Unlike the Woodrow Wilson meeting in Washington (1987) or the Ambo Workshop in Ethiopia (1988) the Bergen meeting on the management of crisis in the Sudan was a meeting of people with different and sometimes even opposing views rather than being a gathering of like-minded people. The idea was to bring these differing views together for the first time and let people listen to each other and debate the issues from their differing stand points. It was meant to determine how wide was the gap between these views and if it is possible to narrow it. From the beginning it was clear that it is necessary in the process of search for peace to bring everybody to such a meeting because it is only by listening to each other, rather than speaking past each other, that we can understand what each party has as its vision of the future. The work for creating a new Sudan cannot start before a comprehensive understanding of the major features of the present political scene exists.
Judging by the fact that all the major political views were represented including, for the first time, a meeting of members of the SPLA/SPLM, the NIF and the Sudan Communist Party, the meeting was a success. The civilized attitude and the polite manner in which the debate continued throughout the two days, and the frankness in presenting one's views and criticizing other parties' view without creating a confrontation speaks highly of the Sudanese politicians' ability to accommodate each other's position if given the necessary stable conditions in the country.
However, as it was pointed out in the meeting, this element of politeness and this civilized attitude can in itself be one of the major obstacles hindering the progress towards peace. It stops many people from saying what they may be thinking of other parties' plans or other political leaders' behaviour. In this sense many thing are not said and they tend, as rightly pointed out in the meeting, to be the sources for division. Yet once this point was clearly brought out in the early part of the meeting, a critical attitude was adopted and many views which were expressed, addressed themselves to unmasking the unknown in the relations between political parties since 1985. It was explained why so many bi-lateral or tri-lateral agreements were in existence and it came out that most of them were in fact attempts to frustrate the action of other parties or political forces. An element of lack of trust became apparent in the relation between parties in the country and between some of these parties and the SPLA/SPLM leadership. Some leading figures on the political scene have lost their credibility in relation to other leaders as well as the general public. It was pointed out clearly that in addition to this element there is also the element of lack of seriousness among major groups within the political leadership. This is an alarming situation and all those who were meeting expressed the view that this is the major obstacle in the face of the peace process.
All through the discussion it was confirmed that all parties would like to see the constitutional conference held as soon as possible. However, when most party members were asked to give their views on points such as the model for governing the country none was able to give an alternative which his party could say they have well studied and believe that it will work. This emphasises the fact that serious preparation must be made for the proposed constitutional conference. Peace is still a long distance away unless an independent group accommodating all points of views can take it upon itself to prepare such background material before the conference. This is why it was suggested that the meeting should in the end transform itself into a self-appointed forum and attempt to undertake such a task.
Reflecting on some of the detailed discussions of the Bergen meeting it was sad to note that some party members would insist to defend and refuse to debate certain ideological issues when at the same time they admit that their opponents might know these issues better than themselves. This was mainly apparent when the issue of the state and religion was raised. This dogmatic attitude seems to be an indicator of the complexity of the Sudanese political setting.
Finally, it is important to emphasize the fact that the meeting chose to come out with a press release carrying an appeal to the different parties on immediate issues such as using food as a weapon. It did not want to sign a statement or a declaration which in the end it will be difficult to honour. Those who were meeting did not want to teach the country's leadership what it should do. Rather, they wanted to understand why it is doing what it does, and, if there are possibilities to modify such action, how this can be approached. The people invited were coming in their personal capacity although it was made sure that the main political views dominant in the country were represented among these individuals. Any attempt to formalize a statement or a declaration would have been seen as taking sides and may alienate one or few of the attendants and hence hinder the chance of a follow up gathering to remove existing obstacles and accelerate the peace process.
