Thank you very much. I would like to thank the Centre for Development Studies for this opportunity. Actually, when I came the other day, I put three questions to the people in the Centre, and I would like to put the same questions here. When I received this invitation, and the program and the agenda, definitely it crossed my mind that discussing an internal situation of the Sudan in a place which is outside the Sudan, that is something, which usually, on the international basis, is not so common, or so acceptable. But I thought, we have this democratic country, and we have these problems which people might talk about widely and frankly outside the Sudan, that is one of the things. So I must say this for the record, because although we feel that most of the people here around, although they are not Sudanese by nationality, they are definitely Sudanese by the fact that they have been in the Sudan. That is a point which one should always state. The second thing I would like to say also, is that actually in the Sudan we are now thinking: we are here now, we are representing different parties, and after all this all this talking, where are we leading to? Where are we going to? This is another question one would like to put forward. Are we just coming to say, by the end of the day, that we have got a declaration, or we have got a forum, or we have got a statement and this sort of thing, which has already been done once and twice and three times, and it has become more or less a routine thing in this sort of meetings? That is one of the questions which I put forward here also. Now, the third thing which I would like to put as well, is that now we are speaking about democracy. In the Sudan we have a democratic country, we have a democratic process, and by all standards the people accept that there is a democratic situation there in the Sudan. So we have got the institutions, like the Assembly, and there are some people here who represent the people in the Assembly. We have got the Head of the State, we have got the Government, we have got all these institutions. And here we are. We have got other Sudanese who are actually taking arms, they are outside the Sudan. Now, are we here to make some sort of a compromise about this, or what are we going to do? This is another question that I put forward. I mean such questions must be put forward because as brother Francis Deng has said, if we want to come to solutions we have to go deep and actually see what sort of solutions we are going to propose. Now, I might imagine myself as representing Mrs. Thatcher, and somebody representing IRA [Irish Republican Army]. I do not think that by European standards it will be acceptable for them to sit together and to speak, although there is democracy in Europe. So I think these are some questions I put forward, because as far as I am concerned we know that, as far as the problem of the south is concerned, as far as the discussions are concerned, we used to discuss these problems, we speak about these problems. There are no hindrances between me or Lam Akol or John Garang or anybody from the south. But still we speak about peace, we speak about resettlement, but we don't come anywhere. That is our real issue. I think now, one of the things I would like to know exactly, if we take for example into consideration the NIF [National Islamic Front]. We as a party, we have put forward so many documents. One of them, I think all of you have this, is a document which we put forward in 1985, after the uprising, in our conference, and that is about the southern Sudan question. We wrote about review, analysis and proposal. We put it in Arabic, and then in English. We put our views. I must say that was a very crude way of putting our views and analysis. And then later on, and after the elections, and after the first government, we put forward this Sudan Charter in January 1987, and I think also everybody has got that. In that Charter we try to be very specific, we try to address the issues, not the procedures, we try to take the issue of identity, the issue of wealth and power, of powersharing, the issue of unity and all these issues. We have put that forward inside the Sudan as well as outside the Sudan, to our friends in the SPLA/SPLM as well, and we also speak about the constitutional conference, the peace, what we shall do about the peace, and what additional arrangement we should make, and we put this forward now. People inside the Sudan have said their opinion about this, but we have been waiting for an answer from the SPLA/SPLM, because here we are putting this, we are not saying that this is the end of everything, but if you are in a genuine situation, you have to put your ideas in writing. We have put our ideas about powersharing, whether to have a federal system. We spoke about democracy, we spoke about law, whether Sharia law or other things, but we did not have anything back from the people who are actually outside. Now, I am saying this, and it is good that brother Abdel Ghaffar Mohamed Ahmed issued this to us, it is a statement from 23. of April 1971, here in Bergen, speaking of the problem of the south, and that is 18 years back, and it is the same as it is today. Take into consideration that the problem at that time was not complicated by religion or by the Sharia, but the problem was there. After a year from that people sat down in Addis Ababa, and they come to a conclusion, they come to an agreement. We thought that is the end of the whole thing, and we thanked God that although we have been outside that might solve the problem. And for practical purposes, since the 1972 up to about 1980, I must say that the whole thing was left for the Southerners, as far as the management and administration in the south is concerned. But despite of that, there were differences, there were problems, and these problems of course lead to other complications, and Gaafer Nimeiri took the last decision about the problem in the south. And I am saying this because we have come all the way from Khartoum, we have been very optimistic. As I said to the journalists, if I was not optimistic, I would not have come. We have come here, we are very genuine that we should have to do something about this war. But of course it all depends on how we see it. Do we all accept democracy? I mean, we inside, we are practising democracy anyway, and everybody there have got his views, his beliefs, the way he likes to speak. We have got our friend here from the Communist Party, so you can see all shades of life, all shades of parties we have got inside. Now, even our brother Lam Akol has been there inside, but after the elections, or just before that, he took arms. So if we are accepting democracy, if we are going to accept democracy as a rule, then that is something, but if we are going to make a compromise between democracy and the people who are holding arms, or taking arms, that will be a very difficult situation, I must say. So this is one of the questions to which we would like to have an answer.
I personally think that under any circumstances we do not feel we want to undermine anybody, or to underrate anybody, from the religious point of view, nor from the colour point of view, not from any other view. And I must say, myself coming from the west, I know that we have got the problem of power sharing, we have got this problem of wealth sharing, we have got this problem of unequal development. That is something I do not need to explain to our Sudanese people. I can say it to other people, but we know that we believe in democracy. That is why we have a stayed there, and that is why we are fighting. Of course I agree with Eliaba [Eliaba Surur] that sectarianism in the Sudan, that is something. Whether it is in the Mahdi family, or al Mirghani's family, that is something. We are not for sectarianism, we are against it. But that is a reality of life. Now even for the SPLA/SPLM the last agreement was done with somebody who is a sectarian, with Mohammad Osman al Mirghani. So we can't just say that sectarianism is something which is back and that we are all against it. So, what I am trying to say, is that we have to be very realistic. We are very much concerned about the war in the south. We are very much concerned that people are dying, of famine, of disease, and of war, but still we are very much concerned that if we are interested in democracy, then we have to find ways and means by which we can solve or put an end to this problem. That is my message. I am here, representing the NIF. I am here from the government, although not actually representing government. I have an open mind. If there are any suggestions which are acceptable, I am ready to give and take, and I am ready to take it inside, either to my party, or to the government. So I think I want to put these messages at the beginning. But if we are going to speak about majority and minority and then the new Sudan, and then we speak about the problems which people can see in Khartoum, and people talking to Dr. Francis Deng and so on - if we are going just to sit and say all these sort of things, we are not going to come anywhere. Because as far as I can see, of course, there is some mistrust. I must say this. There is some lack of confidence, there are so many things and I am not going to defend anybody. There are the problems of power sharing.I do not feel now, in Khartoum for example, although it is estimated that about one million southern Sudanese have come to Khartoum, there might be more, but I do not feel that actually they are there and that they are underprivileged. I do not feel that, I do not have this feeling. I do not see that actually people are fighting because they are either Christians or Muslims. I see this in the press, I hear this on the TV, I hear it on the BBC, but actually we are coming from Khartoum, we are not fighting there because of who is who and what is his religion. Of course we have got a lot of problems, but we are living together, people coming to the north, and actually they are Sudanese anyway. We are not going to say that actually now we are fighting because of our religion, or our differences. I think all the differences are in the conferences, I can't see them in Khartoum.
Now, in my own view, this meeting should come to a consensus. I do not like to go to make a declaration, or a statement, or that routine sort of thing, that will just be something people will go and put it in the desk, and that's it. So I thought, going all the way from Khartoum to here, we have to be more realistic and we have to address things which will actually go into the issues rather than the procedures. And I do not see any reason, if here in Bergen we can come to agreement. We are representing all shades of Sudanese parties, I do not think there is any problem why we shouldn't actually come like this for a conference? I mean, I do not see any reason why shouldn't we do it as a conference? From my party, now, suppose I have got an invitation from Bergen, from the Centre here, as a party. You are asked, say in next March, on the 15. of March, to come to Bergen to discuss these problems. I must tell you that we will accept to come, just like that, because we are keen to come and discuss these issues here. Of course, we are not going to settle the issue of identity, or wealth sharing, or powersharing, today or tonight, and these are not the problems which can be now settled. But definitely we can come with our parties and our people outside and discuss and we come to something which can be conclusive, and then we can take it to the people inside so that it can be endorsed, either by the government or by the assembly, so that it will take its shape. So I would like just to point out that in the same way we came here, people could have managed and we could have had something like this, we can call it a constitutional conference, you can call it a Sudanese conference, you can call it a friend's conference, but I think people can come from all walks of the parties in the Sudan and they can discuss these things and they can come to conclusions which can be endorsed by the people inside. Thank you very much.
