -- for those who want to find a lasting solution to the conflict, i think it is confined common goal that are shared. i think the debate largely focuses on the model and the mechanisms needed to achieve the goals. i would say it varies depending how you see the root cause. the second point is that regardless of the model and the mechanisms how there will still be challenges for whoever leads or for the south sudanese regardless of the model and mechanism. they hard to avoid challenges like stability, justice that get in the way of the longer term transformative goals. then the last thing i'm going

argue focus less on the event and more on conditions for which those events can be genuinely transformative. those are the three main points i'm going cover. looking ahead over the next three years, even in two years by the end of they should have submitted a draft constitution based on consultation. at the same time and the same year earlier maybe even april there should be elections before the elections there needed to be a sense at least on the table there needs to be splm convention and the other political parties need to organize that. there needs to be national reconciliation which is really a precondition for those elections that to happen in the stable way. then you have the other laws in vary degree of development or implementation that are important. local government act, media act, land act, the ngo, the political party law. all of them are there in the next two years. the calendar is crowded and full

of democracy. i'm being scar sarcastic. if we want to look at the practical goal. a couple of things there i think we need look at the transition period. not the 20-year plan. not the 20 whatever 2050 whatever the plans are. very specific. how do you ensure there's a successful transition? ic everybody touched on it. everything from broad base, inclusive, democratic, decentral eyes -- or supreme sei rule of law is there. i think there is suspect going a disagreement on the broad roles. -- goals. what comes as challenge, how you see, i think, breaking people to two school.

based on challenges for power, advisers, you know, political competition. a set of a few people who took the country off course. and that the violence was really about an immediate threat and the revenge about immediate events and responding to those immediate events. that is really the problem that needs to be addressed. it was the trigger. the root date back to historic rivalries from the time when they were both brothers of the under the same family or 50 years of liberation struggle, or 30 years of splm struggle or six years of cpa.

let me start with leadership. and that the first goal for leaving the transition has to be the transition. not setting up your party. but a focus on what it takes to create, promote, and protect this transition to the goal been set. you ambulance -- you find the right formula the more extreme element are weakened or isolated. more modern elements are trailized and get back on course through that configuration of leadership. if reformed are the engine and drivers for this process. they got off track. the other school of thinking is

that actually you can't build an institution regardless of the power of the president whoever is president in south sudan is still the head of the government. head of the army. head a political party with no other political party competing. and the single largest employer in the country with no private sector. no constitution can be build strong enough to resist an office with that kind of power. they would argue this argues generally if you put the same people and the same government asking to discuss the same issues why would you get a different result? and in that, you have a range of solutions that have been offered . i know that was dismissed. i think if you look at the situation in south sudan

economically -- donor community for billions of dollar of aid community. it is militarily dependent on uganda on four peace keeping missions in the same country. isn't it already a protect rate? it needs to be formalized and looked at. it's a dangerous neighborhood for south sudan to be kind of weak and wounded looking for help. it needs to get its act together and be cohe'sive. this is not a great place to be looking for help. in many ways it's probably worth those international actors to recognize their place in this. and understand a position accordingly. the second goal would be the model of state and nation building. if you think it was a much more acute issue it can be addressed. the model was fine. the elections were on the books. conventions were there. the thing it was -- it needed to be invested in.

it needed to be a priority. these were good ideas. these were things that could have worked with the right configuration and a lot of thought has gone in to. and work. it is about get bagging on track with this very -- years of investment and building a new state. the flip side is no the model is wrong. it needs rethinking. the current system is two part sudan, one part uganda. one part spla-splm and written in i think lash. american english. what is the actual system in sudan in paper. it needs to rethink the idea ethnic federalism that ethiopia has. separate but equal integration over tsh how do you deal with that especially when there is fear. and the confederation is an idea.

as a way to deal with new models for state building. the issue of security and justice, the goal of these two mechanisms has to be -- it has to be about demilitarizing the political system. about demilitarizing political competition there is debate. active debate. in addition to, you know, dealing with the conflict and moving beyond the conflict that the security sector, particular the army needs to be constructed in a way it is useless as a fighting force for personal, ethnic, political party agenda. so integrated. so professional. if you bring it in it falls apart. on the issue of justice and accountability, it has to satisfy the south sudanese. that's the mark.

that's the measure. whether it will or won't. until justice can replace revenge, and that -- will not be able to demilitarize the society as well. not punitive but rest or ittive and helping it transition and focusing not on the long gain. i think people would say that, you know, the laws are there. it's being developed. that the national resources are plenty that can be developed and paid for moving forward. and others are saying no, we should look at the trusteeship. that, you know, the land might belong to the people but until

the government belongs to the people it needs to be sit in the trusteeship. and the government belongs to the people when the trants suggestion is over. there's a permanent constitution. that's when you can start to look at how to use the natural resources. it is set also an influence to bring assistance. i think we're asking the wrong question. we're asking which side are you on. we should be asking who are you scared of. where do you have confidence in being. not where do you sit and who represents you. it's a different conversation. it's a bigger conversation. and i think will help get closer to the what the the solution

is. next, i want to focus on the economy a little bit more. 75% of the budget went salary. and 78 of the 75 went to military salary. besides taking, you know, someone said maybe 5% of the entire population is on a district income from the government, besides removing them from the work force, young people from the work force putting them in reproductive or security roles, it does not build a country. but what it does do is prevent you from pulling that money out and putting it in development because you have this.

if government chooses to sell not the fish but the river, it will undermine the building of an economy. it will block the communities from coming in and emerging as a private sector. so the how you develop will support or undermine your future. the other constraint is simply fear. simply fear. this cd you bring the towns to the people right now people are terrified of the towns.

they have the dwreefnses for self-determination that drive them. selective those who are out will be out at this point. on to the benchmark for success. i think most likely the way the mediation efforts tend to be. there's probably going to be a excision where, you know, those who look at the more acute model i was talking about lb. handed and everybody look for transformative opportunity within the agreement laid out. but transition -- interim arrangement if they follow the model. but ultimately what you get is a matrix with a timeline and a set of activities laid out for everybody to look at.

what i'm going argue is the issue is not really to invest in the activities what invest in the condition and environment for the activities to be transformational. how do you move an elite closed door slightly exclusive system to one that is inclusive. how do you change anger and fear in to something more like healing and trust, confidence building. and essentially confidence building in the government. how do you build responsiveness not of the international community but between the government and the people. how do you build a contract whether through the through the constitution, through taxing the people right now i made the point before. because the connect -- the success of the government budget rises and falls has nothing to do with the success of the people. it's a very different economy. there isn't that relationship. that fundamental contract that

if the people aren't doing women, the government was not doing well with them. it is a -- it's the contract broken. you look who gives you the check. how do you replace things like rumor, confusion, misinformation. i think the international community laid out for everybody yes we have to look at healing protection of people, natural resource, national healing --

helping them become a key force is what they should look at. looking from south africa it's in the nation build progress excess. it's everybody gets to participate. in the constitutional process with the population demands to be heard. largely achieved through civic education about population has been heard demands that their voice is represented in the structures institutions. and the constitution there.

thank you very much. >> thank you you gave us an whirl wind of information. highlighting the key point to frame our discussion about where we're going. you talk about the problem of the power how it isn't just a matter of political power but economic power. so moving forward, to get to a more stable place there needs to be some diffusion of power there needs to be some checks and balances. you talk about the importance of demilitarizing government and deplittizing the military. that institute a huge element of

the national budget currently in term of national employment. dependent on the state and one ties to the state. you talked about the process of development not just the content of development and that ultimately more important for stability making sure that the processes is inclusive. lest people feel they are excluded and feel grievances that they need to rectify in other ways. . .

this voice is that going to be a unified voice. it is that going to speak necessarily and a clear, coherent manner but it is still important the voice can maneuver and to have it heard as a part of the process of participation and healing that needs to take place in a terms of building a new institution that are needed for a