Examination of witnesses (205 - 219)
THURSDAY 16 JULY 1998
MR STEPHEN
BAKK and MR
BONA MALWAL
Chairman
205. Mr Bakk and Mr Malwal, thank you for coming
this morning. I am sorry that we are running behind time
but you will be aware of the reason: you were in the room
when the previous evidence was given. I understand that both
of you wish to make a statement. I urge you to make it as
brief as possible because we are short of time and we have
a number of questions to put to you.
(Mr Malwal) Mr Chairman, I know that you are keen
to get on to your questions which will help your work. One
filibuster in one day is enough. I shall not read my prepared
statement. I only ask that it be part of your record. I thank
the Committee for asking me and my colleague for this opportunity
to take part in your discussions. If there is anything that
we can do to clarify the situation and help your work we
would very much like to do so. I stop there and make this statement
available for your record.
Ann Clwyd
206. I should like to begin by asking a question that
I asked of the Government of Sudan. I refer to the statement
made by the Secretary of State for International Development:
ªThe current crisis in Sudan was made even worse because
the Government of Sudan would not allow humanitarian flights
to the region from the UN base in northern Kenya for fully two
months. The problem was one of access, not resources. We
asked both sides to agree a ceasefire so that food could
be moved in. The Government of Sudan was willing to discuss
this. The southern factions said no.¾ Is that right?
(Mr Malwal) That statement is not entirely correct. We
have already heard this morning that the SPLA has accepted
the ceasefire. Whether the existence of a ceasefire facilitates
relief to the areas of need will be tested. I believe that
if people wanted to go to the area of need, most of which
are under the control of the SPLA, the SPLA would facilitate
that. I do not agree that the lack of a ceasefire was an
impediment to the relief. I was rather astonished by some
of the records sent by the Committee in preparation for this
meeting, in particular the statement by the Secretary of
State about access being the only issue. I think that resources are
an issue. Even as we speak, in spite of the smaller numbers
accepted by all parties, insufficient food is going to these
people. It is not a question of access alone; it is a question
of resources. Resources are very much in short supply.
Mrs Kingham
207. We have heard that there were ample food resources
in Sudan in the run-up to the famine. We tend to look at
this case at the present time when it has reached extreme
proportions. But food resources were available in Sudan that
could have prevented this famine from happening if people
had had access to them. Perhaps that is the interpretation
of ªaccess¾ that we should be looking at. Do you
agree that food resources were available in the country and
that it is the conflict that has caused the famine?
(Mr Malwal) I agree and go further and say that the
famine was deliberately manipulated by the Government of
Sudan as a weapon of war. It is ironic that at the time the
international media were talking about starvation in southern
Sudan the President of the Sudan announced that the country
would donate one million tonnes of food to Niger, which is
not even a neighbour of Sudan. Obviously, if at least one
million tonnes of food could have been made available to
the starving people of southern Sudan it would have made a
great dent in that famine, if not halted it altogether. We
are talking of tens of thousands of tonnes and the Government
donate a million tonnes to an African country. That says
a lot about the attitude of the Government to their own people.
208. We are becoming slightly obsessed by the word
ªaccess¾. People are interpreting it to mean ªlogistics¾,
ie the movement of food within the area of conflict. Access
is a crucial issue. Is food manipulated for political ends?
Can people get access to food, and can that food prevent
famine? We have seen it in Ethiopia and in Ireland in the
previous century when grain was exported.
(Mr Malwal) I think that it is manipulated. There is
evidence, which unfortunately did not come before this Committee,
that the food that the OLS has sent to areas within the south
has been destroyed. In the past two months I have been to
southern Sudan four times. I have witnessed government forces
burning OLS food on runways to prevent it being given to
the people. Not only is it manipulated but the Government
destroy supplies that come from outside the country.
Ann Clwyd
209. An alternative point of view is that the SPLA uses
food as a weapon. Can both sides be saying that of each other?
(Mr Malwal) The only assumption made by Dr Al Haj
who was sitting in this place a short while ago_ or was it
the Ambassador_was that the SPLA gets 50 per cent of the
food. I do not think that is true. That the SPLA gained access
to the food for itself is debatable. But it is not debatable
that the SPLA would prevent food from going to the people
of southern Sudan. They are the people for whom the SPLA
is fighting; they are the source of its strength. That is where
the SPLA gets its political support. I do not think that
it makes much sense for the SPLA to turn on itself and prevent
food from getting to the people on whom it counts for support.
That cannot be said of the Sudan Government who are engaged
in a war of genocide. If you want to commit genocide it is
much easier to induce a famine so that if people die off
you do not have to use bullets and weapons against them.
210. There was a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal
in this country for additional funds for Sudan. The Secretary
of State said: ª. . . the agencies were wrong to make
an appeal because . . . it reduced the pressure on the SPLA
to create a ceasefire.¾ Do you accept that?
(Mr Malwal) No, I do not. It is one of the astonishing
statements coming from the Secretary of State that I have
read. I cannot see the logic of that statement. Up to this
minute, even accepting the £25 million which is quoted
as the sum being donated by the British Government, there
is still a very serious need for resources. I think that
the appeal was important. Whatever was raised by the appeal
is an addition to the resources to meet a need that is not yet
fulfilled.
Mr Robathan
211. Mr Malwal, we know that Mr Bakk represents
the SPLA in the UK. You are editor of the Sudan Democratic
Gazette. Where are you based?
(Mr Malwal) In London.
212. Are you a member of the SPLA?
(Mr Malwal) No, I am not.
213. But you were a Minister in a previous government?
(Mr Malwal) Yes.
214. Which government was that?
(Mr Malwal) Nimeri's government. I became a member
of the government after the 1972 agreement. It was the first
ever agreement between southern Sudan and northern Sudan.
215. You see yourself as an independent in exile?
(Mr Malwal) Yes.
216. You could not go back to Khartoum?
(Mr Malwal) I could not go back to Khartoum because
when the present regime seized power they saw in me an eponymous
opponent, which I do not understand. I was an editor who
published a personal newspaper called The Sudan Times at
that time. They went to my offices and home and ransacked
the whole place. It would be very foolhardy for me to engage
in situations like that.
Chairman
217. Where is your home in Sudan?
(Mr Malwal) I come from Bahr El Ghazal, the unfortunate
province that you are concerned with. I go there three or
four times a year because of the famine and because I want
to look at the situation there. In the past two months I
have been there four times.
Ms King
218. We have heard from various sources that atrocities
have taken place on both sides. What responsibility is accepted
by the SPLA for the security and survival of those living
in the area that you control?
(Mr Bakk) We have civil responsibility for southern
Sudan; it is run mainly by civilians and a department for
humanitarian affairs. These people are responsible for looking
after the civilian population in the areas that we control.
It is responsible for distributing food that is provided
by NGOs. The security we provide is for the people who are delivering
aid to the population. They also guard the airstrips from
attack by the Sudan Government.
Mr Robathan
219. Now that the SPLA has called a ceasefire and the
Government have responded why can you not proceed on the
basis of a referendum in the southern states as to what those
people wish?
(Mr Malwal) First, we cannot proceed on the basis of
a referendum until we agree the modalities of the referendum.
That is important. We believe in two things. If this is to
be a comprehensive peace it must be an all-Sudan peace. The
present regime, which has a hidden agenda in relation to
the referendum, does not want the democratic political parties
of Sudan which have been overthrown to be part of this. I
came into the government in 1972 as a result of an agreement
reached with the government at that time, which happened
to be a military one like this one. Ten years later they
changed their mind. The people who were left in the cold
included the present Government. It was said that there was
an agreement between the government of the day and the south
and it could not be recognised. In order for northern Sudan
to reach its own agreement the agreement with the South was abrogated.
We are asking for a comprehensive peace. Let there be a comprehensive
Sudanese discussion. We want whatever agreement is reached
and any referendum to be internationally monitored. The Government
are not forthcoming on that. Until we agree on the political
modalities it is not easy to talk of an agreement in the
way that Dr Al Haj spoke to you this morning.
|
