Barnes in Common

the magazine of Churches Together in Barnes
March/April 2008

Home
Current issue
Previous issues
Noticeboard
Discussion board
About CTiB

A visit to the Sudan

On the FIRST SUNDAY of the year, 6 January, our MP Susan Kramer came to the Methodist Church to talk about and answer questions on her all-party visit to the Sudan and Darfur in September 2007.

Introduced and questioned by Roger Hutchings, Susan explained that she was not an expert on the Sudan.

Susan: We went to look at things as they are today. Africa is a complicated continent: in the Sudan the situation is particularly complex - it's a mixture of Arab and African and many different tribes. Sudan is an artificial construction - it's in four pieces.

In Northern Sudan where Khartoum is, you are conscious of being in the Middle East - it's desert-like and dusty. It's very Islamic, not that different from Saudi Arabia.

Southern Sudan is Christian: the Nile links the two, but it's impossible to travel between the two because of vast swamplands - the size of some of the Great Lakes in the US. Southern Sudan is very African and tropical. Christianity means that the culture and the environment are completely different from the North.

Western Sudan is more Middle Eastern, similar to Northern Sudan. We know very little about Eastern Sudan, but it is primarily Islamic, with African traditions mixed in.

The British decision to link the four regions as a single country was probably taken without a lot of thought or consideration. At that time Khartoum was the administrative capital, so the focus was on Khartoum. Northern Sudan is not good agricultural country, there are no minerals, no oil: it has not developed industrially. The wealth is in Southern Sudan: it's very fertile, it has oil, uranium and gold. But the intellectual elite are in Khartoum. Older political leaders in Khartoum are very attached to the British era - they are well versed in the political democracy of the west and east. These people were seen as the leaders of the future.

Roger: How far has religion influenced the conflict?

Susan: Religion is a very significant issue in the north/south conflict. Over time other conflicts have been exacerbated by political passion. Particularly in Khartoum, political groups have tried to ignite Islamic sensibility. A comprehensive peace agreement was signed in 2005. Part of the reason for the long civil war was an attempt to impose Sharia Law on a Christian community so even after the peace agreement of 2005 there is ongoing tension.

Roger: Our concern has been more towards the South than to Darfur.
Susan: It was agreed that the South would set up a federal structure and be given autonomy to run itself. In Khartoum the government was restructured: seats were given to people in the South and North. It became a sort of federal government for the whole country. A key part was that the South would be able to cede from Sudan in 2011 - hoping that trust would have built up and problems would have disappeared. Other key issues were that boundaries had to be agreed - a boundary commission was set up to sort out the dispute in the oil field areas. Where is the border?

Roger: What about the army?

Susan: There are many northern soldiers in the South. It was agreed that by 9 July 2007 all northern soldiers would have left the South. Southern soldiers would have gone home and they would have integrated into a joint force. But northern soldiers are still in the South, although the date was extended to 9 January 2008.

As to oil revenues: the south is a major oil-producing area and it was agreed that the revenues be split 50/50. A commission is to be set up to oversee the accounting. Huge dispute over how transparent the revenue accounting is. Concession to manage the oil sold to the Chinese. How is the oil to be extracted? What is its value? Much of the revenue is in refining the oil. How do you calculate 50%? We were told that the Chinese price the oil at $40 per barrel: actual price is around $100 per barrel.

Roger: Where does Darfur fit in to all this?

Susan: Darfur cannot be resolved unless you deal with the North/South problem. The South is clinging to the notion of a referendum in 2011. But you have to have a parliament in 2009 to pass the referendum law to enable the referendum to take place. Constituencies have to be identified and you need a census of voters. How do you get a census when people are in displacement camps? How do you allocate people to constituencies? How do you carry out a safe election? Therefore the conflict is valuable to the government in the North. If the Darfur problem can't be resolved you don't get the 2009 parliament. If you don't get the 2009 parliament you don't get the referendum in 2011.

The growing spread of desert has pushed farmers and nomads into smaller areas to find water. That has had a real impact. Large areas of Darfur are now non-productive. Traditionally, nomadic tribes have been allowed to cross lands and use the water holes but now there is a sustainability crisis.
There have been 25 years of civil war, following which the South now has a National Unity Government; they have complete control of their own community; they're getting 50% of the oil. The North would like a piece of the action. Therefore the North waved the gun and ended up at the negotiating table to get a piece of pie.

Even religious aspects get very complicated - alliances have been created across boundaries. The people in Darfur want more power and they want some of the oil revenues.

Roger: Where does the international community step in? Clearly China is significant. What did the delegation achieve?

Susan: Much of Africa has been the political football of the international community, which is constantly playing games in this area. There was definitely a feeling in Khartoum that the US is interested in the Sudan only because of oil. China sets no rules: it's a business deal. The Sudanese see the West as a problem. Chad, Libya, Eastern Sudan (Ethiopia and Somalia), Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army are playing games in Darfur. Many of these boundaries are artificial. The international community is not looking at the lives of the ordinary people. The local parliamentarians do not talk to the people. Nobody had ever seen politicians before! It is essential that the international community focuses on the North/South agreement - without that everything else falls apart. And it's not only Darfur.

One of the messages we came back with was that people are concerned that only guns talk. In the last two to three years everything has splintered. There are endless small rebel military groups who want to be at the table, to be part of the conversation in a meaningful way.

Several questions followed:

• Are the charities working together?
• Can the International Community help to impose order between North and South?
• Should we be talking to the Chinese to get them to use their influence?
• Is the British Government doing enough?
• Why is Egypt so disinterested?

Susan Kramer was warmly applauded. We stood in awe at her grasp of the situation.

Anyone is welcome to these FIRST SUNDAY talks - they start at 11.45, following the morning service and a cup of coffee. And you are welcome to stay for lunch.

Back to the top