Innlegg 28.10 ved boklansering om biskop Paride Taban fra Sudan

Norway and the Sudan peace talks

Statement by Minister of International Development

Ms. Hilde F. Johnson

On the occasion of the publication of the book Bishop Paride Taban

Oslo, 28 October 2002

(check against delivery)

It is a great honour to address this distinguished audience on the occasion of the publication of the book about our dear friend Bishop Paride Taban.

I am grateful to Edvard and Siv Nordrum for bringing us the story of Bishop Paride. This is a story about a good friend of Norway and of many Norwegians. It describes a great humanist and a Sudanese torchbearer for peace. I am certain that the book will be well received by the large number of people in Norway who follow and support the peace process in Sudan.

Bishop Paride, you are an institution. Both in Sudan and among your friends and colleagues in Norway.

Since Øystein Stabrun first introduced you to Norwegian Church Aid in 1972, you have been an adviser and a custodian who has inspired and spurred our colleagues in Norwegian Church Aid to fresh efforts.

But Paride Taban is not only a priest and a bishop. He is a mechanic who repairs his own car and tractor, he is a farmer, and he likes hunting when time allows. He is also close to his own people and has taken the Christian faith to areas where the gospel had never previously been heard. He is a man of the people, but also a leader who has a huge international ecumenical and political following. Around him in Narus, in his current diocese of Torit, he has a large number of people and friends from neighbouring countries, from Europe and from America who share his mission and vision for a Sudan at peace.

Peace for all has been the guiding principle of Bishop Paride Taban’s life. In Narus, there are several schools that are attended by children from all over southern Sudan. In Uganda, his diocese has established another school for students from the same area. In 1989, Bishop Paride took the initiative to establish a broad-based ecumenical council of all the churches in the South. He has been invited to the Vatican and to the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches to share his visions.

Bishop Paride, you have been a great inspiration to me, and many others, in our joint endeavours to help the people of Sudan to achieve a just and lasting peace. We will continue to work together until this goal has been achieved. And after that, we will continue to support you in the many tasks that then lie ahead.

Norway came to play a role in Sudan because of the extensive activities of Norwegian NGOs like Norwegian Church Aid and Norwegian People’s Aid. They have played a crucial role in spearheading Norwegian and international assistance to the peoples of Sudan.

These NGOs have also introduced the Norwegian public to the cruel history of war-torn Sudanese society. Norwegians have responded generously to appeals to help the efforts of these organizations in Sudan.

And the Norwegian media have not been far behind. The photographs by Helge Hummelvoll that illustrate the book speak louder than many words about daily life in a society where people have been living close to death for far too long. The tragic circumstances surrounding Helge’s death are still present in our minds. And last but not least, scholars at the Christian Michelsen Institute in Bergen and the University of Oslo have over the years developed an extensive knowledge of Sudan and deep and lasting contacts with many people there.

Inspired by contacts with our Sudanese friends such as Bishop Paride, the question has been not if Norway would become involved in international efforts to support a peace process in Sudan, but when.

It took a while before the Norwegian Government became actively involved in these efforts. A first try was made in 1994. It was not successful. Since then we have been steadily building up our competence, our insight and our ability to join with other nation in efforts to support a peace process for Sudan. When I took over in 1997, I took a great interest in the conflict, and after a visit to Sudan in 1998, I took over the co-chairmanship of the Sudan Committee of the IGAD Partners Forum.

Today Norway is actively supporting the most promising peace effort so far. Alongside the United States and the United Kingdom, Norway is actively following the IGAD-led peace negotiations in Machakos, Kenya, as an observer, and has close contact with the parties and the Kenyan-led negotiating team.

It is no coincidence that Norway is in this position. We saw that the parties were determined to sort out their differences and that they agreed on which peace process to opt for. But there was a sudden flurry of peace initiatives, which opened the way for hopping from initiative to initiative, and distracted and confused the parties more than anything else.

We understood that a sound framework for the talks was needed and were pleased to note that the neighbouring countries had agreed to channel their efforts through IGAD. This was also in accordance with our view, not least because of the agreed IGAD Declaration of Principles. If this initiative is successful, it can show us a way forward not only for Sudan, but also for other war-ridden countries, like Somalia.

On our side, we needed a political commitment to establishing contact with the parties and other cooperating nations. During my first term in office, I made a personal visit to Sudan and met the parties. As an old Chinese saying goes, seeing a thing once is better than reading about it a thousand times. Reports can never replace person-to-person contacts.

My visit confirmed the need for intensifying our efforts, for going to the heart of the matter and for encouraging the parties and our friends in the IGAD group to set the process in motion. And for underlining our own commitment to be with them all the way.

We believe that peace in Sudan only can be brought about through hard work, clear goals and a willingness to stay the course until the very end. The most sustainable solution is a just solution. Without justice, there will be no peace.

When the Machakos Protocol was signed on 20 July this summer, we felt that we had crossed an important line. That there was a real possibility of an agreement between the Government and the SPLM.

The Machakos Protocol showed that the parties were willing to take an important step forward together. Both sides made concessions that were important to the other party. For the Government, the idea of self-determination for the South had been out of the question up to the very last minute. For the SPLM, the question of state and religion was equally important. By accepting principles of importance to the other party, the two sides were able to reach an agreement that may yet take us all the way to a peace accord for Sudan.

But there are still hurdles ahead. And there are people who would like to derail the process, both from within and from the outside. When the talks were resumed in mid-August, we hoped the parties would be ready to press on, to take major steps forward on the three major remaining items on the agenda: sharing of power, sharing of wealth and how to organize a cease-fire.

One major problem was that they fought while they were talking. They did not lay down their arms despite persistent calls for a pause to give peace a chance. Both parties wanted to position themselves before the final deal was made. The talks at Machakos soured. Some say because of the positions presented by each of the parties. Others claim that the fall of Torit and Kapueta were the stumbling blocks. The result was that the Government withdrew from the talks on 2 September.

Between then and the resumption of the talks on 15 October, the fighting became more intense, the rhetoric tougher and the bargaining positions harder. We, like rest of the international community, feared that the military escalation might derail the talks completely.

Together with the other countries in the observer troika, Norway pressed hard for an agreement between the parties to end the fighting so that talks could continue in Machakos. We had extensive bilateral contacts with both parties. I was personally deeply involved in these efforts.

We also facilitated contacts between the parties so they could focus on a way forward. Here, Abel Alier played an important role.

I am very pleased that the parties agreed on 15 October to sign a Memorandum of Understanding to end the fighting throughout Sudan for the duration of the talks. This agreement opened the way for resumed talks the same day, talks that are still under way. It is an agreement that applies to the whole of Sudan and to all the forces, including the militia. Negotiations on a comprehensive cease-fire, however, have yet to be concluded.**

I am also pleased that the parties agreed to open up all areas for humanitarian access. The international community has become increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress in reaching people in need all over Sudan. President Bush’s Special Envoy, Senator Jack Danforth, has made repeated calls for free access, and so has the international donor community. It is therefore a relief to everyone that the parties have now accepted this in principle. At a meeting with the UN in Nairobi last week, they agreed to accept the practical implications of this decision.

At the negotiating table, the parties are still wrestling with the main issues of how to organize their community once there is peace. The bulky documents guiding their talks offer quite a number of challenging problems. Both sides have gathered a number of key players to head the talks. This shows a serious approach to this effort, which will hopefully yield results.

Our role is to encourage them to continue down this road. We know that they will have to deal with tough challenges if they are to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement. Decades of civil war have left deep scars in the fabric of society. Their job is to create a foundation from which a process of healing can start.

In this endeavour, the parties need to remember that time is limited. They have a window of opportunity right now. The international community is ready to assist them if they are able to focus on a framework for a comprehensive peace.

The peace agreement will be between the Government and the SPLM. The other parties in Sudan are not at the negotiating table. But their concerns will need to be addressed if a comprehensive agreement is to be reached. An all-inclusive approach has to be taken, both in relation to the Constitutional process and in any transitional arrangement.

This also applies to the concerns of the peoples of the three "marginalized" areas: the Nuba Mountains, the Southern Blue Nile and Abyei. We know the parties do not agree on where these areas formally belong. But there is no doubt that the concerns of all three areas need to be addressed if a comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan is to be reached.

Both parties need to agree on how to make unity an attractive option. Six years after the signing of a peace agreement, the people of the South will have the right to determine their future in a referendum. That is when the peace agreement will be put to its final test. Both parties will need to think ahead and plan now how they will make unity an attractive option for voters who have had enough of war and conflict.

The parties will also have to address the question of how their national income is to be shared. Sudan has quite a substantial oil production and the oil revenues will need to be managed in a way that serves the whole of Sudan, while taking care of the special needs of the South.

The parties will need to agree on a security system for managing a cease-fire. After decades of fighting they have a surplus of both soldiers and military hardware. One could say that their challenge now is how to wean their soldiers off Kalashnikovs and onto computers.

There are a number of other issues to be addressed at the negotiating table. It would take too long to list all of them. Hopefully, the parties are willing to work resolutely until they have a solid foundation from which to start on the hardest part of their endeavour: to make peace work.

Fortunately, we have an example that shows that this is possible. In January this year, the parties agreed to a cease-fire in the Nuba Mountains. Following an initiative by Senator Danforth, the parties agreed to stop fighting in this area and to leave the monitoring to a small international monitoring mission headed by a Norwegian general. Almost a year later, we see that the cease-fire is holding and that the number of incidents has been steadily falling.

This is an encouraging example. It also shows that the people of Sudan can stand united in pursuit of a single goal: a common peace.

Norway, like the rest of the international community, knows that a peace agreement will trigger a major international effort to sustain the peace, remove the scars of war and start the long-term development of Sudan. We also know that the task will be extremely demanding.

Sudan is one of the worst, if not the worst, conflict in Africa. Thirty years of civil war, two million people dead and four million on the run as IDPs or refugees are the cold facts about one of the worst human disasters we know of. It will take time, patience and huge resources to restore Sudan to the society it once used to be. And to develop the country socially and economically.

Talks are already under way within the donor community on how to organize this effort. Although a peace agreement still seems to be far away, we need to prepare early. Experience gained from other post-conflict areas has shown that if we wait until the deal has been signed to start preparations, it’s too late. And there are developments** in Machakos that may imply such a risk.

Those who never gave up their quest for peace have kept the hope of peace alive in Sudanese society and been a source of inspiration for the rest of us. Bishop Paride stands out as a man who has never given up this hope. Who saw that war could never be a lasting solution. And who became a living symbol of hope.

Bishop Paride, it has been said that those who drink the water of the Nile always return to Sudan. Your friends here in Norway are proud to have you here. We have all had a sip of Nile water and we will stay with you and the people of Sudan all the way along the road to peace.