Statement by Assistant Administrator Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance
U.S. Agency for International Development
February 6, 2012

On February 3 the United Nations declared that famine is no longer present in Somalia.  This is great and welcome news to the humanitarian aid community.  The newly released data shows the positive impact of the massive international effort to rush life-saving assistance to millions of people in Somalia.  What we are doing is working, and it is saving lives.

The United States has provided over $210 million in aid for Somalia and played a key role in the international effort to save lives.  Since the crisis began, the international community has assisted 94 percent of the children estimated to be malnourished in southern Somalia, and we have vaccinated over 1.2 million children countrywide.  We have provided sustainable water access for more than 1.9 million people in Somalia, temporary access to safe drinking water for more than 2.9 million people, and sanitation facilities for approximately 1.1 million people.  We have also provided basic health care and hygiene materials and education to nearly 1.9 million people in Somalia.

For more than six months, since famine was first declared in July 2011, we have been focused on trying to save lives, particularly of the many children under five who are most vulnerable to famine.  With the support of many Americans, what we have been able to achieve is impressive, but we know this crisis is far from over.  Somalia is a country plagued by more than 20 years of conflict and insecurity, and it is precisely these conditions that allowed drought-affected areas in southern Somalia to spiral into famine in 2011.  Today nearly a third of the population in Somalia remain in crisis, unable to fully meet the most essential human needs.

This drought has focused all of us on the imperative of building resilience. We know we cannot prevent drought, but we can use improved and smarter programs to create greater resilience and improve food security.  We can make progress that ensures the next time a drought hits the Horn, communities will have the ability to withstand the worst affects without being pushed into crisis.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson kicked off the conference with remarks at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

By MacKenzie C. Babb
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
06 February 2012

More than 400 global policymakers, development chiefs and technology leaders have gathered in California for a three-day conference to discuss using connection technologies, like the Web and mobile phones, to advance sustainable development in the fields of health, the environment, agriculture and economic growth.

The February 2–4 conference at Stanford University, “Rio+2.0: Bridging Connection Technologies and Sustainable Development,” was sponsored by the U.S. government in preparation for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said February 3 during her conference keynote address. She added that the collaboration offers “the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world and make a difference that will benefit billions of people.”

Jackson called on participants at the conference to find creative ways to apply existing and cutting-edge technologies to advance sustainable development around the world.

She said communications technologies, such as the Internet, SMS and mobile phones, have proven effective in helping underserved communities around the world gain access to information, better jobs and an improved quality of life.

“In my travels as administrator, I have been to parts of the world where it seemed like everyone had access to a cellphone, but not everyone had access to clean water,” Jackson said. “The opportunities are there to use that technology to make a difference.”

She said connection technologies have the potential to bring together stakeholders from across the spectrum, helping governments, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector and individuals share information about sustainable development.

The administrator added that new technologies allow laws, regulations and compliance assistance to be made available on the Internet and on mobile phones and also simplify the process of reporting environmental violations and corrupt practices.

“Through broad public and private collaboration, made possible through new technology, we can show the world how to build 21st-century urban communities where the environment, health, social inclusion and economic prosperity all go hand in hand,” Jackson said.

She was joined at the conference by several State Department leaders, including Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert Hormats; Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Kerri-Ann Jones; and Senior Advisor for Innovation Alec Ross.

Other U.S. government participants included Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics Ann Bartuska; the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Senior Counselor and Chief Innovation Officer Maura O’Neill; and Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley.
(end text)

Peace Corps volunteer Jessica Jackman joins Ukrainian students for a picnic to celebrate the end of the school year.

Washington,
February 2, 2012

A U.S. Peace Corps volunteer is helping her Ukrainian community take advantage of the sun’s power by working with them to build two greenhouses equipped with solar-powered heating and irrigation systems.

“The basic objective of the trade mission is to make significant progress on increasing U.S. private-sector investment in power infrastructure projects that have the potential to increase overall development in these countries by significantly reducing the cost of doing business,” Jim Wilson, senior coordinator for trade promotion and commercial policy in the department’s Bureau of African Affairs, said in a recent interview.

The trade mission specifically hopes to determine “if U.S. power developers would be able to invest in generating facilities and fuel supply that help address the needs in Africa for reliable, affordable electricity,” Wilson said.

The February 6–17 trade mission is being led by Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson. The trip will include a brief stop in Kenya. The Corporate Council on Africa is co-sponsoring the mission.

Wilson said that a trade mission of this type is important because of the huge “constraints that the lack of reliable electricity place on African development. It’s almost like a tax that is paid where companies in Nigeria or Mozambique either can’t get reliable power or have to pay a very high price with backup generators and expensive diesel fuel to be able to have security of supply.”

If African businesses could have access to power as companies in the United States and Britain do, they could produce products that would be more affordable for local markets and for export abroad, he said.

Each country selected for this trade mission presents significant opportunities for investment in electric power. The four governments have all been taking measures to make the regulatory and legal environments in their nations more attractive to private investors, Wilson said.

“It’s not easy for a private company to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a project that is going to have a 20-year-plus life cycle,” Wilson said. “And there are political sensitivities everywhere to prices for basic public services like electricity, for example.”

Past impediments to energy-infrastructure development by the private sector in Africa have included uncertain legal and regulatory regimes, inconsistent support of production costs that was reflected in mandated electricity prices, and the insufficient availability of long-term financing from U.S. banks.

This trade mission aims to bring companies “to take a look again at the changing environment in Africa, see the improvements, see what’s now possible to do that might not have been possible to do two years ago or five years ago,” Wilson said.

Wilson said the State Department established specific criteria for participation by potential private investors: “The companies needed to be in a position to move forward with investments in energy infrastructure in Africa, whether they be investments in the power-generation sector, which most of the companies are, or fuel supply, which is another important requirement for meeting the challenge of providing reliable, affordable electricity for Africa.”

Wilson added that there are several other African nations that the delegation would like to have included on this mission, but there is insufficient time.

Joining Carson in the U.S. delegation are representatives of Anadarko Petroleum, Caterpillar, Chevron, Energy International, General Electric, Pike Enterprises, Strategic Urban Development Alliance LLC, Symbion and Zanbato Group.

In addition, Wanda Felton, vice chair of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and representatives from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources will participate in the mission.

(end text)

Students in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, brainstorm ideas for the Apps4Africa Climate Challenge.

By Louise Fenner
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
January 27, 2012

Innovative ideas for managing grain supplies in Tanzania and for helping hospitals in Nigeria prepare for natural disasters won top prizes in the Apps4Africa Climate Challenge. But the competition isn’t over yet. It moves to Southern Africa starting February 1.

Apps4Africa challenges software developers to create applications for mobile phones and computers to help communities cope with the impact of climate change. The competition encompasses three regions of Africa, and the first two regions — East Africa and West and Central Africa — competed late last year. In addition to Tanzania and Nigeria, there are winners from Ghana, Kenya, Senegal and Uganda.

The U.S. State Department is sponsoring the competition in partnership with private sector and nongovernmental organizations. The results of the Southern Africa competition, which lasts through March 21, will be announced in April.

The first two regional competitions had a combined total of nearly 200 entries, said AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Science & Technology Fellow Jeffrey Fox, who coordinated the Apps4Africa Climate Challenge for the State Department.

The State Department and Appfrica International, the software development company that ran the contests from its offices in Uganda and the United States, screened the entries to make sure they addressed climate change adaptation, and then sent the relevant submissions to five independent judges. The winning applications were chosen based on their technical ingenuity and their ability to have a measurable impact on climate change adaptation.

“So many [applications] sounded like incredible ideas,” said Fox. “There were a lot of very strong entries.” In the East Africa competition, the winning applications “support ‘climate-smart’ agriculture, which in the region is a huge issue,” he said.

In the West and Central Africa region, “the [application] winner dealt with disaster management and health care” — issues that frequently came up during local brainstorming sessions held in connection with the competition. The sessions brought together software developers, students, nongovernmental organizations, business people and others to identify climate problems and propose solutions.

“Applications that address the challenges that are most important locally are the ones that end up being selected,” he said.

WINNERS IN EAST AFRICA AND WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

In the East Africa competition, first place went to The Grainy Bunch, a national grain supply chain management system that monitors the purchase, storage, distribution and consumption of grain across Tanzania.

Mkulima Calculator of Kenya took second place with an application that will help farmers decide when to plant crops and how to select the best crops for a given location using climate and weather data. Third place was awarded to Agro Universe, a mobile and Web-based app from Uganda that creates a regional marketplace, helping communities prepare for pest- and drought-induced food shortages by linking these communities to farmers with available produce.

In the West and Central Africa competition, first prize went to HospitalManager, a Web-based application from Nigeria that will help hospitals plan for increased patient loads following extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves. Hospitals can identify patterns in patient visits during weather emergencies and use real-time climate forecasts to prepare for such situations and save more lives.

Second place went to the Eco-fund Forum, a Web-based app from Senegal that helps communities share successful strategies for adapting to local impacts of climate change. The third-prize winner was Farmerline, a mobile and Web-based app that will help farmers in rural Ghana obtain information they need to increase yields in the face of changes in the growing season and climate variability.

The top three winners in each region receive cash prizes, and private partners are contributing follow-on support. The competition is open only to residents of Africa, but people and organizations outside of Africa can register as mentors and provide their expertise to applicants.

See the Apps4Africa website for more information.

Princeton Lyman urged Sudan to allow humanitarian aid, saying, "The world can’t stand by and watch famine take place in an area and know nothing's being done."

By Stephen Kaufman
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
January 27, 2012

More than 250,000 people living in the Sudanese states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile may be facing a major humanitarian crisis as a result of food shortages and ongoing conflict, and the United States is urging Sudan to permit international humanitarian assistance for those in need.

“This could be a major, major calamity. And for Africa, it seems to me this is something that shouldn’t be tolerated,” Ambassador Princeton Lyman told reporters in Washington January 24. Lyman is President Obama’s special envoy for Sudan.

Serious fighting between residents of the two states and the Sudanese armed forces has prevented many farmers from planting crops or tending to their farms over the past several months. All of the relief supplies that had been provided by groups such as the World Food Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have been exhausted and the Sudanese government has prevented them and other international organizations from entering the area.

Lyman said the U.S.-funded Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) is predicting that by March more than 250,000 people will slip from crisis status to emergency status, which is one level short of famine.

The government of Sudan has refused to allow international humanitarian aid, saying the situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile is an internal matter and that they are conflict areas. Lyman warned that in order to prevent a serious situation in March, there will need to be a way to quickly overcome the Sudanese government’s opposition to the aid, since it will take several weeks to position food and other supplies before delivery.

“We’ve been working very hard, leading up to the African Union meeting at the end of this month, to urge the government of Sudan to open up international access and to do so soon,” he said. “We have been saying and saying to our African partners that … the world can’t stand by and watch famine take place in an area and know nothing’s being done.”

Sudan’s refusal to allow international assistance goes against its duty to protect its own citizens, and the Sudanese government will face negative world opinion if it maintains its opposition while the world watches a famine unfold, Lyman said.

Ultimately a political solution will have to resolve the conflict between the government and residents of the two states, and Lyman said Sudan’s response to the food emergency could help that process.

“Making the humanitarian gesture now may create an atmosphere for that, but the most important is for the government to recognize they have this responsibility and the world will respond positively if they say yes,” he said.

Lyman said the Obama administration is also working with the African Union to resolve a dispute between the Sudanese government and the newly independent South Sudan over the distribution and financing of oil reserves.

He said an African Union panel is now “very close to a proposal which should be able to reconcile the different interests and come up with a solution,” but the United States is concerned over recent escalations in the dispute, including South Sudan’s decision to shut down oil production after Sudan imposed a $32-a-barrel surcharge and interfered with South Sudan’s pipeline and ships.

“It is a very bad situation, and both sides could get hurt very, very badly,” he said.

The United States is also working to calm tensions in South Sudan between two ethnic groups, the Lou Nuer and the Murle, which have recently flared up.

Lyman said the traditional tensions between the groups have resurfaced following South Sudan’s independence on July 9, 2011, and they demonstrate the need for the government in Juba to improve its security capabilities to help keep the peace, as well as its outreach to the communities and available conflict resolution and development programs.

ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING

Ambassador Princeton Lyman, Special Envoy for Sudan
On Issues of Ongoing Concern in Sudan and South Sudan

January 24, 2012
Via Teleconference

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming and being on the line. I wanted to just bring everybody up to date on a number of issues that we’re following very closely related to Sudan and South Sudan. So let me discuss them briefly and then happy to take your questions about them.

One of the issues that we are extremely concerned about is the situation in the states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. These are states in the Republic of Sudan; that is, the North. But a conflict has been raging there since last May, arising from issues never fully resolved in the civil war because people in those states, particularly in the Nuba Mountains, fought with the South. And though they remained in the North, their issues were to be resolved in a process called popular consultations. Those did not get finished and a conflict broke out. A very serious armed conflict broke out last year.

Now, what we are very concerned about right now is that there are predictions of a major humanitarian crisis in those areas, particularly Southern Kordofan. You know there’s this predictive mechanism called FEWS NET, the Famine Early Warning System Network. They – if you go on their website, you’ll see they have produced two maps, one the situation now – excuse me – and one predicting for March. By March, they feel that a large number of people, a quarter of a million or more, will be – will reach what they call emergency status, which is one short of famine. And this is very alarming to us.

We have strongly urged the Government of Sudan to allow international humanitarian aid – that is, World Food Program, UNICEF, et cetera – to come in, in all parts, across lines of whoever’s holding territory. They have refused to do so. They don’t want international involvement in this area, which they think is an internal matter and a conflict area. But we have been saying and saying to our African partners that we just can’t – the world can’t stand by and watch famine take place in an area, and know nothings being done.

So we’ve been working very hard, leading up the Africa Union meeting at the end of this month, to urge the Government of Sudan to open up international access and to do so soon. We’re under a lot of pressure if that doesn’t happen to look at other alternatives, but they all contain serious risks in doing so. So our preferred alternative – very far first alternative – is for the Government of Sudan to do this. The UN has made proposals to the government, but they haven’t been accepted yet.

The second issue that I would like to touch on is a – ongoing negotiation and dispute between Sudan and South Sudan over the distribution of oil revenues and financing. You’ll recall that after the secession of the South, 70 percent of the oil was in the South but all the infrastructure for exporting it – pipelines, et cetera – are in the North. So the two countries really are dependent on each other in the oil sector. It was also understood that when the North, now the Republic of Sudan, lost that much revenue there would be a transitional financial arrangement in which the South would ease that transition.

They’ve been negotiating and arguing over this for some time. The negotiations reached a very serious point in the last few weeks when the Republic of Sudan, in the North, began to divert Southern oil from the pipeline and to block ships with Southern oil from leaving the port, claiming this is a way to collect transit fees that they claim the South wasn’t paying. And they imposed a fee of $32 a barrel, which is quite high, for that.

After negotiations, which are still going underway, failed to reach an agreement, South Sudan said, okay, we’re going to shut off the oil, we’re going to start closing the wells, and we’ll suffer until we build a new pipeline through Kenya but we just can’t take this anymore; they’re stealing our oil.

It is a very bad situation, and both sides could get hurt very, very badly. The African Union High-Level Implementation Panel – this is the panel headed by Thabo Mbeki and former president of Burundi Pierre Buyoya and Nigerian former head of state General Abubakar – has been running negotiations on this in Addis. They’re working very hard. They’re very close to a proposal which should be able to reconcile the different interests and come up with a solution.

We’re very concerned that this negotiation succeed and before too much damage is done to the oil sector and the infrastructure, that the South feels that they can stop shutting off the production and go back to full production. So this is a quite urgent matter on which we are working very hard.

The third area I want to touch on is the situation in Jonglei. That’s a state in South Sudan. You’ll recall about two weeks ago there was a major conflict between two ethnic groups, the Lou Nuer and the Murle. There have been attacks back and forth between these groups over cattle, kidnapping of women and children, et cetera. And in this latest incident, 6,000 or so young Nuer marched on the Murle to regain the cattle, to regain the people who were kidnapped, and we feared a major massacre.

Fortunately, with the help of UNMIS, et cetera, the Murle were warned in the town of Pibor. Most of them left, and after some skirmishing and some people getting killed, perhaps several hundred, the young Nuer have started to go back. But now the Murle are undertaking revenge attacks.

In the meanwhile, the people who fled Pibor are displaced people in various towns, and we think more are in the bush. So the UN, USAID, humanitarian NGOs are all working to try and reach these people and get them humanitarian assistance.

This is a situation that demonstrates the tensions and traditional and otherwise that exist in South Sudan that have sort of – were set aside in the campaign for independence and the successful independence July 9th but now, coming to the surface, demonstrate how much the Government of South Sudan must do to improve both its security sector capabilities, but also its outreach to these communities and conflict resolution and development programs here and elsewhere in South Sudan.

So I wanted to touch on all three of those, because they are all very serious situations on which we have been working very heavily here and in the field and in our diplomacy, both in Europe, the Arab world, Africa, et cetera. So let me stop there and open it up. Happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: We’ll go ahead and take a few questions from here in the room and then we’ll turn it over to the callers. Does anyone here in the room first have a question? Andy, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the issue of Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan and the potential famine or food emergency, I’m wondering what you can tell us about the contingency planning, should Sudan continue to refuse access to aid groups. I understand that there has been some discussion of unilateral aid operations. Is that true? How is that possible without Sudanese Government approval? And how advanced are those – is that planning?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, we – right. We have said to the government in Khartoum for some time that we are feeling a lot of pressure if there’s no international access to look at ways in which assistance would be carried across the border without their approval. But we know there are a lot of risks to that. We know the government would be opposed to it. We have to look at the possibility of it, but we’ve made no decision to do that because it has a lot of complications.

But at the same time, we’re very worried about what happens if they don’t allow international assistance, so we continue to press heavily for international accepted assistance by the government even as we look with a good deal of apprehension at what alternatives might be possible.

QUESTION: And under that alternative plan, would that be something the U.S. is considering doing on its own, or is it something that the U.S. and neighbors are talking about?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: We haven’t reached that point yet, and so we’re not at a point where we could get into any details as to what is possible or not. But we do know that other countries are concerned, not necessarily engaged in the same kind of planning but very concerned about this humanitarian situation.

QUESTION: And just a final one on this, on this line. Is the AU meeting and whether or not the AU takes it up as a formal subject – is that a sort of a hard or soft deadline here, because you have only until March?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: It’s a very important date because if you want to do something by March, considering positioning of food, et cetera, it takes quite a while, several weeks, the humanitarian agencies say. So if the meeting doesn’t resolve this by the end of January, we’re going to be in a serious situation.

QUESTION: Ambassador Lyman, Rosalind Jordan of Al Jazeera English. Talk a little more about the political considerations around Khartoum’s refusal so far to allow outside interference. Why would it be to Khartoum’s benefit to not have outsiders intervening in this near-famine situation?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, of course, I can’t speak for the government, but the arguments that they have advanced to us on this are several. First of all, they say they’ve learned the lessons of Darfur; you let the international community in and the next thing you know, you’ve got a UN peacekeeping operation, you’re charged with human rights violations, there’s a peace process, and then, like Naivasha and the CPA, you lose part of your territory. So they say we’ve learned that lesson, we’re not going to do it again. That’s one line of argument.

The second is that they think the food will go to supporters of the SPLM and their North – the people they’re fighting, and therefore will prolong the conflict. So those two are the main reasons that they advance. They also deny that the situation is that serious, but we just have these predictions that are based on a lot of data.

QUESTION: And what are some of the environmental factors that may have led to this near-famine situation?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Two things in particular. The nature of the conflict – the Sudanese armed forces has done a great deal of bombing, and the bombing has hit the civilian population and has prevented them from planting this last year. It also forced many of them to live in caves rather than be able to tend their farms, et cetera. So they lost the planting season.

And second, because international access hasn’t been allowed, all the stocks that were there from the World Food Program, UNICEF, et cetera, are exhausted. So those two factors are the main ones.

There’s about 50,000 refugees in South Sudan and Ethiopia already from these two areas, but we see in these predictions a quarter of a million people or more who might be affected. This could be a major, major calamity. And for Africa, it seems to me this is something that shouldn’t be tolerated.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. have an assessment of whether this potential plan from the AU, from the Mbeki group, let’s call it, could actually work if some sort of resolution is reached between now and next Tuesday?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: I only have the general outlines of the proposal. They’re being presented today to the parties. But my information is that this proposal will address the basic concerns of the North and South; that is, how to assure that there’s enough oil for the refinery in the North, which is a major concern of theirs, and a prospect of this transitional assistance while recognizing that the South has a legitimate claim about all this diverted oil and that has to be costed, and that the fees for transit are – that there’s a mutual basis for determining those.

I haven’t seen the details of the proposal. We think it’s going to address all these things, and we hope once it’s on the table that both sides will refrain from these kind of unilateral steps.

Let me just say one more thing on the humanitarian issue, because I’ve told you what I think are the arguments from Sudan, but let me tell you the arguments we have advanced on the other side. We think it would look very bad for the Government of Sudan to deny international assistance when the world is watching and a major famine could take place. We don’t think this is in the interest of the Government of Sudan, it’s not in their interest in world opinion, it’s not in the interest of them as a protector of their own citizens. These are all their own citizens.

Second, we think that – and this goes beyond the immediate humanitarian situation – ultimately there has to be a political solution here. They have fought in the Nuba Mountains before during the civil war. It never ended. So it – there has to be eventually a political solution. Making the humanitarian gesture now may create an atmosphere for that, but the most important is for the government to recognize they have this responsibility and the world will respond positively if they say yes, we have this responsibility, we’ll bring in agencies that we can trust – World Food Program and UNICEF, and monitor – and have it monitored and do the right thing.

MODERATOR: Operator, do we have any reporters on the line who would like to ask a question?

OPERATOR: To ask a question at this time, please press *1, un-mute your phone, and record your name when prompted. To withdraw your request, you may press *2. Once again, to ask a question, please press *1. I currently show no questions at this time.

MODERATOR: Andy, go ahead.

QUESTION: I’ve got another one. On the oil, on South Sudan’s decision to stop the oil production, in your view, how long can this go on? Number one, do you have any position on whether or not this was a wise bargaining move? Was this the right thing for them to do? Did they have any other option? And number two, how long can this go on before you start having very serious issues with the infrastructure and that it sort of really affects the viability of their finances?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: I’ve heard mixed reaction – responses to that question. There is some feeling that in just three and a half days after they shut down the wells, you will get into a situation which will be very costly and time-consuming to restore production. I’ve heard different assessments of the impact on the pipeline and the environmental damage, some predicting very serious damage and costs. Others are saying less so. I don’t have a firm feeling, but there is a general feeling that it’s going to be very costly.

Is it a good tactic? I was just in South Africa, as you know, Andy, and I was reminded that Nelson Mandela also often had to take the country to the brink but never crossed it, even in the most tense times. I think the Government of South Sudan was outraged and angry and took the situation to the brink, but I’m afraid in this they may be crossing over and costing themselves in the long run when they have so many development needs.

So I think I can understand the anger, I can understand the response, but I’m very worried that they go over the brink here and then have to pay a price that will hurt the people of South Sudan for a long period of time.

QUESTION: Well, both in this case with the oil fees and with the fighting between traditional groups, does this suggest that perhaps the new government isn’t quite capable of dealing with these very serious fundamental issues? And if it’s not fully capable, what can the U.S. do to support them to prevent things from going over the edge?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: I think the Government of South Sudan is faced with a number of challenges and still has a relatively thin layer of trained civil servants, professionalized military command and control systems, et cetera. And the country was so devastated by the civil war that there is just basic, basic development needs all throughout the country.

So I think the challenges are very great, and they must be able to dedicate their efforts, time, and resources to those demands. And that’s why getting a resolution of this issue and not losing their main source of revenue for the next couple years is vital if they’re going to be able to tackle this. And they’re going to need a lot of help. They’re going to need a lot of help to do this.

QUESTION: How is the U.S. prepared particularly to help them develop a revenue stream, since I would imagine that things such as property taxes that we have here in the U.S. aren’t as readily accessible for government operations?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Right now, oil provides 98 percent of the budget of South Sudan. And the other alternatives are still very, very underdeveloped. Most of the people live in the rural area. They’re poor. It’s not a commercialized agricultural sector. Even though there’s potential there, they import most of their food. So there isn’t really a solid tax base that can even begin at this point to compensate for the loss of oil revenue.

Now, we are helping, along with others, to develop agriculture. We had a big conference here called the South Sudan Engagement Conference, where we encouraged private sector investment. There was a lot of interest in it. I think over the longer term, they must diversify away from oil, but that’s going to take several years at best.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you could tell us a little bit about your – the tenor of your conversation with Khartoum these days. I mean, we have another report this morning that aircraft, presumably Sudanese aircraft, have bombed a refugee camp in South Sudan. This seems to be recurring practice. How are you reacting to that, and what’s your message to them? And are they – what are they telling you?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, we are concerned about this. This is the second bombing of a refugee camp in South Sudan. It violates all the rules regarding refugees. And we have raised that, raised that in the UN Security Council as well as with the government in Khartoum. Their reaction has been mixed on the first incident. I haven’t seen their reaction to this incident yesterday. But they went through a number of explanations on the last one, which – some of which were not credible, et cetera.

This is, again, as we’ve said to the government in Khartoum, an example of why this war is bad for everybody. And bombing South Sudan is only going to aggravate the situation. The Republic of Sudan claims that South Sudan is feeding this rebellion, and if that were stopped, the rebellion would end. That’s just not accurate. Even if there were assistance from the South, that isn’t what’s at the heart of this conflict.

So we’ve raised this very much with Khartoum. They haven’t appreciated our doing so, but we have. And we have continued to discuss with the Government of Sudan the importance of resolving the issues in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, that that these are getting in the way of our normalization process, and we’ll continue to have that dialogue.

QUESTION: You mentioned that you raised it at the Security Council. Do you think that this is something that – what would you want the Security Council to do, should these attacks continue? And does that risk complicating the bilateral issues? I mean, if you bring it into the Security Council, won’t that complicate the Sudan-South Sudan track?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, it can if the Government of Sudan sees it that way. One of the points that we have tried to convey is that we’re not doing these things just to be antagonistic to the Republic of Sudan. These are ways in which the two countries can be at peace, and that includes the Republic of Sudan. Having a war in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, still conflict in Darfur, trouble in the east – this isn’t providing a future for the people of the Republic of Sudan.

So when we raise these issues, et cetera, they see it often as antagonistic. We see it as, look, this is the pathway to the future of a peaceful Republic of Sudan. And sometimes we’re like ships crossing in the night, but that’s really the tenor of what we’re trying to say.

QUESTION: Given all of these problems that you’ve just discussed, are you concerned that the – sort of the victory that was the July independence declaration and all of the work that went into that is in danger of being unraveled, that the Sudan project is, in both cases, South and North, is really at risk of going right back off the rails now?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: I don’t think either Sudan or South Sudan wants or intends to go back to full-scale war. I really – I’m almost totally convinced of that. That doesn’t mean that they have a good relationship at all and that there aren’t a lot of friction points on the border, over Abyei, over oil. And the relationship is bad. So there is a danger that things could get out of control, that incidents could lead to greater conflict. That’s why these issues are so terribly important, not only in and of themselves but to prevent exactly what you’re talking about. But I think both sides recognize that going back to full-scale war would be disastrous. So I think we still have to look upon that successful independence of the South as a great achievement and be thankful for it.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’ll go for one last chance and see if there are any calls in queue. Are there any calls in the queue right now?

OPERATOR: I show no questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you, Operator. With that, I think we end our session. Thank you, Ambassador Lyman.

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, I want to thank you all. These are issues that we think are of great importance for this – the Administration is heavily focused on these issues, and we hope that we can do everything we can to help resolve them. So thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Children wait in line for a meal at a camp for displaced Somalis in Mogadishu.

By Charlene Porter
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
January 25, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
January 24, 2012

ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING
Via Teleconference

Bruce Wharton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy for the Bureau of African Affairs; David Robinson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID On U.S. Efforts in the Humanitarian Crisis in the Horn of Africa

MR. TONER:  Thank you, and thanks so much to all of you for joining us.  Just a reminder at the outset that this call is on the record.

As you all know, on July 20th, 2011, some six months ago, famine was declared in parts of the Horn of Africa.  So today, we have invited senior members from the State Department to provide an update on continued U.S. efforts to respond to the humanitarian crisis in the region as well as some of the ongoing security challenges that exist.

So joining us today are Bruce Wharton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy for the Bureau of African Affairs; David Robinson, who is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and Nancy Lindborg, who is the Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  They’ll each speak briefly at the top here and then we’ll open it up to your questions.

So without further ado, I’ll hand the mike, as it were, over to Bruce.  Bruce, go ahead.

MR. WHARTON:  Thanks very much, Mark, and thanks to everybody who has called in today who continues to view this as an important issue.

As Mark said, we’re about six months down the road from when the UN declared parts of Somalia in famine, and we’re about a year and a half down the road from when the United States and others began to see the scope of this emerging humanitarian crisis and actually began to move resources around the Horn of Africa to prepare for our ability to respond to the crisis.

In spite of the great work that the United States and the international community have done in that last 18 months, this does remain one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the world today.  There’s still a little over 13 million people in the Horn who are in need of emergency assistance.  And while I think there has been some significant improvement, especially in the last few months – and I think my colleague from USAID will talk about that in a few minutes – there has been progress, but continued humanitarian access is still needed to save lives in the Horn.  This crisis is not over yet, and the need remains great.

The United States, I think, can be very proud of the fact that we are the largest humanitarian donor to the region.  We’re up to about $870 million so far in the last year and a half, and about 205 million of that has gone specifically for Somalia.  I think it’s also important to acknowledge the generosity of the people and the Government of Kenya, who have received and sheltered somewhere around half a million refugees.  And my colleague, David Robinson from PRM, can speak about that in a bit more detail.

So that’s – we’ve got the emergency response underway right now.  We also understand that it’s very important to provide longer-term responses.  The President’s Feed the Future Initiative works with pastoralists and farmers in the Horn of Africa to implement long-term food security programs both in Kenya and Ethiopia.  And I have to say that the fact that Kenya and Ethiopia offer a secure environment for those programs makes a real difference, and we have seen improvement in the ability of people to adjust to these cyclical droughts that are part of the weather cycle in that part of the world.

Ultimately, though, I think the answer to humanitarian crises in Somalia is going to be the establishment of secure and stable governance in that country, governance that respects human rights and the basic needs of the population.  The international response to the humanitarian emergency in Somalia was significantly complicated and slowed by the actions of al-Shabaab and other armed groups.  So we will continue to work with regional governments, international partners, and humanitarian organizations to meet the short-term emergency needs.  We’ll also work with regional governments and others to establish longer-term food security assurance, and we’ll continue to work on the fundamental need for stable, secure, and citizen-focused governance in Somalia as the longest-term solution to this crisis.

So that’s sort of a quick overview of where we are now, and I’ll turn it over, I believe, to David Robinson, the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.

MR. ROBINSON:  Thanks, Bruce.  Let me just start by agreeing with Bruce that the generosity and the hospitality of neighboring countries has been critical to making sure that more people haven’t died in this famine and due to conflict.  Kenya already was host to hundreds of thousands of Somalis who had fled over the years.  And in 2011 alone, an additional 300,000 Somalis fled into Ethiopia and Kenya, bringing the total of displaced Somalis in the Horn of Africa to somewhere around 955,000 people.  That flow has begun to diminish somewhat for a variety of reasons, but it is still continuing.  We’re still seeing thousands of people trying to get out of the country, many of them in very bad condition by the time they arrive at refugee camps, due to malnutrition and other illnesses.

Our response to the flow in this past year was to increase our funding significantly into neighboring countries, principally into Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti so that we spent about $105-or-6 million on that effort in this year.  And likely, we’ll do the same in the coming year.

Among the things that we focused on were opening up additional spaces inside the existing camps.  We opened up two new camps in the Dadaab complex in Kenya and three camps in the Dolo Ado complex in Ethiopia.  The work continues because of continuing security challenges, principally in Kenya, in terms of our refugee work.  Many of our activities are on a lifesaving, life-sustaining basis.  The activities that we normally pursue in protracted refugee situations – including livelihoods, education, other things – are on a very limited basis at this moment, as a number of our international partners have had to scale back their presence inside the camps in response to the security challenges.

As I said, we will anticipate continuing at about this level of effort into the coming year, and we again are working to encourage neighboring countries to remain as hospitable as they have been.  That’s – the principle of first asylum is the best safeguard from the refugee perspective that these people in need have.

So Nancy, if you want to take it from the USAID perspective, I’ll turn it over to you.

MS. LINDBORG:  Great.  Thanks, Dave.  And thank you, everyone, for joining us today.  We’ve really, as Bruce noted, taken a look back over the last 18 months, beginning when we first got the early warning from the Famine Early Warning System, or FEWS NET, which let us know that there was an impending drought on the horizon.  And that point, we were able to pre-position food in the region.  And since then, as you’ve heard a little bit from both Bruce and Dave, we actually had a three-part emergency, with the refuges, the drought-affected communities in Ethiopia, in Kenya, and then those communities so deeply affected by both drought and conflict and, ultimately, famine inside Somalia.

And as we look back, I think we’re heartened at, in particular, some of the very significant improvements, particularly in Ethiopia and Kenya, which have been able to build on some of the resiliency programs we have been doing over the past several years, in particular the productive safety net programs in Ethiopia that we do in partnership with the Government of Ethiopia, the World Bank, and other donors that really enabled about 7.5 million people to not fall into a state of emergency, coupled with a lot of the livestock management and vaccination programs that have both helped those communities not fall into the depths of crisis, and then those that did, help them get through it.

In Somalia, we were – after the famine declaration six months ago, which is a very serious and specific designation of crisis, there was a huge mobilization of assistance.  We are very happy that we were able to help lead that effort.  And on November 19th, we were quite heartened to learn that three of the six areas that were previously declared as experiencing famine came out into one level less severe.  And the 750,000 people in famine conditions had gone down to 250,000 people, specifically as the result of this huge mobilization of humanitarian assistance.

However, we also want to be very cautious to note that just because you’ve dropped out of a famine designation doesn’t mean that those people aren’t still in a very, very precarious situation.  And you, of course, are aware that not long after that, 16 international and non-government organizations were banned from the areas under the Shabaab de facto control.  So that already fragile situation became more so.

It’s way too early to ease up on assistance in Somalia, or for that matter across the Horn, where what we’ve put in, which is about $870 million of U.S. assistance, is continuing to provide food treatment, healthcare, clean water sanitation, and hygiene.  We continue to be very focused both on the provision of lifesaving assistance in Somalia and, as importantly, the imperative of building resilience.  We know that we can’t prevent these droughts from happening.  One of the reasons the drought was as severe as it was is that these communities are subject to ever faster cycles of drought, so that they are unable to recover in between.  So it is critical that we work in partnership with local governments, local communities to create that greater resilience.  It is the centerpiece of President Obama’s Feed the Future Initiative.  And based on the lessons that we’ve learned during this response, we’re very optimistic that we can continue to make progress so that next time a drought hits the Horn, we won’t have 13.3 million people going into crisis.  Thanks.

MR. TONER:  Well, thank you guys.  And I guess now we’re ready to open it up to your questions.

Operator.

OPERATOR:  Thank you.  If you would like to ask a question, please press *1.  If you have muted your phone line, please un-mute, and record your first and last name, as it is required to identify your line.  To withdraw the request, press *2.  Once again, to ask a question, please press *1.  One moment for the first question.

The first question comes from Christile Haguma.  Your line is open.

QUESTION:  Yes.  Thank you.  Is the Obama Administration promoting Feed the Future policy by helping power countries to develop their own agricultural sector in spite of the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa?

MS. LINDBORG:  I’m sorry.  Could you repeat the question?

QUESTION:  I said is the Obama Administration promoting Feed the Future policy by helping power countries to develop their own agricultural sector in spite of this humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa?

MS. LINDBORG:  The Feed the Future Initiative is really that totality of continuing to do smarter, more targeted, more effective humanitarian assistance that connects more effectively to increased investments in both agricultural and nutrition.  And the goal is to help those communities that are in chronic food deficits and always teetering on the edge of crisis to be able to move into a more productive future and a – and get on that pathway to development.  It’s not instead of.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. TONER:  Great.  Next question.

OPERATOR:  The next question comes from Andrew Quinn.  Your line is open.

QUESTION:  Hi.  It’s Andy Quinn from Reuters.  I actually have two quick questions.

The first one, can you tell us what the U.S. Government is doing to restore the viability of the remittance system for Somalia?  I’m sure you’re aware that banks have stopped transferring money due to concerns over OFAC restrictions, and this has really dried up an important sense of – a source of revenue for Somalia.  What can you do to get that back up and running?

And the second question is:  With the current state of aid within the borders of Somalia, how much is going to areas controlled by the TFG, and how much is going to areas controlled by al-Shabaab?  What’s the proportion?  Thank you.

MR. WHARTON:  Hi.  Bruce Wharton here.  I think – let me take a shot at the remittance question.  Yeah, it is a serious concern.  My understanding right now, frankly, though, is that there are some institutions in the United States that are able to move money into Somalia.  So the remittance flow is actually still – it continues right now, but I know that we are – the State Department is in discussions with Treasury and others to try to make sure that that flow from the Somali diaspora back home is safe, that the money does not go to people who wish to harm the United States, but that it can be a contribution to the people of Somalia overcoming the crisis that they face right now.

QUESTION:  Are you in any way anticipating issuing the same kind of open directive to banks to say, “Look, we’ll let you do this.  Don’t worry about OFAC restrictions on this, get the money there,” that you did for the aid groups?

MR. WHARTON:  I’m afraid that the issue is actually more complicated than that, and part of the response may be a legislative response.  I don’t think it’s something that the executive can do unilaterally.

QUESTION:  Okay.  And on the proportion of aid to TFG versus al-Shabaab areas?

MS. LINDBORG:  We have a little over $200 million of assistance going into Somalia, and that is not so cleanly broken into the two categories, because some of the programs are countrywide, and we are – we enable partners to receive the funding and work in multiple locations.  I can tell you that there is considerable focus on ensuring that we reach those who are most in need, and that includes the six areas that were famine designated.  And of the three that are still in famine conditions, one is in Shabaab territory, and two are under TFG control.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR. TONER:  Thanks.  We’ll take the next question.

OPERATOR:  One moment for the next question.  The question comes from Oren Dorell.  Your line is open.

QUESTION:  Hi.  It’s a little bit – this question is a little bit along the same lines.  I wanted you to – I was wondering if you could talk about the relationship between the fighting that’s been going on in the region between the African Union forces and al-Shabaab, and how that – what’s the relationship between that and the improvement that we’re seeing in the famine or even the continuation of the famine in some areas?

MS. LINDBORG:  I don’t think at this point there is a relationship.  The lifting of the famine designation happened in November and then, of course, we’ve been still in the rainy season until just recently.  So a lot of the fighting has not been that active.  In the – clearly, any time you have open conflict and there is decreased access in the ability of assistance to reach families and communities, there is the possibility that their conditions would worsen.

QUESTION:  So is there – I was typing in my name and giving my name when you were talking about the – how much aid was getting to areas that are controlled by al-Shabaab and how much is controlled by the transitional government.  Can you kind of go over that again so that I can get that too?

MS. LINDBORG:  Sure.  What I said is that we’ve put a little more than $200 million of assistance to partners who are working inside Somalia.  And much of that is for programs that are – or organizations that are countrywide.  So it’s not broken down quite that cleanly geographically, but we have focused on the areas that have the greatest need.  And the six areas that were declared famine include two that are under TFG control, the internally displaced in Mogadishu, and the internally displaced in Afgooye corridor.  And the remaining four areas are all in the al-Shabaab-held territories.

The complicating factor of course is the expulsion of the sixteen groups who were expelled in late November from areas under Shabaab’s de facto control, which is a potentially grave concern.

QUESTION:  Okay, thanks.

MR. TONER:  Ready for next question.

OPERATOR:  Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1.  One moment please. At this time, there are no further questions.

MR. TONER:  Okay.  Well, we’ll give you one more shot at this.  If you have any additional questions, please go ahead and –

OPERATOR:  One moment for the next question.  The next question comes from Andrew Quinn, your line is open.

QUESTION:  Hi.  I couldn’t let you get away that easily.  (Laughter.)  Do you guys have any projections about how long the famine is likely to persist?  I mean, you have this – some improvement in some of the areas.  What about the big picture?  Are we rounding the corner on the famine designation?

MS. LINDBORG:  There’s only famine in Somalia.  I would say that as we look across the Horn, we are watching very carefully what the harvest is from this rainy season that we’ve been in, and we expect a report from FEWS NET later this week that will give us greater projections of how well this harvest did.  We expect food – serious food insecurity to persist probably for another six months because it will take at least another harvest season to get people in better shape.  And all of this is potentially complicated in the Somalia areas by what happens with conflict and access to communities in need.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you.

OPERATOR:  The next question comes from Sam Loewenberg, your line is open.

QUESTION:  Yes, hi.  I wanted to ask about the situation in Kenya and Ethiopia, so not with the – in the conflict zones in Somalia.  What are you doing this – FEWS NET has said that, I think last month, that the situation in Kenya and Ethiopia has predicted to be quite bad again come around May.  What is it that you’re doing this time that’s different than you did last time?  Specifically, are you doing anything to maintain people’s livestock and supplementary nutrition to make sure kids don’t get into acute malnutrition and anything with water like emergency boreholes or water pans, other things like that?  Thanks.

MS. LINDBORG:  Yes.  We increased significantly programs that really look at the totality of how to help communities survive.  So exactly as you just noted Sam, it’s well beyond just provision of food.  It’s to help increase their ability to have access to food through improved livelihoods.  We’ve done a lot of programming on culling and improving livestock, enabling access to better health care, better nutrition, investment in small water infrastructure so that they can better gather rainwater, so that they can ensure that they have better access to irrigation for their crops.

So we are both continuing the emergency assistance and the pipelines, we continue to push food through the pipelines in both countries.  But we’re also looking very carefully at what are those strategies for success that increase the resilience, exactly because we know there’ll continue to be these cycles of drought, and continuing to look at programs and put additional programs in that have something that we call a crisis modifier, so that even as you move forward with development programs, you have that flexible ability to switch back to humanitarian assistance if and when the crisis returns.

QUESTION:  Can you talk about specific numbers, how much you’re putting toward those things and how does it compare with last year?

MS. LINDBORG:  Well, at this point, a lot of the funding that we put in at the end of last fiscal year is still fully pumping, and we’ve put about 80 million in so far this fiscal year.  And what we’re doing is looking to connect that, plus additional humanitarian investments up even more closely with our development portfolios so that one is able to help move those communities that are in constant crisis into greater food security, so that they can withstand these cycles of drought.

QUESTION:  And that’s 80 million for both Kenya and Ethiopia combined?

MS. LINDBORG:  Yeah.  And that’s just those early investments from our emergency accounts for this fiscal year.  And we’re looking at the rest of the year.  We expect it will probably be close to on par to last – as of last year’s.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you.

MR. TONER:  Operator, I think we have time for just one more question.

OPERATOR:  The next question comes from Lauren Sutherland.  Your line is open.

QUESTION:  Hi.  First of all, really quickly, I just wonder how many people are estimated to have died in Somalia.  Secondly, while your point about the generosity of the Kenyan Government is certainly well taken, there have been some reports emerging from local outlets, both in Kenya and Somalia, that certain Kenyan military officials have discussed repatriating Somalis to this buffer region along the border, possibly as a means of reestablishing security at the Dadaab camp.  I wonder if you’re able to provide any information about that.

MR. ROBINSON:  This is Dave Robinson.  I can take a shot at the second question, if Nancy wants to come in on the first one.  Concerning forcible repatriation, the first thing to say is that there has always been a certain amount of tension about the presence of Somalis, large scale numbers of Somalis, in a protracted situation inside Kenya.  And clearly the goal of the international community is that at some point Somalis can voluntarily and safely return home.

We haven’t seen – we’ve heard rumors.  We have not seen evidence of certainly large-scale or significant forced repatriation.  We continue to rely on and advocate strongly for the protection of Somalis inside Kenya, that they should not be sent back into Somalia in order to create some sort of a buffer zone.  Clearly, people who have fled the violence in Somalia, fled the famine, need to have the principle of first asylum, their protection assured inside neighboring countries until they can go home in safety.  That’s been our line, that’s our principle point of departure, and so far the neighboring governments have cooperated with that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. LINDBORG:  Yeah.  On the death rates, or on the total number of deaths, this gets into a science that makes it very difficult to say exactly how many people have died.  The information that we use, especially to determine levels of crisis and when you enter a famine, are actually the mortality rates.  And if that is what it gets reported in the FEWS NET data, which is an open source, and if helpful, we can make sure you get plugged into that.

MR. TONER:  Great.  Well, thanks to all of our participants today and to all of you who joined us on this call.  We really appreciate it.  That’s all we have time for today.  So thanks again, and hope to hear from you all soon.

Ambassador Betty King speaking during the Interpeace event at the U.S. Mission

Remarks by Ambassador Betty King
Interpeace Event
Geneva,
January 23, 2012

Good morning and welcome.  I would like to extend a special welcome to the UN Director General Tokayav, to Scott Weber the Director General of Interpeace and my fellow Ambassadors who have joined us today.  I would also like to thank our co-hosts from Interpeace.  We value our partnership and the important work that Interpeace does in the field in places like Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Timor Leste, Central America and elsewhere.  Today we are here to present Interpeace’s new constitution-building handbook and to discuss the role of constitution making in peace building and development.

Violent conflict arises due to a complex set of variables that merge and reinforce each other at critical junctures in a country’s development. Conflict often begins locally, but can quickly spill over and absorb a region.  It has devastated nations, villages and families, and it can – and does – reverse development gains.  Violent conflict is one of development’s most powerful enemies, and the consequences are disheartening.

Not one of the low-income fragile or conflict-affected countries has achieved a single Millennium Development Goal.  People living in countries affected by conflict are twice as likely to be undernourished.  Their children are three times as likely to be out of school.  Today, roughly 42 million people are displaced as a result of conflict, and 1.5 billion people still live in conflict-affected and fragile states.

History and experience show that combating this will take time. In the 20^th century, it took reforming countries an average of 27 years to reduce corruption and establish rules-based controls against it.  The international community must take steps to expand and sustain the ranks of stable, prosperous and democratic states by supporting the next generation of democratic transitions.

How?  By promoting governance systems that are more efficient, participatory, transparent, and effective at delivering results.  By empowering civil societies, women, and internally displaced persons to advocate for their internationally-recognized human rights, and by protecting vulnerable populations against continued marginalization.

As an example, I wish to discuss Rwanda.  Rwanda has made great strides since the 1994 genocides.  It suffered from those who were willing to kill in the name of difference, from those who saw division and death as the path to power.  It suffered from the indifference of neighbors, international institutions, and individual governments – including my own – that failed to act in the face of a vast, unfolding evil.

Yet even as war in Rwanda still raged, another story was beginning to play itself out.  The people and the new government envisioned a different Rwanda, one where reconciliation replaced division, where healing helped salve deep wounds, where self-sufficiency could eventually defeat despair.  A massive program of post-conflict justice within mixed communities has helped to pave the road to peace.  The commitment of Rwandans and their government to make development a priority was essential to this process.   International assistance in the form of genuine partnerships such as the one between Interpeace and its local partner – The Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace – have played an important and supportive role.

Today, nearly half of Rwandans were born after the genocide ended.  The generation that came through the genocide is passing on a country more rich with possibility.  While the wounds of the genocide will no doubt linger, the current challenge is to link this peace with broad-based economic growth and job creation to ensure Rwanda’s future prosperity.

Wherever conflict has erupted, we must enable failed and fragile states to rebuild by forging a new social compact between government, civil society and the private sector.  Support for constitution building is a part of this process.  Democratic governments that can be held accountable by an active citizenry are more likely to be responsive to their people and more effective at protecting human rights, fostering inclusive development, withstanding shocks, and resolving disputes peacefully.  Where conflict pervades, development stalls or even regresses.  Consequently, preventing and resolving conflict in a sustainable way by addressing its root causes is a critical development imperative.

The United States is addressing that imperative in a number of ways.  President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have made it clear that it is the policy of the United States to elevate conflict prevention and promote peaceful democratic transitions. Only recently, the U.S. consolidated its efforts to address conflict and stabilization under a new bureau at the State Department.  The United States Agency for International Development USAID also has a dedicated office, the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM), which helps citizens in the developing world identify lasting solutions to the problems that drive conflict, extremism and state failure.  And of course, as a demonstration of our commitment to democratic peace-building, the U.S. has also served as the Chair of the Interpeace Advisory Council over the past year.

Additionally, just last month President Obama released the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, an initiative intended to institutionalize efforts across  a number of U.S. government agencies to advance women’s participation in preventing conflict and keeping peace.

At the same time, as President Obama stated last year at the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit, we “seek partners who want to build their own capacity to provide for their people.” As outlined in the “New Deal for engagement in fragile states,” and agreed upon by the members of the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, we must focus on new ways of engaging and supporting inclusive country-led transitions out of fragility and conflict.

We are already taking this approach in Egypt, where the United States sponsored a delegation of transition experts from Chile, Romania and Serbia to consult with Egyptian political leaders and civic activists.  Transitions can be fragile, and it is too early to predict with confidence whether a new wave of democratic regimes will materialize from 2011’s global political unrest.  However, this wave of fundamental political change has created new opportunities to enter into development partnerships that give true meaning to the phrase “country ownership.”  It is in these countries that we can make the most difference, supporting the building of essential capacity for governments to “deliver” for their citizens. In this vein, USAID has just launched a new Democracy, Rights and Governance Center of Excellence, designed to become an international leader in evidence-based research in the field.

The rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to organize peacefully, are universal and are just as vital, just as inherent in Asia, in Latin America and in Sub-Saharan Africa as they are in Europe, America or the Middle East.   As Rwandan President Kagame said, “The uprising in Libya has already sent a message to leaders in Africa and beyond.  It is that if we lose touch with our people, if we do not serve them as they deserve and address their needs, there will be consequences.  Their grievances will accumulate – and no matter how much time passes, they can turn against you.” For Rwanda, nothing can bring back what it has sacrificed.  Yet, we also know that the living must do credit to the lost, by building the future they should have been here to help build.  A nation, just like a people, can overcome.

To successfully mitigate conflict and support continued development in transitioning countries, we must achieve a greater impact in a more inclusive and sustainable manner.  This is especially true in a constrained fiscal environment – one in which we must deliver more with every dollar we spend.  We must rely not only on traditional assistance approaches, but also strive to be an influential policy voice shaping the international development dialogue.

In fragile and conflict-affected countries, our joint efforts help to put communities on the path toward reconstruction and stability.  2011 saw an incredible number of political eruptions and evolutions.  Silenced citizens across the world stood and demanded that their voices be heard.  We cannot allow them to be silenced once more through conflict.  Today, we can take another step to support those communities through Interpeace’s constitution-building tool.

Thank you.