Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 1998
Rt Hon Clare Short, Mrs Barbara Kelly, and Mr Graham
Stegmann.
Chairman
1. Can I welcome you, Secretary of State, once more
to our Committee and thank you very much indeed for taking the
time to answer our questions on this very important issue of Sudan
and the very sad condition that many people in that country are
to be found starving. Two of our Committee have visited Sudan,
Mrs Ann Clwyd and Ms Oona King, so two of our Committee have first-hand
knowledge of the situation. I understand that you would like to
make a brief opening statement. I wondered during that opening
statement whether you could tell the Committee what the current
situation is there. I think we are all going to have to be very
disciplined because I know you only have an hour and we are already
seven minutes past the hour. I have asked my Committee to make
the questions very short and sharp not intending to be rude but
simply to get through the business and I wonder whether you and
your friends would also do so. Perhaps you would like to introduce
your team and then give us a short statement.
(Clare Short) Thank you. On my right
is Barbara Kelly who I think met with the Committee last week.
2. Yes, it was very helpful.
(Clare Short) She has responsibility
for the Greater Horn and Angola or something strange. I do not
really know the explanation for that! On my left is Graham Stegmann
whom you have also met before who is here because Mukesh Kapila
(who would otherwise have come) is in New York because we have
tried to do work on the Sierra Leone. He is Head of Aid Policy
and Resources. I would like to update the Committee on some of
the progress that has been made since our memorandum was submitted
to you. Before coming to the specifics I would like to make a
couple of points clear. Although there has been some improvement
in the delivery of food over the last few weeks we still face
a terrible terrible crisis in Sudan and the problem remains one
of access, getting the food into the people who need it. That
is our nightmare. At present 90 per cent of the costs of relief
are going to the costs of air transport. It is a terrible reality
and it is slow and difficult and therefore it cannot be got to
where people are and they are in a very frail condition, they
come long distances and all sorts of things that make it a very
unsatisfactory operation. What we need most urgently, and this
is the most important thing that can be done for the people of
Sudan, is to halt the fighting for a time to get large supplies
in and then we will be able to bring in food by road or by train
into the area so that it can be delivered to the people in need.
After that what Sudan needs if we are to avoid humanitarian crisis
after humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis is a serious
commitment to peace. The war has been going on for 30 years. The
poverty of the people, the numbers of displaced people, the state
of the economy, the suffering has gone on and on and on will continue
and the world is in such a state that it has almost given up on
peace in Sudan which is a desperate situation. It means each time
there is a crisis the humanitarians come in, there is no real
peace effort—and of course humanitarian aid must be delivered
when people are hungry—and it is almost propping up the
continuing war rather than coming alongside in an effort to bring
peace and an end to the suffering of the people. I hope the work
of the Select Committee can focus on those two things because
we must mobilise more international political energy to try and
get peace in Sudan. First a halt to the fighting to really seriously
get in enough food to end the crisis but then a more serious international
effort to look at ways of building peace because the international
mood seems to have given up. As I have said, it is not easy to
create energy and optimism about building peace but we must try
and change the atmosphere on that. On some of the specifics. In
paragraph 30 of the memorandum we refer to the meeting of the
Inter-Government Authority on Development (IGAD) Partners Forum
held on 17-18 June in The Hague. Derek Fatchett attended representing
us at the meeting and we put a lot of energy into trying to mobilise
support for some kind of brief respite in the fighting so we could
get the mass delivery of food. That was the target that we all
went for. The meeting went relatively well given how badly we
have done up to now in getting any interest in this kind of proposition.
It was hosted by Jan Pronk, the Netherlands Development Minister.
He was very pleased that five Ministers had attended which was
an increase in political commitment on previous meetings where
there has been little ministerial attendance. There was us, the
Netherlands obviously, the Irish, the Italians and the Norwegians.
We have also tried during our Presidency of the European Union
to address the question of the political situation in the Sudan
and the need for political progress by taking the issue to the
Security Council. It was discussed at the Development Council
of the European Union which I chaired, at the General Affairs
Council, which is the monthly meeting of Foreign Ministers last
month, and it will be discussed again on Monday at the General
Affairs Council which will also take into account the Lom trade
mandate which we have discussed. The IGAD Partners Forum endorsed
the UK initiative that a concerted effort should be made to broker
an agreement to establish what has been called corridors of tranquillity.
The SPLA does not want to use the word "ceasefire" so
we are using the phrase "corridor of tranquillity" as
a means of getting enough space to get in big supplies of food,
a temporary truce for that purpose. The breakthrough was that
the SPLA expressed an interest in being willing to discuss that
which up to now they have not been willing although the government
of Sudan have said since early May that they would be willing
to discuss some kind of temporary ceasefire and you will know
the arguments about the potential benefits to either party on
that. My own view is that it is the duty of anyone who claims
to have any concern for the people of Sudan there has got to be
some co-operation otherwise thousands will die, if not greater
numbers, because of the difficulties of doing it by air. That
is a breakthrough. It is not very big but nonetheless it is movement
where we have had none. We are following it up urgently. There
will be discussions with the World Food Programme tomorrow because
of course we have got to decide the exact corridors, what the
routes will be, trains or lorries, where, who will monitor, making
sure no one is taking advantage. All this has got to be put in
place to get final agreement to move in large quantities of food.
It was also agreed that the Partners Forum would send a delegation
to visit Khartoum and Nairobi and Derek Fatchett will be one of
those ministers and probably a number of those who attended. Again
that is giving a higher level political commitment to get political
progress. I have met also with the leading NGOs in Britain to
discuss the situation. They and I agreed that whatever differences
we might have about whether or not it was desirable to have a
DEC appeal this is the important agenda that we are in complete
agreement we must all focus on. This is what has to be achieved
so we all need to put our energy into a temporary truce or a corridor
of tranquillity then we can move in vast quantities of food and
lots of children who will otherwise die will not die if we can
achieve this. So it is of enormous importance. On the relief operation
paragraphs 34 and 36 of the memorandum refer to the need for larger
food rations for the most vulnerable and the growing need in others
areas of the Sudan. I am happy to say, and others have been in
touch with the World Food Programme, that they have reviewed their
basic food distribution strategy. It is now in better shape. They
will deliver at different levels the basic ration according to
the food security of target groups. Some 30 per cent of the 1.2
million people affected will now receive 75 to 100 per cent of
the basic ration. You know that previously because of the problems
of access children were being fed when they reached 60 per cent
of their body weight so they were already terribly ill before
they got any assistance because other members of their family
were not getting anything, their supplementary feeding was not
getting to them and the whole intervention were inadequate. Now
it has been scaled up and accepted that the targets were too low
and that more sites should be identified. The World Food Programme
has identified 25 locations throughout Southern Sudan and the
transitional zone where there are concentrations of acute need.
These will receive food supplies and stabilisation packages, including
seeds and tools and emergency medical supplies, supplementary
feeding and water supplies. The aim is to reduce malnutrition
and help populations re-build their coping mechanisms. This will
need additional transport. If we can secure safe corridors the
World Food Programme believes more supplies could be trucked from
Northern Uganda, with a significant saving in costs and much more
supplies got in very quickly. Meanwhile, the air operation is
being further expanded, subject to the government of Sudan's approval,
to seven C - 130s, six Buffalos, including three for UNICEF, and
three Ilyushins. Finally, I met with the NGOs, Save the Children
Fund and Oxfam, Action Aid, Christian Aid and CAFOD yesterday.
We agreed that the disagreements we may have had over the appeal
got exaggerated out of all proportion and the important issue
is agreement to halt the fighting, to get in more food and create
more will to seek political settlement in Sudan and we agreed
to work closely together on that. In paragraph 31 of our memorandum
the agencies pointed out that the DEC funds will be shared in
proportion to the size of the agencies' overseas operation funded
from UK sources. I think we said their size in the UK and it is
their size overseas.
3. So it is the size of their operation in the United
Kingdom.
(Clare Short) And the agencies not working
with Sudan have withdrawn from the appeal. The appeal is for the
whole of Sudan, not just for Bahr El Ghazal, the region on which
the media attention has been focused and where the famine is most
severe. Those are the points I wanted to add, Chairman.
4. When you say the whole of Sudan, is it assessed
that we have got starvation in the north as well as the south
and in different parts of the north?
(Clare Short) I understand there is
need all over. There are 25 sites of acute need. There has been
continuing humanitarian assistance all over the country. There
are so many displaced people.
(Mrs Kelly) There are a lot of displaced
people. There are around about 800,000 displaced people from the
south, around Khartoum and there are a number of areas in the
north of Sudan which are always food deficit areas, Darfour and
Kordofan being the two major ones. They are areas where traditionally
you would look for problems and where most years you would find
difficulties.
5. So the international commitment is not to one
side or the other, it is for the whole of the Sudan so that there
is not any differentiation between the sides in the civil context.
(Clare Short) That has been a fundamentally
important part of the agreement for Operation Lifeline Sudan that
was negotiated, ie, that it would be by need, not for one side
or the other and you need the collaboration from both sides to
get resources through to people.
Ann Clwyd
6. Secretary of State, since the end of April, through
May and the early part of June you have been saying that the problem
is not lack of food supplies or money but of access. Could you
define access for us, please?
(Clare Short) It means exactly what
it says, but people seem to have trouble understanding this. If
you go to Sudan and there is not enough food, and people do not
have enough food, it is reasonable for people to think there is
not enough money and if only we got some more money we could buy
some more food. The bottleneck is getting the food in to the hungry
people. We have got the money. There is money coming from the
EU; other governments will provide money. The World Food Programme
says they have got enough money through to July, but initially
the problem was caused by the government of Sudan not allowing
any flights and therefore the trouble was accumulating and no
resources were getting in. After the first real news of the crisis
the government of Sudan relaxed its position, more flights got
in and more food got in, but it was inadequate in quantity and
the World Food Programme's assessment of need was too low. That
remains the situation. Funds raised here do not get food in to
people in Sudan unless you can get something onto a plane or onto
a lorry or onto a train and get it in there and get it to the
people who need it. That is where the bottleneck is.
7. In their "Southern Sudan Update", 9
June, the World Food Programme and the Famine Early Warning System
put out a statement saying: "It is apparent that immediate
food needs are still not being adequately met. The World Food
Programme has faced considerable logistical constraints primarily
due to a lack of aircraft and as a result only delivered 3,860
tonnes of food against a target of 6,500 tonnes of food in May."
They estimate an additional $47 million is required to fund the
necessary food and related transportation. Would you accept that
there is a shortage of planes?
(Clare Short) No, I do not accept that.
I would like Barbara to comment on the specifics of that. I have
made it clear and others have made it clear that we will find
the money that is necessary to provide the food and we have all
got to work politically to get more access. In the very early
part of the crisis I think the international concern, including
a PNQ here, led to a change in the attitude of the government
of Sudan and the concern led to an improvement in access, but
it is still not big enough. Could I ask Barbara Kelly to comment
on the specifics of the quote?
8. Just before she does that, can I ask if you still
stand by your statement, "the problem is not lack of food
supplies or money but of access"?
(Clare Short) Absolutely. That is the
problem. Anyone who wants to help Sudan should accept what everyone
who is engaged in getting food into the country knows and that
is that we have got serious access problems.
9. Can I again put to you that David Fletcher, the
WFP Coordinator for the Southern sector
(Clare Short) Chair, in answer to the
specifics of the quote, I have someone here who is a complete
expert.
Mr Grant
10. We are asking you. You are the Secretary of State.
(Clare Short) It is a quote about the
specifics, about amounts of money and tonnage. If you want an
answer, Barbara could give a detailed answer.
Ann Clwyd
11. Let me put this to you before she gives that
answer. David Fletcher, who is the WFP Coordinator, said on 11
June in this press release from the World Food Programme: "The
WFP lacks sufficient funds and food for the Sudan. WFP is greatly
under-funded for its Sudan operation. For the period April 1998
to March 1999 WFP's overall shortfall is approximately $117 million."
There is obviously a difference of opinion here.
(Clare Short) The World Food Programme,
before we and others persuaded them to reassess what they were
asking for, were saying less was needed than was needed. We have
been trying to persuade them to up the estimate of the amount
needed and we have now got this figure of the bigger famine and
the 1.2 million affected people. Some weeks ago the World Food
Programme was saying they had enough access and enough resources
and I personally have been involved in phoning the headquarters
to ask for a reassessment. There have been different things said
on different occasions by representatives of these organisations.
(Mrs Kelly) Thank you, Chairman. The
situation has moved throughout May in terms of knowledge of numbers
who need assistance and amounts of food and planes to get the
food to the people who need assistance. I think the WFP statements
on 11 June and indeed on 9 June reflected the fact that the WFP
understand, as we do, that this is not a situation that will be
finished this month or next month. This is a situation that will
run until at least the end of October through the hunger months.
It may run beyond then depending on how large the harvest will
be, whether wild foods have come back, whether there is milk from
cattle coming out of the swamps. The WFP are looking at the total
amount of money they need for their emergencies. They had on 11
June, as I understand from them in Rome, enough logistics they
claim and enough food to run the operation until the end of July.
They now have a need for another 30,000 tonnes of food to run
the operation through to the end of September, possibly the middle
of October. They have now got that amount of food in pledges from
the EU and ourselves. I think it is the difference between an
organisation looking at the total package of their programme and
the total time-frame and making a statement about needing resources
for that and looking at today and looking at the immediate future
and working out what the resources are they have for that. That
is how I understood the situation on 11 June. I have spoken to
WFP this morning. They are busy chartering the extra aircraft
the Secretary of State has mentioned. They believe they have enough
capacity. As new areas open up undoubtedly they will find more
people. That has been the pattern all the way through May. When
you get access you find you have got a bigger problem. We will
see the figure of 9,500 tonnes grow, I am sure, and we will see
the need for more transport grow. It is a moving situation and
that is basically what we are doing, keeping an eye on it and
making sure we respond when the access is available.
12. Mrs Kelly, has there ever been an instance where
there has been spare transport capacity but no food supplies?
(Mrs Kelly) In fairness I would have
to ask the people in Nairobi for an assessment of that. I can
ask WFP tomorrow. I am going to talk to them and I will be happy
to put that to WFP and give the Committee the information. The
issue of planes is also tied up with the government of Sudan's
agreement to fly and they have had planes and have often not had
agreement to fly. It is a complicated logistical issue, as I am
sure you understand, and that is the situation we still face with
the increased chartering going on now. The government of Sudan's
agreement is still being requested. The request is lodged. So
there are a number of things that could break the chain and I
am sure throughout the period it has been broken for various reasons.
If you would like me to get the detailed information from WFP
I know they would be delighted to let the Committee have it1.
Chairman: I think the Committee would be grateful.
Ann Clwyd
13. Can I put it to you, Secretary of State—because
I just got back from there and met the UN people on the ground
at Nairobi and at a base camp—that they say that they are
50 per cent under-funded for the job they have to do for the overall
operation. They say that they are short of planes, Hercules, and
indeed they were asking if Britain could help in some way. They
said this week just before I left that they had done their budgets
and they had had to cut the number of flights in the coming week.
Clearly something is wrong somewhere. Somebody is short of money
otherwise they would not be saying that. How does that square
with the information you have?
(Clare Short) The problem is of course
that when you go into a country in the middle of a crisis and
talk to people who are struggling on the ground they do not necessarily
have access to all the information. I understand you have alleged
flights have been cancelled and I think Barbara will check with
the World Food Programme. That is simply not true. You can understand
people are desperate because they have not got enough food to
give to hungry people and they say: "Give us more. We need
more." From where they are sitting they do not see the problem
of getting access. That is how you get these differing voices.
If people want to help the people of Sudan we have got to get
more access.
Chairman: Access by air?
Ann Clwyd
14. But the UN say that they have got 90 per cent
access. They have got more access than they have ever had before.
(Clare Short) As you know, the initial
problem was no access and no agreement from the government of
Sudan. Then after the first pictures of the crisis we got more
access. We had at that stage an underestimate by the World Food
Programme of need and we are getting children being fed at too
low a level in the way I have described. Then we got increased
access by air but it is not still not enough in the way I described
in my initial remarks and what we really need is to get behind
the corridors of tranquillity and get massive access and to get
very big quantities in. In the meantime we will increase the flights
whatever the cost to get in the food we can get in.
Mr Canavan
15. Is it not too simplistic to say the problem is
one of access rather than money? Are there not certain circumstances
when money can in fact buy access by buying or chartering planes
or trucks or fuel or whatever? I realise there are political and
military difficulties in getting permission from the government
and possibly difficulties posed by the non-governmental forces
who are in charge of particular territories, but surely money
in certain circumstances is essential in order to improve access?
(Clare Short) The point about this—and
I do hope the Committee will focus on how we can bring help to
the people of Sudan—is from my original remarks (I said
this in the first PQ we had in this Parliament) is that we and
other governments will find the money. My judgement was the weight
and power of public opinion was bringing pressure to bear on the
government of Sudan initially to get us more flights in but then
to get co-operation from the SPLA to enable some kind of cessation
of fighting to get through to people. If we could focus the whole
weight of public concern on that we were likely to get more access.
I was saying we and other governments and the European Union will
guarantee the money, the food, the money to pay for the flights.
The reason I said it, and I do think people should not get obsessed
with it, was so that we could maximise the pressure to get a truce
to get the food in. That is still the most important question.
Mr Grant
16. I wonder if the Secretary of State would mind
answering this question and not the officers. I have here a memorandum
which says that in January of 1998 the government of Sudan suspended
relief flights. It also says that on 3 February of this year the
ban was imposed. On 23 February this year limited access was granted.
On 1 April of this year the flight ban was lifted. On 23 April
this year relief operations were augmented by additional C130
aircraft and on 14 May the relief operation was augmented by four
additional aircraft. On 3 June the Secretary of State says access
is a problem. Now they cannot both be right. Was the flight ban
lifted by the government of Sudan on 1 April, as this brief says,
or was it not?
(Clare Short) I cannot tell you whether
each of the dates and times you read out are accurate. I am afraid
I do not deal in that level of detail because I have to deal with
policy right through the Department and I trust my officials and
the information they bring to me. I can tell you for absolute
certain the problem is access. It is so important that people
who want to get food to people who are starving as we speak concentrate
their energy and influence on where the solution lies.
17. The question I am asking you, Secretary of State,
is when you made the speech on 3 June and then in the Dimbleby
interview, were you aware that the government of Sudan had lifted
the flight ban on 1 April?
(Clare Short) I do not know about the
1 April date. I have not got the dates in my head. When we had
the first PQ in the House (because I remember by each of the incidents
where I attended to all the detail and spoke) that at that stage
the government of Sudan was blocking access. Following that first
flurry of pictures and concern the government of Sudan gave more
access. That was great. That was public opinion achieving what
was wanted. I am sure that Barbara could give you specific dates.
I do not have them in my head but I know that was the pattern
of change.
(Mrs Kelly) April 1st is correct. But
each additional flight demands agreement, that is the problem.
They lift each time. So we have a little bit more access when
they allow another C-130 to fly. It is not that they lift and
say: "You can fly wherever you want to reach as many people
as you want in any location." Each location has to be agreed
individually and each flight pattern and each flight schedule
has to be agreed individually with the government of Sudan. It
is an incremental exercise.
18. Chairman, it says here that on 23 April there
were aircraft. The effort was augmented by C - 130 aircraft and
on 14 May the relief operation was augmented by four additional
aircraft. Presumably the government of Sudan gave the all clear
for these things to be done or else we would not have it in our
brief.
(Clare Short) Step by step. We are just
applying for more aircraft, as I have just read out to you, and
we hope that they will approve them.
19. Can I ask you whether all these extra aircraft
that have been agreed when the flight ban was lifted on 1st April
were used to the full by the relief forces?
(Clare Short) I absolutely assume they
were in that the problem was not food, the problem was access.
Barbara has said she will check and made the point about the chain
at various points. There might have been planes sitting on the
ground not allowed to fly that therefore were empty.
| 
