Posted: 12:03 am ET
We blogged about FP’s piece on the targeting last July of American diplomats in Juba, South Sudan (see #SouthSudan Presidential Guards Target American Diplomats in Juba). On September 7, the State Department was asked about this incident during the Daily Press Briefing. The Department’s assessment, according to the deputy spox is that “the attack was connected to the breakdown of command and control among South Sudanese Government forces” and did not specifically target American diplomats. The presidential guards who opened fire at the embassy convoy, those soldiers were just “a little trigger-happy.”
The State Department says that its “concern” about the FP article was that “it made the assumption or allegation that there was a specific targeting of our diplomatic vehicles.” In the spox words, “And again — it doesn’t in any way, either if it was or wasn’t, it doesn’t in any way excuse the behavior or the incident. But that’s just our assessment that we don’t believe it was.”
The spox also indicated in the DPB that there is reportedly an ongoing South Sudan investigation, and that Diplomatic Security is also conducting its after-action review of the incident but that ” they’re still looking at other details.” The spox says that in light of this incident, the State Department has made modifications to its security posture such as adjusting its curfew and the rules for the movement of embassy vehicles in Juba. The South Sudan Travel Warning dated July 10, three days after this security incident does not include any detail about curfews.
Below is the DPB segment on South Sudan, September 7:
QUESTION: Do you have a response to reports that seven American diplomats traveling in a convoy in Juba, South Sudan, were fired on by government troops? This was – apparently happened on July 7th —
MR TONER: That’s right.
QUESTION: — just days before that brutal attack on the hotel, the westerners at the hotel there.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And that in this shooting on the convoy, one of the cars was disabled and had to be essentially rescued by a Marine reaction force. What happened there?
MR TONER: Sure. So – and John Kirby spoke to this in the immediate days after the – this incident, and I would just reiterate from the top our condemnation of this attack on what was a U.S. embassy convoy by South Sudanese Government troops. I can walk you through the events as we understand them to have happened, but I can say that we do not believe our vehicles and personnel were specifically targeted in the attack. It’s our assessment that the attack was connected to the breakdown of command and control among South Sudanese Government forces, and we have demanded that the Government of South Sudan investigate this incident and punish and hold accountable those responsible for it.
But just to walk you through the events, again, as we understand them: So on the evening of July 7th, I think at around 2100 local time, two embassy vehicles were returning to the residential compound and passed, as part of their route, the presidential palace. About an hour earlier, forces that were loyal to the government – or rather, to Machar, rather – had clashed with forces loyal to President Kiir. And government troops stationed near the presidential compound, to put it mildly, were very tense. So the two embassy vehicles approached the soldiers on the road outside the presidential palace. When they moved toward the vehicle – they, the troops, moved toward the vehicles and tried to open their doors – the vehicles, the embassy vehicles appropriately, we believe, began to speed away from the scene. And at that time, the soldiers opened fire. Fortunately, the vehicles were armored and no one was injured. And the next day, July 8th, Ambassador Phee met with President Kiir and demanded that the government carry out a full investigation of the incident and hold those responsible for the incident accountable for their actions. President Kiir, it’s worth noting, did make clear that U.S. embassies were – embassy vehicles were not specifically targeted, and he vowed at that point in time to stand up a committee to investigate the incident.
Now, I don’t have anything to read out to you in terms of what that committee may have found or may be investigating or what the deadline is for them to reach an end to the investigation.
QUESTION: And you’re not saying that the – that the troops didn’t know who they were firing on. It was clear they knew they were firing on Americans. You’re just saying you don’t believe it was ordered by —
MR TONER: No, no, what I would say is just —
QUESTION: — Kiir to shoot American —
MR TONER: No, no, what I would say is we don’t believe that they necessarily knew. I mean, there were some – and I – we know —
QUESTION: Why do you not – why do you think that? I mean, it —
MR TONER: It’s just in our assessment. I mean, this is not something that we —
QUESTION: Yeah, but what is that based on? Because it would seem if they got close enough to try to open the doors that they would probably know who they were dealing with at that point.
MR TONER: Well, first of all, the windows were tinted as they often are in these kind of – in these vehicles.
QUESTION: And marked with American flags likely as well?
MR TONER: A very small laminated flag, and it’s not clear whether they would have even recognized the plates. I know that’s another thing that the story states.
Look, all I can do is offer our assessment of the situation. We’re not forgiving it and we’re certainly not overlooking it or saying, “Hey, not your bad. It was your” – look, we’re talking about here is the fact that they opened fire on an embassy convoy, and that is inexcusable. But what we believe were the factors of the environment around that was that they – there had been an altercation, fighting in the run-up to this convoy passing, and that they were very tense, and if I could say it, a little trigger-happy.
QUESTION: So your investigation concluded that these soldiers made a mistake. Did the investigation conclude anything about the advisability of driving through a republican — presidential palace checkpoint?
MR TONER: So we did – we did and conducted, as you note, an internal investigation, and that – an after-action review is in progress, but we have modified our procedures around the travel of convoys of our personnel.
QUESTION: Because it was a mistake to drive in between two opposing forces within an hour of a clash.
MR TONER: That’s – clearly, that’s – we have made modifications to our security posture.
QUESTION: What – what have you changed?
MR TONER: Well, we, for one thing, adjusted our curfew and we also adjusted the rules for the movement of embassy vehicles in light of the event, and obviously, in light of subsequent violence in Juba.
QUESTION: So it’s an earlier curfew now?
MR TONER: That’s my understanding, yeah.
QUESTION: And how are the rules for the movement of embassy been changed?
MR TONER: I can’t speak to that. I just can’t. I mean, that’s talking about our security posture, which we don’t do.
QUESTION: Why was it appropriate for them – this was a checkpoint, correct?
MR TONER: Not 100 percent sure. I – my understanding is that they passed in front of the presidential palace. Obviously, there were forces out there. I don’t know that it was a formal checkpoint.
QUESTION: Okay. And why was it appropriate for them not to open the doors?
MR TONER: Because they believed that – their assessment was that these forces were, again, trigger-happy, or shall we say – I’ll put it more diplomatically and say tense, and they felt threatened, clearly. And one of the standard procedures is if you feel threatened is to get the heck out of dodge.
QUESTION: So you stated that an after-action review is still in progress?
MR TONER: This is within – yeah, this is – so we’ve – so two points here. One, we’ve asked the government, obviously, to carry out a full and complete investigation. That, I believe, is still ongoing. I may be wrong there, but I don’t have anything here in front of me that says that it’s been concluded. But we also, as we would in any case like this, conducted our internal review.
QUESTION: And is that still in progress?
MR TONER: That’s in progress, but I was able to say out of that review we have obviously, and frankly immediately, adjusted curfew times and other —
QUESTION: And no other people in the convoy were physically hurt, but obviously it’s a very stressful —
MR TONER: Indeed.
QUESTION: — night for them.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Has anyone been evacuated from station? Has anyone received counseling?
MR TONER: We did – and we’ve talked about this before. I believe we’re on authorized departure from Juba. I believe that’s correct.
QUESTION: But do you know if any of the seven people involved in this have left?
MR TONER: I can’t speak to whether they’ve left or not.
QUESTION: Who or what entity is conducting the State Department’s after-action review?
MR TONER: That would be Diplomatic Security.
QUESTION: Okay. And from your account provided here at this briefing today, if I understand it correctly, you really cannot determine how much knowledge the presidential guard members had of who exactly was in this car. You really can’t make a determination whether they knew that there were Americans in this car or not, correct?
MR TONER: Again, I think I said we do not believe that, and I said we assess that the attack was connected more to a breakdown in command and control and not to a specific targeting. But I can’t categorically say one or – that it wasn’t.
QUESTION: Do you —
QUESTION: But you – so you can’t rule it out?
MR TONER: I can’t – yeah, as I was saying, as I – I qualified it. I said it is our assessment that —
QUESTION: Do you have – is in there about roughly how long this incident – the duration of this incident? How long did it last?
MR TONER: I don’t. Sorry, Matt.
QUESTION: But it does —
QUESTION: Can you confirm that three separate presidential guard units opened fire on the two cars?
MR TONER: I cannot. I’ll try to get – see if I can get more details about the duration and the number of —
QUESTION: It didn’t – this was quite quick. It didn’t happen over a course of hours.
MR TONER: Exactly. No, no, that I can —
QUESTION: This was something that – like, less than —
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: — less than several minutes? I mean —
MR TONER: I’d say, yes, within the realm of several minutes to 10 minutes. I have no idea. I can’t put a specific time to it, duration.
QUESTION: So this happened almost exactly two months ago. How long does it take to investigate or to look into a 10-minute – let’s just assume it’s 10 minutes – incident?
MR TONER: Are you talking the —
MR TONER: — government’s or the – look, I mean, I —
QUESTION: And are you pushing the South Sudanese Government to —
MR TONER: Yes, we are. Yes, we are. I mean, as I said, Ambassador Phee immediately the next day went to the president and demanded an investigation and we’ve been following up on that.
QUESTION: But that was July 8th.
MR TONER: I understand.
QUESTION: It is now September 7th.
MR TONER: I understand. And with regard to —
QUESTION: What’s the temperature, Matt.
MR TONER: With regard to – (laughter) —
QUESTION: In South Sudan? Hot.
MR TONER: With regard to our own internal investigation, clearly we made adjustments, immediate adjustments, to our security posture in light of that attack. But I think they’re still looking at other details.
QUESTION: You stated —
QUESTION: Any personnel involved being disciplined – U.S. personnel?
MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of, no.
QUESTION: And —
QUESTION: You stated that at least one of these cars was struck by fire but fortunately was —
MR TONER: Armored.
QUESTION: — armor-protected. To your knowledge, has Diplomatic Security, as part of its after-action review, or any other U.S. personnel, made a physical inspection of these vehicles?
MR TONER: I would imagine, but I don’t – I can’t confirm that. I just don’t have that level of detail.
QUESTION: And the personnel – the U.S. personnel, presumably they have been interviewed as part of this after-action review, correct?
MR TONER: That would be – that would be expected, yes.
QUESTION: And that interview process took place overseas or here in Washington?
MR TONER: I don’t know. It could be either. It could be both. I just don’t have that level of detail.
QUESTION: And did anyone decline to cooperate with the after-action review?
MR TONER: Again, I can’t speak to that either.
QUESTION: It was James Donegan in the car, correct? And the car was disabled and had to be rescued by a Marine force. Is that all correct?
MR TONER: So there is – yes, so that’s an important – and I apologize I didn’t – so there was a small embassy security team basically that traveled to the vehicle and was able to recover our personnel. This happened when the vehicle was no longer under fire and there were no longer hostile forces present, when the team arrived.
QUESTION: Did any U.S. personnel discharge their firearms?
MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of, no.
QUESTION: And you don’t really have any problems with how the – Foreign Policy wrote this timeline of events, right?
MR TONER: I think our concern was that it made the assumption or allegation that there was a specific targeting of our diplomatic vehicles. And again —
QUESTION: Right, which – yeah.
MR TONER: — it doesn’t in any way, either if it was or wasn’t, it doesn’t in any way excuse the behavior or the incident. But that’s just our assessment that we don’t believe it was.
QUESTION: So you’re making excuses, but it doesn’t excuse —
MR TONER: We good? Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have some preferred outcome for the South Sudanese investigation? Do you want to see people disciplined? Is that the —
MR TONER: Yes, unequivocally.
QUESTION: What would you think would be an appropriate discipline?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, that’s something for the South Sudanese Government to speak about, but this was clearly a serious incident that, to put it mildly, put at risk the lives of American diplomats and American citizens. So we take it very seriously and we want to see the appropriate people held accountable.