Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 17th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I would like to take up exactly where both comments left off and that is: what role can you foresee for Canada, which has been largely involved in international development assistance and the like? The real issues, as you've pointed out, are issues of corruption and accountability, of impunity, and of tribal dominance. I'm wondering what role might we be able as parliamentarians to assist with in respect to the governance process, the impunity issues, and the tribal dominance.

[Sophia Gai]

Let me come in.

First of all, the Canadian government has helped, like what Honourable Odwar has just said. I would just add to that you have actually helped us a lot. The role that you can play is through your embassy in Juba. That embassy does not take into account that the other people who are not part of the government are not reached. I want the Canadian government to have a type of ambassador, an ambassador who can be seated where the peace talks are so that you have more views from the other people who are non-government, who are not within the government. With that it will also help you to have a clear vision of all these activities that we are talking about in regard to reforms so that you have different views, including the views of Dr. Riek, where you can meet him personally and he talks to you more.

I want the committee to also do a special visit. The UNMISS camps, the support that you may have been giving the UN in terms of humanitarian assistance, is good but if the committee has the opportunity to travel to Juba, they should go visit the situation, and see what the situation is really like. Then you see the witnesses who are there. If you do not travel to Bentiu or the Upper Nile...but people in Juba, you can access them and see them.

I would also encourage you to do that because the situation in Juba is very pathetic. For one year now the Nuer community children have not gone to school. But if Canada can really stretch its hands to also open ... an opportunity so that at least those who are really suffering.... Even children who are there, some of them have lost their parents. It's unfortunate that some of those children now don't have a future. Many of them are just ending up on the streets of Juba and some of them are cleaning shoes for people because they don't have parents and they don't have food to eat. It's certainly an opportunity again to be open so that at least they are given another opportunity to see life in a different way. They are all traumatized. They have lost their parents. Nobody is taking care of them. Many of those children, you see them in Juba town, in UNMISS camps in the thousands. If there's any settlement opportunity, that would be good. It's not only in Juba, you can also visit the Ethiopian border where the refugees are. You can also visit Uganda where the refugees are so that you have an extensive view of how the war has affected the South Sudanese families, individuals, or other communities.

I want to also suggest that maybe you can support women's participation because you see, for us women, we feel like when war is happening we are not told, and that's why thousands of them died in the massacre because they were not informed. If they knew there would be something like that, some of them would have run away, you see, or protected themselves in a different way, so that at least they would still be alive.

With that we come to the issue of federalism. Canada is one example that is having a government system and that is an area you can actually help us understand, how the federal system works, because that is the call of our people. We want to use it so that people don't concentrate, don't come and immigrate in one area, and a situation like what has happened in Juba repeats itself. But your system will be in South Sudan. You can go, live in your village and yet have access to resources and then you have a livelihood.

These are some of the things that I can recommend, and that you have a visit also to the chairman of the SPLM-in-Opposition to hear more and get more insight. But the most important thing is that you have a special envoy who will sit where the peace talks are taking place, so that you have an extensive view, views that are talked about by different negotiators.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Cotler.

We're right at five minutes, the amount of time we have for each person. I apologize for that.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's a brief question, maybe somebody else might even want to take it on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes, the problem is, does it invite a brief answer?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I hope so. Because it's something that we have not talked about. What is the role of the al-Bashir Sudanese government in all of this? We know about their attacks on the Nuba mount people, etc. I'm just wondering what role they play in all this?

[Henry Odwar]

Just before I come to that, let me also add to what Sophia has just given. What she talked about is short-term solutions, but for South Sudan to really come to the fold of what is internationally accepted, I think possibly Canada, through the UN and other sources, should pressure the AU to release Obasanjo's report, because that will be the basis of how people will reconcile and move on.

Second, an arms embargo is an incentive for people to talk peace because currently, as long as they receive bullets and bombs, they will want to win. That will just perpetuate the problem. I think using the UN and other institutions, especially the UN, to pressure, to have an arms embargo on both sides will help us come together. Because if people are fighting and then you give them sticks, they think they can get more sticks in order to win.

What is the role of Bashir? I think Bashir is somebody who is probably smiling in an “I told you” kind of way. Currently Bashir is countering what Museveni is doing. Museveni is supporting the government and al-Bashir is on the side of the rebels. If this situation is not resolved, it is going to draw more regional powers into the conflict. Then you are looking at Somalia or I don't know, worse.

If aliens from planet X were to come and see the situation in South Sudan, they would say, “Look at these humans.” They are not going to say “Look at these Sudanese” or Africans or anything. I think Canada has a moral obligation, one way or another, with what Sophia has said and what I've said, to help out together with other nations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Hillyer, please.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sophia, you wanted to emphasize the fact that this was not a tribal war. I would just like you to comment on that. First, why is it so important to distinguish that fact, that it is not a tribal war? Second, why do others try to portray it as such, if it's not a tribal war?

[Sophia Gai]

I did emphasize that this is not a tribal war because other tribes here were also affected. As I mentioned to you earlier, the sequence started with the Dinka themselves. The Dinka Ngok were targeted, the Murle were targeted, the Shilluk were targeted, the Fartit were targeted, and now the Nuer. You can see the sequence of targeted groups. They are not targeted because they come from that group. They are targeted because somebody in that group has an eye to be the next president. That is the issue that has become very clear.

As I talk to you now, a month ago already, two weeks ago, there has been a movement that is rising in greater Equatoria. They have taken arms against Salva Kiir because of the situation that we are talking about. President Kiir with his group wanted to water down the main issues to look at this conflict as a tribal one so that no others can come in.

For example, if it is truly a tribal war, then none of the world's nations will be part of that because they will see it as people who fight and then resolve their own issues. That's the view that they want to introduce. The issue is not a tribal war. The issue is that President Kiir becomes a dictator, and he doesn't want any reforms to happen in the country—and yet, he is not doing anything to make South Sudan move forward. They have failed in the party and in the government.

The issue of South Sudan is not a tribal war. That's why in both camps you see the Dinkas are in with Riek and the Nuer are also with Salva Kiir. If it were clearly a tribal war, would you want to be with the other person who is fighting your people? Of course not. You would have to stand with your own people. This is what I can say in brief.

[Henry Odwar]

If I may, I would add that what started on December 15, 2013 was a tribal conflict where the Nuer were massacred in Juba. The Nuer then took retaliatory action to commit atrocities in Bor, Malakal, and Bentiu. This part of the conflict was initially tribal.

Now, a good number of South Sudanese are looking at this as an opportunity to make changes in Juba. Many more tribes are joining in opposition to what is now seen as a tribal government in Juba. If you saw the concentration of wealth, all the billions that we have realized today, and if you went to Juba and saw the dollars being sold in the streets, you would identify it to be only one ethnic group. If you looked at the security sector, most of the important positions are from the same ethnic group. If you looked at the judiciary, where decisions are made in terms of criminal activities, constitutional matters, and so forth, it is one ethnic group.

This is seen by many South Sudanese as not a government that is representative to take the country forward. What initially happened as a tribal conflict has now transformed into a national movement to have changes in Juba.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Ms. Gai.

[Sophia Gai]

I want to clarify something.

What happened in Bor, to be very frank, did not target the Dinka, the civilians. In fact, the civilians managed to escape. What happened is that, of those who died in Bor, the Dinka for example, many of them died in the crossfire. They were not targeted. That's why I insist this war was not a tribal war.

It was the same thing in Bentiu. The Dinkas were never targeted as Dinkas. You'll see that even within Bor itself, when the Lou Nuer came to rescue Dr. Riek, for example, there were Dinkas who were in Bor, and they did not touch them.

In Malakal, what happened is that when the Dinka from Baliet saw that the White Army was moving towards Malakal, they shot them in boats. That's why the revenge came.

Basically, the SPLM-in-Opposition did not target any civilians. If Dinka died—and that's why the number of the Dinkas who were killed in Bor or in Malakal are less, because many of them were not targeted—it was the crossfire. They were fighting with the troops of Kiir and many of them died as a result of crossfire. There was not any intention of killing them. I would say that they just want to water down this conflict to make it look like a tribal war, so that the real issues are not discussed.

But I myself come from the Nuer tribe. I told you in my introduction that I've lost two uncles in my own house. I had the guts to see to it that even if they died, their blood would transform the country.

Any benefit is very hard. I myself cannot hate the Dinkas. I will not hate the Dinkas, but I can hate the president who ordered a separate army to be trained outside the SPLA to target my own community, including me. I could have been dead by now. So it's not the Dinkas. Not all of the Dinkas are bad. It is the system that Mr. Kiir put in place to target the Nuer, to water down the issue. That's what I want to clarify.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you to both Ms. Gai and Mr. Odwar for your presence here.

I had the fortune of visiting South Sudan in January of 2012 with the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association. In fact I believe we were the first Canadian parliamentary delegation to visit the country after its independence and one of the first international delegations.

Over and above being struck by just what wasn't there in Juba—and I don't mean that with any disrespect—I was struck by the hope that emanated from the individuals. We met with representatives of the media, we went out to Wau and met people who were taking advantage of some of the initiatives that were offered to them through CIDA, especially women's organizations out in that area in terms of developing means to support themselves.

We left with many concerns after meeting with many of the parliamentarians, but we hoped it was the beginning of a dialogue and cooperation on a parliamentary level between Canada and South Sudan, so I'm actually quite saddened to hear of what is going on some three years later.

One of the things that you touched on, sir, was that one of the roles Canada can play is in helping shape an understanding of governance in South Sudan, and I would like you to comment on that a little further with this thought in mind. In our introduction, I introduced myself as a member of the official opposition at the time. There were looks of surprise on the parliamentarians' faces in South Sudan, and the discussions that I had after that with them were in terms of “What does that mean, the official opposition? What is your function?” One of the parliamentarians asked me, “Why aren't you dead?” It was really eye-opening.

So in terms of how Canada could help in governance, can you expand on that? Both of you actually can expand on how we might be able to help in that way.

[Henry Odwar]

Actually, when you came for that visit, I shook your hand. We had that cocktail party at the embassy. We have met before.

Governance in South Sudan is one of those areas that requires total transformation. When the SPLM came from the bush, they continued with the mentality that the commander-in-chief is the first and the last in terms of what should be done. No chance is given to anybody to contribute.

When we took over government, it's always the president. Even when we debate in parliament, are you for the president or not? Are you for us or not? Everything is centred on the presidency. Whatever institutions we have, they don't matter. There is always a directive that comes from above. Parliament has become a rubber stamp. The judiciary cannot make independent judgements without a word from the presidency.

If there is an appropriation that the ministry of finance has to effect, the final say at the writing of the cheque will be at J1, at the office of the president.

I think there are many lessons that South Sudan can learn from Canada, particularly institutional reforms. I remember that very well through an NGO in Canada. They wanted to come and first of all, create an inventory of the ministry of mining and energy. Who are the qualified personnel there? What training do they want? The government could have done this with all the money that they have, but nothing is done. You are my nephew, you take over that portfolio, and life goes on. If you complain, you are not for them.

In parliament, for example, when we vote, it is by show of hands. Secret ballot is a taboo because they will not see who is for us and who is not for us. I remember sitting as the deputy of a vetting committee. There was a nominee of the president, called Telar. The whole country did not want him to be minister of justice. We were intimidated to vote by show of hands, but we stood our ground. We said that we had to vote by secret ballot. It was 105 to 90-something. But when we voted by secret ballot to vet this person, those who opposed rose to 145 to less than 80. There is power in the secret ballot.

What brought the current conflict in the party was that the president refused the election of party members in offices through secret ballot. He wanted the show of hands, so that he could see who was voting for him or not. If you did not vote for him, you would be out of the party, you would be out of a job and in South Sudan, it's government that employs. There is intimidation. That is not the type of governance that we want in that country.

Regarding federalism, many people want to go to their backyards, so that there is competition among states as to how to run governance so that services are taken to the people.

But this is not what they want in Juba. Everything must be centralized. Of all the resources that we have realized upwards of $20 billion, almost 20% is spent within the central government. You don't know what they spend it on. I think there is a lot that South Sudan can learn from Canada. I believe through direct institution-to-institution assistance, through NGOs.... Through NGOs, they have done a lot of training for people in South Sudan, and if that continues, I think that will be helpful.

I don't know whether Sophia can add to this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

This will have to be the concluding comment, unfortunately, of the meeting. Please go ahead.

[Sophia Gai]

Thank you very much.

The honourable member has mentioned the hope that he has seen in the eyes and aspirations of our people during our independence in 2011. To be very frank, the common man is still hopeful. It's just that we have fallen into this tragic war that has robbed us, that was imposed on the people. The aspirations of common people in South Sudan is that they want to see a better South Sudan. That better South Sudan was the reason that we have gained our independence from the north because the northerners, during those years, were not allowing us to have that freedom so that we could rule ourselves, govern ourselves in that aspect.

For that reason, the call for a federal system is the aspiration of many South Sudanese. Why do we do that? Because it was within the SPLM policy of taking town to villages that has been there before war and after independence. People want to live in their own homes. They want to grow, they want to work hard and see with their own eyes the growth of what is really important in their life.

With that, I would say that the Canadian government can help us with the issue of federalism, the effective system of governance. How are the resources being distributed in a federal system? Do you give the national government...? Or does the national government take all the resources and then distribute them back to the state and the constituencies that are there?

I remember what Honourable Odwar just said. I remember one of the honourable members made a motion in 2012 in the parliament. That motion was about the dollar. You see our dollar today is very low. Tomorrow it's very high and it affects the salaries of individuals who are receiving small amounts of money because as the dollar goes high the market also goes high. So that honourable member requested parliament to call the central bank so that the central bank president could come and explain why the dollar has not been stable. You see, it was a big issue. The groups that are supporting the fluctuation because they have individual banks to sell the dollar.... Some of them are selling the dollar on the streets, as Honourable Odwar has just mentioned. They have seen that they will be accountable to that, and you cannot believe it. They went to the house of that honourable member and they were threatening him to withdraw his motion and they were also bribing him. They brought money and told him that if it was about the money, they would give him this money but he would have to withdraw his motion from parliament. And the guy refused. Later on, it is unfortunate that this honourable member's elder brother was killed during the war. He was targeted. Somebody called his number and said they were coming, and then he disappeared. When he ran away he left his brother, and his brother was murdered right there.

Our country needs a lot of institutional reforms. Our country needs supervision. Our country also needs a hand to be lifted from where it is to the international or regional standards. For example, now we are talking about humanitarian assistance. Yet, the national budget has approved $500 million for an election that the government has scheduled to take place in June, although now we are hearing that they have cancelled the election but have extended the president's term of office. How do you talk about elections and all this money and yet your people are confined in the camps in the capital city, let alone in the camps that are outside? You see that the government has an issue, and a stable country like Canada can actually help South Sudan to come out from there so that at least we have our independence in reality. We see the system of governance that can take our country forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you to both of our witnesses for coming here today. You have been very helpful and given very fulsome answers.

I have to end this meeting now because we are substantially past our scheduled end time. Thank you both for being here.

Colleagues, we'll see you on Thursday.

This meeting is adjourned.