I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Director and staff of the Centre for Development Studies at Bergen University for the concern shown about the Sudan and for giving us the chance to meet here to discuss our problems in this historic meeting. You mentioned this morning, Mr. Chairman [Mr. Gunnar Sørbø], the comments made by a journalist, asking how the Sudanese who are using arms against each other, can sit together like this. This really describes the Sudanese character, and it also reminds me of a joke or a phrase by an ex-British Civil Secretary who was asked to describe the Sudanese people. Sir James Robertson was once asked about the most difficult people to deal with, or to govern, of the countries he had served in, which were Palestine, Nigeria and the Sudan. Immediately and without hesitation, he said the Sudanese. Of course, he said, because they always, in spite of the social, cultural and religious differences, managed to unite at the right time on issues that divide the nation. That's the Sudanese, how they are described by other people.
Actually I asked for the floor because I prepared a very short paper, which is now being typed, giving my personal experiences of the peace process since Koka Dam in 1985. The paper is not ready, but I will just say a few words about it. I think that for the past three years we have been working very hard to reach our goal to convene the constitutional conference, not only as a goal or by emphasizing that we want to hold the conference, but through holding that conference, at least we'll achieve a ceasefire and save the lives of our people who are dying from famine, the bullets and diseases. The conference is not our ultimate objective, but we can always think about the problems coming ahead in that conference. Reviewing all the initiatives since Koka Dam, almost 28 or more, from the Government or from parties or from different groups, there are two points which we definitely all agree upon. First, that democracy should prevail. Any settlement in the future should be within the democratic system. This is also a very big gain from those initiatives. Secondly, we agree on the plurality of the Sudan and its ethnic and tribal diversities. So from these two points, we can go ahead and discuss the peace process in different ways - we agree that any peace settlement should be built on the basic issues expressed in the two points. From all these initiatives and peace processes we are faced with two opposing poles. One which calls for a radical change in the socio-economic situation in the Sudan, by force or by other means. This is one, and they think they are justified because they have all the reasons that they want to change and to make the new Sudan. The other pole includes the people who want to keep the general structure of the Sudan and to make adjustments to our differences like religion and politics, distribution of wealth, distribution of power. These will be injected in the present system to accommodate everybody and then go ahead. So we now have two opposing powers from all these initiatives and we should look for a middle-ground situation which will accommodate those who really want to change the socio-economic structure of Sudan and those who would like to keep the existing structure plus some adjustments in the constitution to accommodate other people.
So with this very brief comment I would like to say that we are asked, or we are required, to find a middle ground position to accommodate these two opposing poles and to identify our progress very clearly so that we can reach a permanent and strong peaceful settlement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I need to thank again the organizers of this meeting. All that has been done, has been in the recognition of the seriousness of this meeting and the concern of us as Sudanese and that of the friends of the Sudan in Norway. I feel it is an opportune time for us to expose ourselves. Perhaps it is through exposing ourselves that we will be able to see the depth of the matter and perhaps come up with results that will be acceptable to all of us in the Sudan. One important thing is if we ask ourselves, Are we a nation, the Sudanese, or not? Are we confident in ourselves with our different identifications? Dr. Francis Deng has mentioned the dual nationalities in the Sudan, the African stock and the Arab stock. And it is quite true, these are existing in the Sudan today. But is the Sudan the only country in the world that has this dual identification or dual nationalities? No, I think there are many countries that have different nationalities and perhaps more than what we have in the Sudan today. We only describe ourselves as the Arabs and Africans in the Sudan, and we would like probably to term the Sudan an Arab or an Afro-Arab country or something of that kind. But to my mind we have failed to understand that first we are Sudanese, whatever the case, wherever we come from, whether we come from the Arabian peninsula or the African continent. Our issue is the question of power sharing and racial supremacy, because one race believes it is superior and it has already had the chance of having authority in its own hands, either through conquest in the Sudan or through handing over of power from the colonial power in the Sudan. And this has only been a changing of masters, from the colonial masters to the internal masters of the Sudan. That makes it extremely difficult for the men in authority to see the other person as an equal person to him and an equal citizen whenever we talk about power-sharing, be that political or economic. If we go back to what Dr. Francis Deng has said about the Juba Conference of 1947. Was it genuine? Were the decisions taken at that conference really genuine and honest, to the best of the knowledge of those who participated? Or was there a group of people who did not know what was going on in that conference? In those days, in my primary school education, I remember the discussions until the middle of the night, when the two sides stood in completely opposite directions. There was nothing in between, except only when things were offered, such as the federal system of government. "You are going to have your own government here, you are going to have your officials, they will be raised to the standard that the British have left and you are equal in this country. Please, if you do not give in now, then the British will again stay here and you will be treated as people in a colony who are not going to be independent. You are going to be like people in Kenya and other places." Those who had the understanding at that time said OK, if it is a matter of going back to the British let us join together, because we will consider our problems, and they are already accepted. And indeed, there was a change of mind which probably at that time was meant for good, from the Southern point of view. From some of our leaders in the northern Sudan it was meant as a deceit. They wanted the people from southern Sudan to come in, and then they all wanted the British to leave. Then they would definitely be left in a situation where the power would be in their hands and they would not do much. In August 1955, when the agreement was not translated into action, people were beginning to hear facts, that it was only done as a matter of really sending the British out. Here comes the loss of confidence. Once there is a loss of confidence amongst people of the same country, we find it extremely difficult to restore that confidence unless there is a dedicated leadership that lives above political party differences, that lives above all other small differences and that puts itself onto a national level and decides as a Sudanese what to do. This I wanted to stress because up to this moment there is still lack of confidence amongst the Sudanese people, when we consider the north and the south of the Sudan. I can only believe that we begin to rethink about some kind of confidence being built by us, and some kind of unity of purpose being achieved by the Sudanese people when we vote together with the Democratic National Unionist Party in the Sudanese Constituent Assembly over the issue of the Sudan peace initiative between the DUP and SPLA/SPLM. Because for a long time there hasn't been any serious talk of the Sudan really being a united country and as far as issues of race and religion and identifications are concerned. I feel here that we must get into this. Are we here seriously sitting as Sudanese, do we have that confidence in ourselves? Have we moved, or not? If we have not, then we need to have the seriousness of moving. But if we can't do it here, as intellectual scholars, is it then to be left with our leadership - the leaders in the country? Is that possible?. Because the Sudan is basically an elite state and one wants to have a new Sudan, and has to be completely reorganised in a new form of system of government. But does not that conflict with the traditional rulers in the Sudan? Because if the ministry is arranging things in the Sudan then you are going to affect, perhaps adversely, those who gain from traditional ruling and perhaps who have authority given to them by their ancestors and traditional parties - which I can see. It is unlikely that in the past the Umma party could have had a leadership not based in the Mahdi family. Who can ever challenge me that a leader of the Umma party, the President, can become somebody outside the Mahdi family, and somebody who can become the leader of the party separating himself from the leadership of the religious sect? That is the point which has really caused difficulty. Because if you cannot get rid of that, then you are not going to get rid of problems that are facing the nation.
I would like also to touch on the issue of religion and the state. Many times we have struggled, telling the Sudanese people that first, let us make the nation. We are Sudanese, so that when we make this nation we will be there whether we are Muslims, Christians or people of different religions. Within that framework of the nation, we don't have to have talk about religion regarding the nation. And this is what is happening in the Sudan today. The more we talk about religious laws without necessarily determining the nation of the Sudanese people then we are going to tear ourselves apart on this issue. Why?, would a brother who is a Muslim think. Because he must take care of me, as a Christian, in that respect. Why don't we take care of ourselves as Sudanese, and then each one takes care of his religion within that state of the Sudan. Why should I agree to passing laws that definitely are going to make me a second class citizen? That you can have these laws based on regional basis? You have exempted the people from the Southern Sudan because the people in the Northern Sudan are Muslims. You have to abide by them because you can not impose on the Muslims. What we do impose on the Muslims is the Sudan! That is for all of us, and there is no question of imposition unless you refuse to be a Sudanese. Then that is an imposition. So we are not imposing religion but we are imposing the nationalism of the Sudanese people. We are told you'll have to have different laws in the country. Yes, it is true that you can, if you determine the state of the Sudan, then you may be able to talk about laws in the different regions of the Sudan, on a local basis. But what is the law of the land, for all of us are Sudanese? Is it going to be Islamic? Is it a Christian law? What is it? Because that determines myself as a free citizen in a country. If you are going to tell me that you are going to be looked after by a law, a Muslim law for all of us, and then you will be given exemptions somewhere in your area, then I don't consider myself as an equal citizen in this respect. There is something wrong somewhere.
I think if we separate religion from the state and begin to become very serious indeed, from now on, not only us - the participants in this [seminar] - but the Sudanese who organised the state of the Sudan, and that the leaders recognised that we have problems, then let us try to rearrange our priorities in the Sudan. If we can do that I think we can be able to reach peace easily because the priorities will be set and they will all make it possible with the war waging sides to come together. There is no point of fighting since we have set these priorities and since they will lead us to a united, peaceful Sudan whereby we can get into the problems of our economy and other issues.
One thing that was mentioned was about the crisis in leadership. It is true, we have not got rid of that up to this moment yet. While I was in the country and before I moved to become the leader of opposition in the Sudanese Parliament, we were arguing out about the war in the Sudan, and, of course, the war is concentrated in the southern part of the country. It could have been in the north but this time it started in the southern Sudan, because they had been the underdogs. I remember the war came to Kurmuk and the whole country was concerned. What does that mean? If we ask ourselves, honestly, the Sudanese here - never mind about our friends - why was the whole Sudan concerned? There was a total division of people, and division of countries. One was considered as a province where war was being waged, but war was now coming into the "mainland," or the part of the country that authority is based on. The Prime Minister did tell me before the war came to Kurmuk that "the war has not reached our boundaries." I asked: "Mr. Prime Minister, are you now talking as the Prime Minister of Sudan? What are your boundaries? Tell me. Because the fall of Kapoeta, the fall of Jeko.... and all these things, and yet you tell us that the war has not reached our boundaries, except only when the war reached Kurmuk, then it reached the boundaries of the Sudan." This is what I feel. There is something wrong somewhere else in the Sudanese politics. These are issues that we must address and be thinking about them, before we can take things seriously and believe that word. We are Sudanese who are united, we talk with one another, sit together. But are we serious, am I serious? Are we Sudanese together, and equal citizens together? Do we trust each other? These are some of the issues. When I talk to brother Ali el Haj, what does el Haj think of me under his Islamic constitution in the country? What does he think? Does he think that this James is from the Northern Sudan I'll look after him. Is he interested at all? And that I am more equal than him. These are some of the issues that we really would like to address ourselves to if we want to have peace. You cannot start peace without getting to the root causes of the problem. So I feel let us first get confidence in ourselves. Let us get this into the minds of our rulers, who constantly have refused peace. Yes! Right because the moment peace comes, their own authority is undermined. And when you undermine my authority, then, why should I go for peace at this moment? That is the problem in the Sudan today. Thank you.
