Evidence of meeting #28 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was darfur.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Sudan Task Force, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
October 19th, 2010 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Thanks.
Thank you for coming today.
Every year, I think, this has been an issue in the foreign affairs committee: a motion comes up, or a study, or a hope for travel; different things have caused us to take a look at this.
There's a lot of optimism in Juba. There's a lot of optimism in the south. There is all this great expectancy. But there's also remarkable.... Last year was the worst drought they'd ever seen. The harvest was one of the poorest ever.
I guess my question is on what both Mr. Rae and Mr. Dewar asked. First of all, there is the capacity of governance. This, to me, has to be.... I think the referendum, even though it's behind, is going to go. The north will probably do everything to disrupt it. They're going to question the validity of it. They're going to question the people who are taking part in the referendum. Right now they're probably denying that there's much chance that they're going to leave. I mean, they think they have it so good, I suppose. I don't know what the north is thinking, but they'll disrupt the process as it gets closer.
In the south--I don't know if it was in what you read or in another briefing--there is 85% illiteracy. In your talk, Ms. Stirk, you said that southern Sudan is already highly autonomous and that if the people of south Sudan choose independence, very few additional powers will flow to Juba. Could you enlarge on that statement? We would expect that if they choose to separate, we would hope that a lot of extra power and resources would flow into the south.
What would Canada's specific role be with governance, and what would Canada's continuing role, if any, be in the north? I mean governance to the south; how would we help a country with 85% illiteracy build capacity to govern another country that's going to bear the brunt of, not necessarily militarily attacks, but of attacks from many of the countries around, maybe even targeting those who are migrating back to the south? The people coming back and overflowing Juba will be a huge dynamic as well, and no extra powers will be given to Juba.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Eurasia and Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's a complex question, but let me try to give you some of the answers from our perspective. Perhaps I'll ask my colleagues to join in as well.
When I say that, post-referendum, if the south chooses to secede, there would not be significant new powers, what I'm really saying is there is a great deal of autonomy already. Already the government of south Sudan region are...or have responsibility for a whole range of governance issues. That's not to say that the governance is necessarily very well developed.
So these are areas where Canada is already providing support, in terms of helping them build capacity to deal with policing and with all of the tools of government.
In terms of post-referendum, my expectation is that the Government of Canada would continue to provide humanitarian assistance, capacity-building, and security assistance right across, both in Sudan as it is today and in any other new entity. We would not focus on one necessarily to the detriment of the other. We have programs right across the country now, and I would expect that those would continue.
But the honourable member is quite right; the level of capacity is quite limited and will require, I think, considerable resources from the international community. Indeed that's already happening, and I would expect that there will be more support required, particularly as they try to negotiate some of these issues like resource sharing, or debt, or citizenship. That may be perhaps a new area of focus post-referendum.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Is there a government in waiting? Do we have a group of people that we--
4:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Yes, well, I mean one where there's some hope of actually being able to succeed. We tried that, and that didn't work.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Eurasia and Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I think I'd better be careful how I answer this question.
Yes, sir, there is a government in south Sudan, and indeed they have representative offices around the world as well, already. They are quite active in the international community. In some respects, their collaboration with the Government of Sudan is quite well advanced. So it would not be a question of starting from the bottom up.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Very quick.
We're all optimistic with the referendum. You know, it's something that's...or it's one of these benchmarks, at least, where here we have a referendum--even though we may be behind and even though there are lots of issues around there.
But are you really optimistic about the success?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Eurasia and Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's a difficult question, Mr. Chairman.
I think we remain very hopeful that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is the best way forward, and that includes the referendum. I think we're also very realistic that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there will be enormous challenges that the international community will need to respond to.
So I wouldn't want to minimize our concerns about whatever the post-referendum scenario might be.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay.
I know that Mr. Pearson wanted to ask a quick question.
Did the Bloc have any more questions at all?
Let's just try to get them all in. I'll go with Mr. Pearson if there are a couple of quick ones, then we can wrap it up.
Mr. Pearson.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your leniency.
I have just a quick question on a particular situation. Mr. Proudfoot and I have already discussed this, going back a few months.
CIDA had funded an IOM project in the area close to southeast Darfur, in which they came out of Darfur. Many people were Dinka and Nuer and others who'd been up there during the wars. There are a few hundred thousand of them who ended up coming down into that region. The IOM had applied for funding. It received $3 million of CIDA funding to help so that the local communities would not be overrun. That was a very successful program. I was there and saw it myself, and I appreciate what the government did on that.
The IOM--because more are now coming in, and way more are expected to come in as a result of the referendum--applied for a second round of funding to expand those services and were turned down by CIDA just a short while ago.
Now, I'm not asking you to comment on that particular situation. I realize you might not know. I would like to know how you arrive at that decision as departments. Because it seems to me what the Americans have been saying, and what many have been saying, is that will be a key area in which this migration of humanity will come down. I would just like to know how you as a department, working with CIDA and your counterparts there, arrive at a decision like that. Do you meet with all the different departments to talk about it?
I'm just looking for some clarification. I can't figure out why it was turned down.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Eurasia and Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I don't think we would be in a position to comment on a decision that was taken by CIDA. I'd certainly be happy to pass that question on and see if we can get you a little more clarification.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Eurasia and Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
We certainly work very closely on a whole range of policy issues with CIDA, the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, and Public Safety. This is very much a whole-of-government approach to Sudan, so we have very good collaboration.
I don't think it would be proper for me to comment on a CIDA funding decision, but I'd certainly be happy to pass the question on.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
I'd like to come back to the issue of borders, not Sudan's external borders, but the internal ones. We know that they are still disputing them.
Have the parties given a clear idea of the border they hope to achieve? Has the central government, in particular, stated what principles its decision on the border between the two states will be based on? Are the criteria ethnic, economic, historical or something else? What kind of issues can we expect on that score?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Sudan Task Force, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The north-south border was established in 1956, but the border line has not been demarcated. Over the course of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, both parties have been working on this issue. To date, they have demarcated 80% of the border. The remaining 20% is the problem area where there are populations on both sides of the border. The work is in progress. We have encouraged the parties to complete this work before the referendum, because the part of the border that remains to be defined could clearly cause conflict. And yes, there are ethnic, historical and geographical criteria that enter into the border definition.
