Divisions surface on second day of Fletcher conference on Sudan
BY BRIAN LOEB, The Tufts Daily
Medford, MA, March 15, 2004 — A rally to protest the invitation of one of the panelists defined the mood of the second day of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy’s Sudan conference.
The two-day event was titled “Sudan at the Crossroads: Transforming Generations of Civil War into Peace and Development” and featured a number of high-level U.S. and foreign officials involved in Sudan’s peace negotiations.
Friday morning’s second panel, “Promoting Democratic Governance,” included Dr. David Hoile, the director of the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council.
Prior to the panel, the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) and the student international relations activism group Why Me? led a rally in front of Barnum Hall to raise awareness of slavery and protest Hoile’s inclusion.
“We are here today to rally for peace, for truth in Sudan,” AASG Chief of External Operations Tommy Calvert, Jr. (LA ’02) said.
According to Calvert, Hoile is a paid lobbyist for the Sudanese government, and worked for the Nicaraguan contras, the Afghan mujahedeen, and the governments of Angola and Mozambique.
“Wherever they need to repress a people, David Hoile is there,” Calvert said.
Freshman Carolina Fowler questioned why the voices of Sudanese slaves were not included in either the conference or the ongoing peace talks between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in Kenya. “They have been excluded from the peace talks and they’re the ones who should have the most representation,” she said.
The government of Sudan and the SPLM are currently negotiating a comprehensive peace deal to settle the civil war between the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly non-Muslim South that has plagued Sudan on and off for the past 50 years.
Former Sudanese slave Abuk Bak also spoke at the rally, which approximately 30 students attended.
After the rally, most participants proceeded to the conference to hear Hoile’s panel.
During the panel, Hoile identified several challenges to democratic governance in a post-peace Sudan, including the ongoing violence in the Western region of Darfur, Islamist attempts to overthrow the government in the North, and the questionable willingness of the SPLM to tolerate other political parties in the South.
Another panelist, Dr. Peter Kok, a Southern Sudanese and the director of the Sudan-African Organization for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, spoke on issues that have not yet been decided at the current peace talks.
These include issues of democratic governance, criteria for monitoring the implementation of interim steps, security arrangements, and wealth-sharing provisions.
“The wealth-sharing agreement is not a fair agreement for people who want a united Sudan based on justice,” Kok said.
According to the peace negotiations, the South, which has the majority of Sudan’s oil, is scheduled to hold a referendum in six years to decide whether to remain united with the North.
Dr. David Chand, a professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a former Southern Sudanese diplomat, redefined the civil war as an “Arab colonial war,” and said the South has been neglected in wealth-sharing discussions.
He said if the Sudanese government does not live up to its promises, the South would vote to be independent. “If the North wants one Sudan, there must be a secular, democratic constitution,” he said.
Suzanne Jambo, the coordinator of the New Sudanese Indigenous NGOs Network, addressed the role of civil society in transforming a warring populace into “normal people.”
She said cultural taboos, extreme poverty, militarization, and physical and food security will be challenges for the reemergence of civil society. “Peace is owned by the people, and the people are the ones who are going to multiply it,” she said.
During the question and answer session, junior Jonathan Teper asked Hoile, “Are you a lobbyist for the government of Sudan?”
Hoile replied, “No, I’m not a lobbyist. I’m a consultant for several governments.”
After several questions by audience members about Hoile’s role on the panel, Chand addressed Hoile directly. “Whenever you speak, you speak the mouth of the government,” he said. “You are an employee of the Sudan government.”
Hoile did not respond to Chand, and when Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S. Khiddir Ahmed lined up to address the panel, possibly to address Hoile’s employment by the Sudanese government, he was turned away by the moderator due to time constraints.
In response to a question by a member of Why Me?, Jambo said “the conference really fell short by not inviting a slave” to sit on one of the panels.
“Conferences tend to be too theoretical,” she said, rather than addressing issues facing people on the ground.
The fierce debate surrounding Hoile and comments made during the conference’s final panel, “Promoting Strategic Coordination and Leadership,” were a marked difference from the relative civility of the previous day’s program.
In the closing minutes of the question and answer session of the day’s last panel, Ahmed said the largely Southern Sudanese audience should feel lucky to be in the United States. Irate audience members jumped to their feet, shouting, “Why do you think we’re here?” and “You threw us out of our homes.”
At that point, panel moderator and Fletcher Professor Diana Chigas ended the panel so the conference’s organizers could give their closing remarks.
The morning’s keynote speech, by Acting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Charles Snyder, drew the smallest amount of reaction of the day. Snyder addressed the United States’ role as a partner to the peace talks sponsored by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
“We wanted Sudan to become an island of stability as opposed to an island of instability,” he said.
Snyder said the Bush Administration was focused on Sudan before Sept. 11, 2001, and that U.S. involvement in the peace process was not motivated by the war on terrorism.
“We think the [Sudanese] South is more aggrieved,” Snyder said of the U.S. position in negotiations. He said the United States is fair in its dealings, but “we’ve never pretended we were neutral.”
Snyder said the State Department would request from Congress an amount of money in the hundreds of millions of dollars to help Sudan implement a peace deal.
He also said the United States would work to restructure Sudan’s massive international debt, seen by many as the primary stumbling block to reconstruction.
He also said the United States would probably establish a consulate in Juba to run humanitarian aid programs in the South.
According to Snyder, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the European Union, the other IGAD partners, and the Arab League are all equally willing to commit money to implement a peace deal. “The money is there,” he said.
Snyder closed his speech by saying “I just said publicly we’d do all these things — hold us to it.”