Minister of International Development Hilde F. Johnson

Peace building in Sudan – A development perspective

US House of Representatives’ Human Rights Caucus,
Washington, 30. September 2004

Check against delivery

Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to address an issue of great concern to my government and to me personally: How we - the world community - can assist in building a lasting peace in Sudan.

Two days ago in Oslo, I met with a rather unique group of people. Representatives from the Government of Sudan and three key guerrilla movements in Sudan – the SPLM, the SLM and the JEM – were gathered together at the Holmenkollen Hotel, right next to the famous ski jump. There were also representatives from a number of traditional donor countries, and from the African Union, the Arab League and China.

The occasion was the IGAD Partners Forum, IPF, where about 30 countries and international organizations came together to assess Sudan’s financial and humanitarian needs.

The turnout at this meeting signaled a firm commitment to supporting Darfur at this critical juncture, and to Sudan as a whole. Sudan is on the verge of completing a peace agreement that can pave the way for stability throughout the country, an agreement that can put an end to decades of strife and suffering. The meeting strengthened my belief that we will see an international donor community ready to support Sudan in the difficult years ahead.

I have come to know the parties to the Naivasha peace negotiations very well, and I have great admiration for what they have done. I truly believe that Sudan is as close to peace as it has ever been, thanks to the agreement between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM. This is an agreement that heralds the end of the longest civil war in Africa, an agreement of immense importance.

We must not lose faith at this point in the process. We must not throw away what has been so painstakingly put together. There is too much at stake for Sudan, for the Sudanese people and for the international community.

Just how much is at stake has become agonizingly clear in Darfur over the past months.

For Sudan has indeed become the “world capital of human pain, suffering and agony”, as Elie Wiesel put it.

An entire generation has grown up in the shadow of the civil war, denied basic human rights, deprived of human dignity. Another generation is threatened. We must act.

We, the international community, have an obligation to help end the fighting. We have to assist in finding solutions, both short-term and long-term. We have to help build a Sudan in peace and prosperity. We have to find a way to a future of dignity for all Sudanese.

I know you share my concern. We know that we cannot afford to look away.

The United States and Norway share a fundamental belief in the value of every human being.

We believe that “All men are created equal”, as it says in your Declaration of Independence.

We believe that all people have “inherent dignity” and “inalienable rights”, as it says in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is why our conscience demands that we use our collective powers of persuasion and our engagement to build a lasting peace in Sudan. The civil war and the situation in Darfur are not only an assault on human rights, they are an assault on human dignity itself. This is of great concern to me and to my government.

Norway’s development policy is firmly anchored in the belief that human rights and human dignity must be at the core of all our efforts: in peacemaking, in humanitarian activities, in development. And human rights mean more than civil rights, more than political rights. It begins with the right to live.

Article 3 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

The child suffering in Darfur must first of all be guaranteed this right, and that means the right to be safe when he goes to sleep at night, the right to food when he is hungry, the right to medicine when he is ill. The woman struggling to care for her family in Southern Sudan must first of all have the right to clean water, medical care, schooling for her children.

This is why human rights never can be limited to civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are equally important for life and human dignity. There is no hierarchy - human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and mutually reinforcing.

And human rights must be for all - not just for some. The principles must be applied equally to everyone. No exceptions. Not for children because they are too young, not for women because they are too weak, not for minorities because they are too few. Not for the poor because they lack resources, not for the disabled because they are vulnerable.

No exceptions. Dignity for all.

Fighting poverty is promoting human rights, fulfilling people’s rights. Living in poverty is not only living without basic necessities like food and clean water, it is also living without dignity and freedom.

I strongly believe that aid has an important role to play in promoting human rights and fighting poverty. Poverty, aid and human rights are closely linked. In Norway, this rights-based approach serves as a basis for our development efforts.

Indeed, one definition of development is “expanding people’s choices”. This means protecting people’s rights, and giving them real options, real opportunities for a better life.

We will not succeed in improving people’s human rights unless we succeed in reducing poverty. We will not succeed in eradicating poverty unless we address human rights.

There are few places where these issues are more critical than in today’s Sudan.

We have watched as the hope of Naivasha gave way to the hopelessness of Darfur. Unspeakable atrocities and serious attacks on human dignity have been exposed during the past months, and the international community has been almost unanimous in its condemnation.

Tens of thousands have been killed, millions have fled, millions more are living in fear. Hunger, violence, rape, humiliation - this has been the reality for the people of Darfur. People are denied their basic human rights, their right to live in dignity, the right to any life at all. We cannot and must not look away.

We must all do what we can to stop the violence. The Janjaweed and other militia groups must be disarmed. The Security Council has laid out a clear path to be followed by the Sudanese Government and the rebel groups, the United Nations and the African Union. The Government of Sudan is responsible for the security and well-being of its citizens, and must comply with the demands to facilitate humanitarian relief and reinstate security in Darfur. We expect them to cooperate fully and to urgently implement the UN resolution. Significant improvements are necessary. The international community must uphold the threat of sanctions until the Government’s compliance is satisfactory.

The international community needs to focus on the following:

1. Continuing the humanitarian support and extending it to cover all areas of Darfur.
2. Cooperating with the AU mission to stabilize the situation. A more simple and effective operation with increased mobility is needed. Both sides (the GOS and the SLM/JEM) must be included in the security measures in Darfur.
3. Increasing the number of UN human rights observers in Darfur. (The United States, Canada and Norway have just announced further support for new observers.) The UN will head the international commission of inquiry appointed to investigate claims of genocide in Darfur.
4. Convincing the parties to continue the negotiations for Darfur, as well as conclude the talks for the South. International presence at the talks is necessary.

Kofi Annan has called the Darfur situation the worst humanitarian crisis of today. In his address to the General Assembly on September 21, he said that

“The victims are human beings, whose human rights must be sacred to all of us.”

It is the sanctity of human rights and the principle of human dignity that underpin our duty to act, our duty to care, our duty to come together to protect the people of Darfur, the people of Sudan.

For this is my greatest fear for Sudan: that the promise of Naivasha will die in the horrors of Darfur.

The case of Sudan is replete with challenges and hard choices. In addition to Darfur, there are potential crises brewing in the South and in the East. Human rights are threatened in countless ways: by the precarious security environment, by the lack of access to food and health care, by the absence of political, civil, cultural, economic and social rights.

What we need in Sudan is what your president, George W. Bush, has described as

“a broad agenda to advance human dignity.” (UNGA address, September 21)

What we need is a common strategy for peace in Sudan, a strategy that will build a lasting peace, on lasting principles. These principles must be based on the Human Rights Conventions.

We need principles that include economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights - principles that embrace the concept of human dignity for every human being. This includes freedom from slavery, as clearly stated by the International Slavery Commission, one of former Senator and special envoy John Danforth’s four test cases for Sudan.

We urgently need short-term measures, but we also need medium- and long-term measures to ensure a stable and self-sufficient Sudan. We need to look far ahead - and we need to look far back.

Because the roots of the conflict in Sudan are buried deep in the country’s history. Poverty, inequality, inequitable distribution of wealth and lack of economic and social development have fueled and prolonged the civil war. Civil liberties and political rights have suffered severely.

The Sudan conflict is fundamentally about injustice, and this injustice must be successfully addressed before we can hope to reach a lasting solution. The good news is that we are very close to a potential solution, in the form of negotiations that have brought the government and the parties in the South to within inches of a comprehensive agreement. We have never been closer.

All the important issues have been agreed, and signed, in the six Machakos/Naivasha protocols comprising the Nairobi Declaration. Only two annexes remain before the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is a fact. We need to press forward on these talks in order to reach an early settlement. The political solution to the Darfur crisis is to be found within the framework of the overall peace agreement. And it can be implemented on the basis of a final peace agreement.

There is no doubt in my mind: The road to peace in Darfur goes through Naivasha.

The Naivasha process solid agreements of wealth sharing, including oil, and power sharing have been agreed upon. The right to self-determination for the population in the South is secured. At the end of a six-year interim period, the population in the South will be able to have their say through a referendum. To them, it is a matter of justice, of having the right to choose your own destiny.

The new political framework in Sudan will rest on two main pillars: a national government and constitution, and a regional government in the South with its own regional constitution. The agreements for the Nuba Mountains and the Southern Blue Nile give these two states in the north a high degree of autonomy, and could be used as a model for other states, such as Darfur.

Human rights have been addressed through firm commitments in the agreements. But we know it will all depend on implementation. Here, monitoring is key. Through the Assessment and Evaluation Commission, with international representation, implementation will be monitored. We have to make sure that the words of the agreement will stick, and not, as someone in Sudan once said, “fly away like beautiful birds in the sky”.

This must not happen. The international community must stand by the Sudanese in their efforts to implement the agreement, and help ensure its implementation. We need resources, and we need to see political will.

How then to move successfully from the signing of a peace agreement to building the stability of the country, is the question, and one that my government has devoted considerable attention to. Norway has been privileged to serve as a facilitator in a number of peace negotiations, in the Middle East, in Guatemala, in Sri Lanka, in Sudan.

We know from experience that peace is fragile. It needs attention, protection and nurturing. We also know that history overflows with examples of promising peace efforts gone awry, opportunities missed and mistakes made.

In fact, more than half of all peace agreements fail, and the parties slide back into war.

We know that, in a place like Sudan, we will pay dearly if we make those mistakes again. There must be no turning back, back to war.

In Southern Sudan, for example, we will face an immense challenge - starting from scratch, building a functioning society, avoiding the traps set by those whose interests will be served if they manage to “divide and rule”. If we as donors do not have a clear and coordinated plan for our assistance in war-torn countries, we risk becoming pawns in a game we cannot control, hostage to interests we cannot defend.

This is why the Norwegian Government recently launched a new, comprehensive framework on peacebuilding. It is in effect a list of dos and don’ts for building long-term peace solutions through assistance, based on our past experience of peace processes around the world.

We believe that peacebuilding is a necessary supplement to peacemaking processes and peacekeeping operations. Peacebuilding through development can strengthen peace processes, provide the extra support that makes peace sustainable, help rebuild societies and prevent violence from recurring.

Peacebuilding has three mutually reinforcing dimensions: 1) security, 2) political development, and 3) social and economic development.

Peacebuilding includes such measures as disarmament, demobilization and security system reform. It includes measures designed to fight poverty and to empower women and other marginalized groups in the process of rebuilding a country. It may include reconciliation, good governance measures and support to independent media and civil society.

Each situation is different, and the measures must be tailored to the circumstances. What works in Sri Lanka may not work in Sudan. What is applauded in Latin America may spell disaster in Africa. There is no “one-size-fits-all”. Each country, each crisis, demands its own solution.

Yet there are some universal features that apply to all people, in all countries - features that are non-negotiable: fundamental human rights, human dignity. Here there is no room for compromise - not in Sudan, not anywhere else.

Human security and basic rights must be the first priority in Sudan. We need humanitarian assistance and security measures in Darfur. We need security measures as well as more long-term interventions in the South and other areas affected by the war.

Demobilization, disarmament and reintegration plans are under way, and mine clearance has started. A number of internally displaced persons and armed individuals from the armies have voluntarily returned to areas of the South over the past few months. This is promising. Over a million people are already on the move. They are casting their vote for peace - with their feet.

But the situation in some of the areas in the South is still volatile, especially in the Upper Nile, where militia groups continue to harass local communities. The focus on Darfur may have diverted humanitarian assistance away from the population in the South, causing a serious lack of vital resources. Hunger is on the rise. This could easily aggravate the situation and become another humanitarian crisis, this time in the South. Our peacebuilding strategy in the South must include appropriate humanitarian safeguards as well as appropriate security measures.

The international community has signaled that it stands ready to assist Sudan in its efforts to rebuild. This was seen most recently at the IPF meeting in Oslo.

Donor countries and organizations will soon embark on the demanding task of assisting the parties in Sudan in the reconstruction of their country. We must make sure that we do things right this time around.

We must coordinate and harmonize our efforts. Far too many reconstruction efforts have been hampered by what I call the “donor circus”, where developing countries are forced to spend scarce resources on satisfying the demands of the donors rather than on rebuilding and governing their country.

Too often we have seen aid wasted because of lack of coordination between donors. Too often we have seen promising efforts in the immediate post-war phase crumble and fail because of lack of staying power. Too often we, the donor countries, have let our own national pride, our need to raise the flag, our self-congratulation, take precedence over a true partnership effort.

This has to stop! In Sudan we must get it right the first time around. There may not be a second chance.

We as donors must be prepared to come up with the resources needed to rebuild Sudan. This is an investment in the future of the country and the region, an investment in the human rights of the Sudanese people.

We must let the people of Sudan play the leading role. Unless the Sudanese themselves feel real ownership of the process, unless they are in the driver’s seat, our efforts will fail, and fail miserably.

We must maintain a long-term perspective, and recognize that building a lasting and sustainable peace may take ten years or more. It will be crucial to keep international attention on Sudan for the entire interim period of six years and beyond. The IGAD Partners Forum, which consists of almost all the donor countries to Sudan, plus the World Bank and other agencies, should therefore continue to be the main forum for co-ordination of donor cooperation. We are also encouraged by the active engagement of the Arab League and China.

The international community has a critical role to play here. It must provide the international guarantees necessary for peace and progress.

I truly believe that the road to peace for the whole of Sudan goes through Naivasha, through an agreement that has been painstakingly put together to create a balanced, sustainable solution. Darfur is critical, but it must not be allowed to divert the focus away from Naivasha. There are numerous issues that could derail this process. We must not let that happen.

The focus must change - back to Naivasha. And I’ll tell you why: Because the completion of an agreement for the South will create a new coalition government in Khartoum - a government which will address the major concerns of all marginalized peoples of Sudan and Darfur.

There are many who have an interest in preventing this from happening, in derailing Naivasha. We must not allow them to undermine and disrupt a process that holds the potential for peace for the whole country. We - the international community - must use all possible means to press for a completion of the Naivasha process.

As I said, peace in the whole of Sudan has never been closer. It is up to the negotiating parties to take the final steps. But we, the international community, can make a difference. Through coordinated and consistent pressure for completion of the talks in Abuja and Naivasha. And by helping to build peace from below, to make peace a reality for the people of Sudan, a peace built on a firm foundation of human rights and human dignity.

I look forward to working with all of you, and will be pleased to hear your comments and respond to any questions you may have.

Thank you.