No political process can take place as long as large numbers of armed men and heavy weaponry remain in the capital. Stabilizing the security situation in juba is only the first step. Any political process to be credible and viable must be inclusive. I believe what is needed for political and military leaders in and out of government to meet together to figure out how to jointly shoulder responsibility for preventing further blood shed. However, this can only succeed if those currently in power are willing to accommodate legitimate interests of others. The violence in early july drove out significant factions of splm, in opposition of former detainees and other political parties. These groups must be deterred from supporting any further violence. Thus they must see a path for peaceful engagement. South sudans leaders must look ahead to the creation of a professional Inclusive National army and other security institutions. They need to be able to articulate an agreed end state of Security Sector reform. As any International Support for contonement or ddr activities will depend, among other things, of the credibility of envisioned Security Sector end state. The Transitional Government should prioritize legislation establishing an open process for drafting and ratifying a new constitution under which elections will be held at the end of a transitional period. In addition, the Transitional Government should prioritize legislation regarding African Union led hybrid court. A recent Opinion Survey showed 93 believed there can be no enduring peace without accountability. We agree. What i have described is a sequence of interdependent events. Im describing them as a way forward not because it will be easy to implement them, but because it is difficult to see any other path that does not lead to a future of oppressive one party rule, renewed conflict or most likely both. I am not naive about the chances of these things happening. Our ability to influence events and steer leaders towards more constructive behavior is limited. The Security Councils permanent representatives just returned from a trip to south sudan. We were pleased that the council is able to come to agreement with Transitional Government on several key issues, including the governments consent to deployment of the Regional Protection force and to work with u. N. Mission that is already there. However, we now need to see those words turned into action. If the secretary generals report finds the government is obstructing deployment of Regional Force or continuing to prevent from fulfilling the mandate, we are prepared to support an arms embargo in the Security Council. Beyond an arms embargo, we stand prepared to impose restrictions on individuals involved in public corruption as official corruption has a long history in south sudan and played a direct role in furtherance of conflict in the country. I would have liked to come before this subcommittee today with better news. Unfortunately, we now face a difficult and uncertain path for south sudan. It is a frustrating and disheartening situation particularly for south sudanese. Its their future that grows breaker by the day. With them in our minds, i believe we must continue to press to give peace a chance. Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you so very much for your statement and your work, your fine work. Without objection your full statement will be made a part of the record. Just a few opening questions. I want to add my congratulations and thanks to u. S. Ambassador to south sudan and her staff who have been working around the clock to try to secure the peace, provide for access of humanitarian aid workers, which is one of the biggest impediments and why so many people are dying of mall nutrition and why so many young people especially children and babies are succumbing to starvation. They are working hard. I want to thank her for her leadership. Let me ask you about the zero tolerance policy that the defense minister when i asked him said they would do against rape and Sexual Assault. He made it very clear that he was going to call the president to try to get him to do it, as well. We did meet and i raised it with him and he said he would do it. We called back since then, a little over a week. It hasnt been promulgated yet. Of course, the mere issuance of a statement without implementation is not worth the paper it is printed on. We are hoping that the two will go hand in hand. Good strong statement, hold the service members, armed forces to account and police and put them behind bars when they Sexual Assault and rape and kill and maim. Your thoughts on that. Secondly, ambassador limen, who will be testifying on the second panel who performed your job with great distinction when he was special envoy, makes a point in his testimony that the new rapid Protection Force should not be under uness. The u. N. Mission there. Greg simpens and i met with head of United Nations mission. She said they tried to get commanders to make the trip which is only less than a mile away to try to save people who are under assault. They wouldnt go. This isnt the first time it has happened. Several times. They have the right rules of engagement. They have a robust rules of engagement and charter seven powers. He suggested it be under a separate authority or mission. And then the access issue. It seems to me that if we as i said, people will do if there is not humanitarian access. The huge majority of workers are south sudanese who are in a special category of risk. Your thoughts on what we could do there. And then Security Sector. When you testified last time, you put the agreement under four basic baskets which are mutually inclusive of each other. Security sector reform and justice and reconciliation. I think as you pointed out the court ought to be set up to hold people to account for acts of impugnity and crimes against humanity. The Security Sector reform seems like the most daunting challenge with all the militias and all the lack of chain of command that appears to be the situation there. Your thoughts on the prospects of meaningful systemic reform of the military . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me go through those. First of all, i want to thank you for being such a strong advocate for the zero tolerance policy on genderbased violence for rape and other such crimes and raising that at the highest levels during your visit to juba. It is certainly something that we are following up on. Unfortunately, like many commitments that are made when we meet with senior officials in south sudan the promises are not always turned into reality. But it is something that certainly is important and we will continue to push on that. We will let you know what success or lack of success we may have in that regard. Secondly, as regards to the Regional Protection force, there are a number of reasons why egad proposed and we have supported putting a Regional Protection force as part of the u. N. Mission in south sudan. First of all, there is the issue of funding it. And a separate stand alone force under an African Union or egad flag would have faced problems of being funded and would have severely delayed the ability to be deployed. Doing it under the u. N. May not always be the fastest, but that is one of the things that i have been engaging on in my many trips to the region and talking with chiefs of defense and Foreign Ministry officials as well as other Senior Leaders to ensure that the three countries that have pledged troops to this Regional Protection force would be prepared to move their forces very quickly. And we would be prepared to help them to move them quickly to do that. Also, this force was designed in a way that it would be under one commander and that commander would report to the force commander but would have the authority and the mandate from the troop contributing countries to use that force for the very specific tasks of the mandate in u. N. Security Council Resolution 2304, which is to ensure the Free Movement of people in juba to protect Critical Infrastructure and in intervening should anyone be planning and engaging the attacks on u. N. , civilians and a very broad mandate. Again, in our discussions with troop contributing countries, they have assured us that troops they would deploy to do the mission would have the political backing to indeed enforce those tasks. So i understand the skepticism that many may have having looked at other u. N. Missions, but this seemed to be the most practical and expedient way of getting troops on the ground who could actually provide a security umbrella in juba. But as i said in my testimony, just putting those forces on the ground will not solve the problem. They need the cooperation of the government and in the Peace Agreement particularly in the security arrangements that followed it that were negotiated after the signing of the agreement. In august 2015, there was a limitation of number of forces and the opposition could have in juba. And all other forces were to be at least 25 kilometers outside of the city. So that is at least the starting point for taking the heavy weapons and many of the Security Forces that are currently in juba and getting them out, and we would hope that the government would cooperate in further reducing the military footprints so that the citizens of juba can feel more secure and so that there is the room for the political dialogue that i have talked about. On humanitarian assistance, this is indeed a terrible situation. Since the outbreak of this conflict, 59 humanitarian aid workers have been killed, making south sudan the most dangerous place for humanitarian aid workers, more dangerous than syria i am told. So this is a serious problem. Its something we have engaged repeatedly on in my visits, many visits to juba i have engaged with president kier defense minister and others on this. We keep receiving assurances that this issue will be addressed, that orders are issued, that they simply need to have a specific example so they can go after individuals who might have been harassing aid workers or stealing aid. Frankly, this has become a systemic problem. Shortly after the fighting in july, there was looting of many Different Stores in juba. One was the World Food Program warehouse. It was very organized. A truck came with a crane, not only to loot the food, but to take the generator from the compound. So this indeed does need to be investigated and people need to be held accountable. I think that is the only way that the message will get out that the government is truly serious, that humanitarian aid workers and their supplies are meant for the people of south sudan and should not be interfered with. This is going to be a continued engagement and a hard slog, im sure, with the government in juba. On Security Sector reform, the Peace Agreement and the security arrangements negotiated after it called for a security and Defense Sector review board to outline sort of the end state of the security arrangements of south sudan, what the army would look like, police, et cetera. That board had just begun meeting when things fell apart in july this year. But even under the Peace Agreement, it was foreseen it would not come to conclusion for about 18 months into the transitional period. Whereas the idea of contoning forces and beginning a ddr process was to start prior to that. What i am proposing, and i have said in my testimony, is that we really need to have an idea of what the end state is. South sudan has suffered for too long as a heavily militarized state. Probably understandable and it was the product of a long liberation struggle against the government, so almost 50 years of struggle. It is time that south sudan, in order to be able to be at peace and to prosper, needs to be a less demilitarized state. So can we get them to agree on the end state and if we agree that it is a sustainable and reasonable end state that is something we can look to support. Really our leverage on getting a meaningful Security Sector reform is that we will not fund things if it isnt a reasonable outcome that we are driving towards. And then on the hybrid court, again, we share frustration that this is moving more slowly than we would like. I have engaged numerous times and we had our legal experts engage with the African Union. We are at the verge of giving them 3. 3 million to actually begin some of the work. We have encouraged them to move forward on at least establishing an officer of the prosecutor so that testimonies and evidence can begin to be collected even before the court is established and judges can decide on who would be indicted or who would be looked at by the court. So that is something we want to push forward. I have discussed that with the African Union special representative for south sudan, honorable president , former president of mali who has been deeply engaged for the past year, as well, in trying to sort out the problems of south sudan. Thank you. Mrs. Bass. Thank you, again, mr. Ambassador. I wanted to know if you could tell me the status of the former president and if you can review the role he is playing and then the status of that. We have talked about humanitarian aid. And i know no one wants to see that end, but how can humanitarian aid get to the population . You mentioned the World Food Program and the theft, the organized theft that took place. I wanted to know if that was the government or the opposition. You talk about we have talked about an arms embargo. I mention that in my opening. I wanted to know, one, what is the position of the administration on arms embargo and where are the south south sudanese getting their arms from now . I also wanted to mention a couple of other items. Thank you, congresswoman. Let me start with the question about the joint Monitoring Evaluation commission. He was appointed by egad to fulfill the role as chair of jmeg, a committee that is made up of south sudanese parties as well as members of egad plus. Who are both guarantors and in our case a witness of the Peace Agreement. And he chairs monthly meetings of that group. His function is to oversee the implementation of the agreement and where the parties get stuck in implementing it, he to recommend ways forward. If the parties are blocking implementation, his recourse is to report to the u. N. Security council. He has done a number of reports to those various bodies. He has tackled issues, such as the problem of the 28 states, the impasse in seating of members of the Transitional Legislature and other elements of the agreement that the parties were unable to find a way to implement because they were not working in good faith with each other. After the events of july 811, it temporarily moved operations. They have gone back to juba. And one of the tasks that the Security Council asked to undertake is to hold a Security Work shop to determine the level and arming of forces that should remain in juba. I understand that president mohi has convened a meeting held on the 22nd and 23rd of this month to look at that. Those are the types of activities. We are one of the major supporters of jmec. We have contributed over 3 million to the operation of it. We believe it is a critical component for successful implementation for any part of the Peace Agreement. It has been criticized by the government in particular for being a usurping government authorities. We do not see it that way at all. We see it as the neutral arbiter of implementation of the agreement. On humanitarian access, i just really would like to clarify one thing on what secretary kerry was expressing in the press conference. I really think what he was expressing there was not a plan to cut off humanitarian assistance from the United States, but rather a frustration with the continued interference with the humanitarian assistance that we are providing. And really trying to put south sudans leaders on notice that they have to get serious about dealing with this. That was the message. Maybe i wasnt clear with my question. Its a systemic problem and its partly related to the criminality of the wfp warehouse incident, for example, occurred after Opposition Forces were driven from the capital. So it would have to have been Government Forces that were doing that looting. And again, thats the type of thing that needs to be investigated and examples need to be made of people involved in that activity. Of the people that the government claims it has arrested for looting in the aftermath of the fighting in july, its not clear to us that any individuals of those individuals are particularly involved or being looked at for involvement in this attack. And then the arms embargo. What we have tried to do with the arms embargo, as it is a major tool, is to achieve progress toward peace by threatening it, and we have used that on a number of occasions, and we think its one of the reasons that the government is seriously looking at allowing the deployment of the Regional Protection force. Because they know that if there is impediments to that, and they know that many other members of the Security Council are already on record of supporting the arms embargo. But i think most importantly, what they heard when the Security Council permanent representatives went to juba this past weekend was a unanimous Security Council that was saying, when we pass a resolution, even though some may have abstained on it, it is the Security Council that is speaking. And so, you have to take that seriously. And as i mentioned in my testimony, if the secretarygeneral reports that there is continued obstruction of this force, we are prepared to move ahead. And as we said in security Council Resolution 2304, which we have the pen on, that there is an appended resolution to be voted on, an arms embargo resolution, and we are also prepared to look at other tools, such as sanctions. I must say, though, our record in getting additional people sanctioned in the Security Council has not been good. We had what we thought was a very good case back about a year ago when fighting flared up in the area right after the signing of the Peace Agreement. And the two generals responsible for this, paul malong on the government side and Johnson Maloney on the opposition side, weve put their names forward for sanctioning. And the council, certain several members of the council blocked that effort. So, even when you think you have a clear case, its not easy to get the council to agree on that. And to be effective, travel and financial sanctions really do need to have the backing of a Broader Community than just in the United States. Did you mention whos the primary or where is the primary place that they get the arms from . Whos selling them the arms . They seem to have mainly come from the former soviet union area. But i think most of them come in through the gray or black arms market. I dont have specific countries that i can attach to specific arms platforms because, obviously, the government goes to some lengths to keep that information to itself. But clearly, it has access still to arms which is why i wonder about the effectiveness of an arms embargo, but anyway. Well, thats why if an arms embargo is voted, it has to be something that is done by the Security Council so that it will have the impermature of that body and the weight of the International Community behind it. So, mr. Chair, before i yield, i just wanted to bring attention to someone whos in the audience who was a former intern with me, david akuth, who was part of the lost boys and lost girls that has been living very successfully in the United States and is leading an effort with other lost boys and lost girls i should say lost men and lost women, because theyre all grown. But we actually plan to next week introduce legislation calling for a program that would be run by us, by the state department, to allow some of the former lost boys and lost girls to return to south sudan. Those individuals who have come here, who have gotten their education, who have been successful and want to go back and give back to their country. Obviously, no one would suggest that they go back right now, but given the length of time it takes to do legislation, we certainly would hope if a program like that was instituted it was one suggested many years ago by one of your former colleagues that it is something that we might consider. So, i just want to mention that, and ill save my other questions for the next witness. Mr. Donovan . Thank you, mr. Chair, and thank you, ambassador, for your service to our country. Many of the things you spoke about are troubling. Two things id like you to address is, one, the recruitment of children to fight in these battles, and the other is the u. N. s mission in south sudans instability to protect the workers that are going there on humanitarian missions. And the last thing, if you have a moment, is you spoke about the path of peaceful engagement. I was just curious about how you think we get there. Thank you, congressman. On child soldiers, i think the number was already read out, about 16,000 supposedly have been recruited during the course of this conflict since december 2013. Child soldiers had been a problem in south sudan before this current conflict. Its something that we had actually engaged very robustly with the ministry of defense prior to december 2013 on, and which we were making actually some Real Progress in getting child soldiers out of the spla and even addressing those who were in many of the militias throughout the country. What ages are we speaking about, if you know . Ive heard of children as young as 10, 12 being involved. It could be even younger in some cases. But this is, you know, something that we have been constantly engaging them on. Now, during the height of the conflict, they were recruiting both sides, opposition and government, and they were utilizing militias. And many of these militias are sort of traditional youth organizations that go on traditional cattle raids, and theres sort of no distinction there in terms of age of majority, if you will. And so, they ended up being i think swept into the fighting. So thats part of the problem. But clearly, as we look, and i talked about a Security Sector end state. Clearly, we want to see a Security Sector end state that the government would support. They would have no place at all for child soldiers. And we will continue to engage on that. The state Department Last week, i think, issued a very direct statement condemning the use of child soldiers in south sudan and the continued practice of that there. On the problems protecting humanitarian workers, id like to just give a little bit of context. The u. N. Mission in south sudan on december 14th, 2013, the day after the trouble started in juba, they had camps in juba and in other towns, their own bases that became the sanctuary of tens of thousands of south sudanese who were fleeing ethnically based killing. And this was sort of a new move, if you will, for the u. N. To actually let people onto their bases in such numbers. But we think it was the right thing to do at the time and that it saved thousands of lives to have that happen. But what has resulted is the u. N. Is now saddled with somewhere between 150,000 or so people that are actually now in, if you will, their own facilities, their own camps, that they have to provide static protection to. And in many instances, they dont control much of a perimeter around where their camps were. And so, it takes a fair number of troops to be able to provide that static protection. So this means that there are fewer troops available for moving out into the city, into the countryside, but we have had numerous successes. For example, back in april of this year, ambassador phee worked diligently with the government in juba, the Regional Governor in unity state and the u. N. Mission to put in a forward base in lear, which is in unity state, so it was a hotspot for humanitarian needs. And the humanitarian community was demanding protection there. And so, the u. N. Did go and establish a forward base there, and that enabled humanitarians to access an area that they had not been able to get to for almost two years of the conflict. So, weve had successes like that in some specific cases. But the ability of the u. N. To be able to move about the country as well as in juba has been restricted by the government. Unmiss has had two helicopters shot down by Government Forces over the years, one before the conflict, one since. And when they need to fly, they need government permission to fly to make sure its safe. And the government does not always give that. So, again, i would go back to the problem is partly unmiss, but its also the government which has not allowed unmiss to do all that it could do to facilitate humanitarian assistance delivery, and that function, humanitarian assistance delivery and supporting that is one of the four key functions the Security Council has given to them, so they clearly understand that as part of their mandate. If you could spend a moment, as my time has expired, about your vision of how we get to this path of peaceful engagement. First step i would say is getting juba secured so there is space for a political engagement. Now, why would those that are sitting in juba now who feel that they can implement the agreement where they are, why would they go forward on that . I think the answer to that is that they have to ensure that these people that have been driven out over the past two months and others that felt already excluded from the peace process, if theyre not given a peaceful path forward, a political path forward, is going to result in more widespread fighting throughout the country, and can this government afford that . Is that what it wants its legacy to be, is a south sudan that goes down with more and more fighting in more and more parts of the country . So, theres going to have to be pressure on the leaders, for sure, but frankly, its the only way forward that is going to lead to peace, is to have this open up some political space and have this discussion with others. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Mr. Meadows . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, let me come back to a question that my colleague, ms. Bass, asked you, because your response was a little troubling with regards to arms and where theyre coming from and where they are not coming from. Are you suggesting in your testimony that we dont know . Because you said it was a gray market, but we have unbelievable intelligence, even in that region. So, are you suggesting that we dont know or that you cant say . Well, congressman, what we do know i would have to address in a different setting than this. All right. Thats fair enough. I just wanted to make sure we clarified, because heres my concern, ambassador. I have followed sudan and south sudan before there was a south sudan. And it has been a passion for my family from a humanitarian standpoint. The stories, the true stories that have been told will break anyones heart on what so much has not only been done but has not been done. And so, i appreciate you being the special envoy, your work there in a very complex and difficult situation. But what ive also come to find out is that from both sides, those who would be supportive of sudan and those who would be supportive of south sudan in a particular position, they believe that the United States has failed to live up to the promises that we have made and that we make threats that we dont follow through on. And even some of your testimony here today would seem to underscore that, that when we talk about arms embargo or sanctions, does it not have a Chilling Effect if we ask for sanctions and they dont get passed by the u. N. , that theres no consequences, that life is going to be like it always has been . Well, first of all on the threats, and in particular, the example that i gave of the two generals. Even then, while we were trying to get them on the list, we were using that as leverage to get them to stop the fighting. And they were both told directly that we were going to sanction them, we were proceeding in new york to do so, and the only way they could get out of this would be if they stopped the fighting. Well, while the sanctions committee did not approve adding them to the list, it also did have the beneficial effect of the fighting dying down in the same time frame. So, cause or effect. You know, i cant prove it, but but the results speak for themselves. Heres the concern i have. If we make too many idle threats that are not backed up by action, what ultimately happens is the threats become irrelevant. And ambassador, do you believe that our country, indeed the state department, is using all its leverage points to accomplish the task at hand on dealing with the issue in south sudan . Are we using every leverage point that we have . Congressman, i think we are using all the leverage points that we have. Some take some time to develop. Sanctions cannot be imposed, even bilaterally, under u. S. Law without a rather extensive package that could hold up in a court of law. Right. So, oftentimes when you find you need to move against someone, you find that the actual evidentiary requirements are not there. This is, as you mentioned the idea of idle threats, this is one reason why we dont just take names up to the Security Council, if we dont think we can get them through. Its also why we, as weve often done with the arms embargo, we will say we will move on this and we will put the full weight of the United States behind trying to achieve this if you dont do x or y. Well, the reason i ask is because it sounds like you walked back a little bit secretary kerrys comments here today. And i guess, why would you walk those back . Well, im certainly not trying to walk back what the secretary said, but our humanitarian thats what it sounded like. But you go ahead and clarify. Thats why im asking. Humanitarian assistance is something that we provide on the basis of need. Its not something we provide on the basis of political but it is something that we must prioritize. And so, if some groups are using it inappropriately, there is more need than there is ability, even for a very prosperous nation like the United States. And so, do they understand that there is a priority for humanitarian relief . That is something that i think well, if they dont understand it, please let them understand it based on this hearing. I think it came across from what the secretary said. It certainly is something that ive made very directly to them, that they are not the only place in the world that needs humanitarian assistance, that there are many and this comes from someone who is, my kids collected money in tennis cans to give to them to support. So i mean, its not out of a noncompassionate heart. Let me ask you one other question. I think theres a new law about ngos. And 80 of those ngos having to be south sudanese citizens in order is that correct . Are my notes correct on that . Yes. So, tell me about the implications. If thats indeed correct, would that not have a Chilling Effect on some of the work that the ngos have done and could do in the future . This ngo law is something thats been in the making for a long time, something that ive engaged on several occasions directly with president kiir on. Yes, there is a provision that says the percentage of workers of ngos needing to be south sudanese. This is something that many countries do to try to ensure that aid workers or aid organizations are also hiring local staff. There are a number of problems with the bill that weve pointed out. A lot of them have to do, frankly, with things like excessive Registration Requirements and also very vague references to sort of what is allowed and what is not allowed that allows the government to interpret whether an ngo is doing the right thing or not. All right, so, let me ask and be specific, then. This new law, do you see it having the potential of providing less humanitarian relief to some of the most needy in the country, the potential . We certainly see this law as having a potential impact on the ability of ngos, both international and local, to operate. So, does the president their president not see that . Well, im sure that they do see that. But they think that were just going to go ahead and just go along and fund it and create a jobs program . Well, i wouldnt see this as a jobs program. I think most ngos probably do hire more than 80 of their staff being local. I dont think thats so why the need for the law, then . Well, thats a good question, and these are some of the issues that weve raised repeatedly over three years when this has been under consideration. Well, if you could it is a problematic law and weve made that very clear okay, if you could, as the special envoy, take to their very highest government officials a sincere concern from members of congress on this new law that potentially the humanitarian relief that needs to get to needy families and citizens could be stopped because of the unintended consequences of a new law and that we would ask them to reconsider. And with that, ill yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Meadows. Mr. Rooney. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, you know, you paint a very bleak picture in what weve talked about here today and the testimony youve given. I mean, we talk about a government that has lost control of its military from time to time, an opposition thats gone, a government thats raided humanitarian and food aid from this country of which i sit on the committee which helps appropriate that money, which is why its concerning to me. But as a catholic, its also concerning to me that, you know, that this would happen in this day in age, that we as americans wont be able to do anything about it. And the other thing it seems like youve said that we have leverage to use is this arms embargo. And we keep threatening to use it, but we never really get there. And then i just notice that maybe it might be a political thing to say, if we use an arms embargo, then were admitting some kind of failure as a government. I hope thats not the case. I hope that its a sincere ploy or a sincere intention of this government to use an arms embargo, because guess what, what can it hurt if we actually do it . If this guy controls the government, there is no opposition. Hes used the term overmilitarization. You used that term. If thats true and the only thing that we can control is how much militarization thats in that country, then what can it hurt if the United States does take the lead to say enough is enough . Weve got diplomatic envoys being shot at, weve got all kinds of crimes that weve talked about against its own citizenry, weve got humanitarian aid and food being seized upon, weve got the opposition has fled, weve got a government thats lost control of its own military, and we keep threatening to use this arms embargo as if its something that, well, you know, maybe, maybe if we say this one more time, well put this Security Force in there of 4,000 people, which ive got to be quite honest with you, i dont think theyre going to do anything. I think that this is just going to keep going on and on and were going to be right back here again at the next hearing talking about how this has failed but we might use an arms embargo again. I just want to know, what will it hurt if we do it . I mean, is it an admission by the administration that we failed in south sudan . Is that the problem . Well, congressman, as ive said, its a major tool, and to be effective, it has to be done multilaterally, not why . Just do it. Just use the United States as the leader of the free world and do it and other people will follow. Who cares if its unilateral . That doesnt make any sense we build coalitions all the time and people follow us because were the number one country in the world. Were the sole superpower. Right. And because it is such an important tool, we have used it effectively, and we think were using it effectively now to leverage a way forward for south sudan to get it back to a path of peace and political dialogue. Do you believe that . Do you believe that were going to create this space in juba, like you say, and theres going to be elections and a political process and a constitution and all that . Do you really believe that, unless we do something affirmative . Affirmitive were trying to do is trying to get this force on the ground and get juba to be demilitarized. And this is the leverage were using to try to get there. Now, the south sudanese may well not cooperate with this, and in which case were prepared to move forward with that, as well as potentially other sanctions, so okay. I hope you do. The frustration level, we hear it hey, youre on the front lines, so i appreciate your service. Im not i just dont believe that any of this stuff is going to work anymore, and i dont think that the Security Force is going to work. I think that we need to move forward with an arms embargo now and stop as much bloodshed and killing as we can and protect the food and the humanitarian aid that mr. Meadows talked about getting in there by however means we need to figure out how to do that. Because i think thats the only thing thats left to do is to help the people that are starving and being oppressed. But you know, trying to talk about elections and that kind of stuff, i dont buy it. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Rooney. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Ambassador. Mr. Ambassador, what is your best assessment of the anticipated timeline for the Regional Protection forces, both troops and deployment . And how long do you expect that negotiations with the government will continue on the composition of the rpf . How long will that delay the deployment . And have any countries outside of the immediate subregion, besides rwanda, indicated that they might consider providing troops to the rpf . Okay, on the timeline. What i have been told by the military leaders in the region is that they are prepared to deploy the troops very quickly, within a matter of weeks, after there is permission from the government to go in. Theyve made it clear theyre not fighting their way in to juba. The u. N. Does not send missions to fight their way into countries. But if the government in juba accepts this force and provides land for it to be bivouaced on, what ive been told is theyre prepared to move the troops very quickly. Moving the equipment will take a little bit longer, and thats something that theyve indicated that they might need some help with. Maybe i wasnt clear with my question. I recognize that the troops are prepared to i guess my question is whats the length of time the government is likely to engage in negotiations . Thats really the unknown. Well piece, i think. Theres also questions about how fast countries can actually mobilize their troops. Right. But in terms of that, this is what the secretarygenerals report, which should come out and will be discussed next week in the council, will be about is the government really moving forward to accept this force . And the message that was given by the Security Council visit that secretary kerry gave with regional leaders, including to the south sudanese who met in nairobi on the 22nd of august, was a clear message that we expect this force is going to be deployed, its going to be deployed as envisioned by igad, which is with the troops from those three countries who are committed to this mission of actually the ensuring freedom of movement around juba, protecting the Critical Infrastructure, including the airport, and preventing violent actions, so protecting civilians in a more robust, not a static, manner. Those troopcontributing countries have agreed to that mission. So, we dont want to enter into a negotiation with south sudan on who the troop contributors will be, what arms they will need, how many of them can deploy. That is foreseen and what their mission will be. Thats all in the resolution. And so, thats where we get to this idea of using the threat of the moving on an arms embargo and potentially other sanctions, if, indeed, the government tries to delay this. So far, their actions have been on the one day to say, yes, the next day to say maybe, the next day to say no and then to say, well, probably yes again. So, this isnt something that we are not going to have patience with to drag on. So that leads to my second question, mr. Ambassador, and that is, what influence does the United States have with the government of south sudan to encourage them to develop a more inclusive, transparent and accountable approach to governance . And what other things might we do to accelerate that process