Evidence of meeting #52 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Morley  President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada
Jonathan Pedneault  Researcher, Africa Division, Human Rights Watch

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Michael Levitt

Thank you very much, MP Anderson

We're now going to move to MP Fragiskatos.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Morley, you spoke about humanitarian actors and the difficulties they're facing, the real challenges they're facing in terms of distributing aid. For example, you spoke about having to fly in with a helicopter. Could you expand on that?

If we're talking about a famine, we're bound to talk about the distribution of humanitarian aid, and then we're going to talk about the challenges faced by NGOs and humanitarian workers. In this case, they are not just challenges; they're extremely serious and very acute. I wonder if you could underline those for us.

1:30 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada

David Morley

Certainly. The infrastructure of South Sudan itself, even if this weren't all going on, is difficult. There are some 200 kilometres of paved roads in the country, so that makes any heavy movement difficult.

With our rapid response mechanism, we work together with the World Food Programme to have helicopters that will go into these areas. You find an area near a village, and as our teams are coming down, you have to coordinate all the time with the different armed groups to make sure that you don't get shot at.

Our teams will stay in these areas for about a week. We run mobile clinics. We do screening for malnourished children and conduct vaccination campaigns. There are sometimes still teachers in the communities. When there are teachers there, we leave behind education materials, but we always have to be ready to go right away. Having to do it this way, having to take things in by helicopter, increases the cost astronomically rather than if we were able to get it there by boat going up the Nile or other ways. It makes it expensive, which means it's extremely hard to sustain.

There's a political situation going on here, but for these women and children, I know when I cut myself I want a bandage on it to help me get through, and we know this is what we're able to do for these women and children now. We also know that any humanitarian crisis needs a political solution. That's the ultimate solution we need. We can be there in the meantime, and we are, but we need a political solution.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

How much time is left, Mr. Chair?

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Michael Levitt

You have four minutes.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Okay. One more question, and then I will turn it over to Mr. Tabbara, to make sure we can all ask questions today.

Can you expand on that a bit in terms of the challenges of forging ties with local actors that would allow you to carry out your work? It seems that you would have a network of actors, whether it's UNICEF or other organizations that you've been in touch with and whose work you know, who are able to carry out their work precisely because they are in regular contact with actors on the ground, whether local political actors or power authorities, whose permission you need to operate in particular areas. What are the challenges that poses?

1:30 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada

David Morley

Speaking for myself, in conflict zones where I've been and where I've worked, you always have to be in negotiations—I wouldn't use the word “ties”—with the different actors, be it armed groups or.... Then there are the local people: the village councils, the teachers, the village elders, the midwives. It's the local civil society, which we may not recognize from a Canadian context, but it's there. There is always a structure inside a village. That's part of the thing that gets destroyed by this conflict, the network of support that is so integral to social progress.

Our colleagues on the ground have to be negotiating and talking all the time. If they weren't, we would not be able to do any of the things we are able to do now. There is a constant negotiation—I don't know if I would say “dialogue”—that has to go on so that we can be sure that we can get to these places that are across lines to provide the aid that is needed. If we didn't do that, we wouldn't be able to do our work.

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you very much.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Tabbara for any questions he wishes to ask.

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON

Thank you for that.

Thank you to the witnesses here today.

My question is for Mr. Pedneault. We heard testimony from other individuals at this committee who mentioned that the conflict was not tribal and was based more on oil, resources, and wealth rather than divisions. Would you agree with that statement? Can you elaborate more on that?

1:35 p.m.

Researcher, Africa Division, Human Rights Watch

Jonathan Pedneault

South Sudan has experienced conflict for the better part of the past 60 years. This is a place that has been at war with the north, obviously, for a long time, but even internally it has had lots of intercommunal fighting, often cattle raiding or wife raiding, and lots of cultural practices that have contributed, to an extent, to the current situation we're in. Conflicts between farmers and herders are also part of the history of this place.

In the current context, where you have a president, in this case Salva Kiir, who is a Dinka and who has surrounded himself with a largely Dinka group of advisers, and you have an opposition leader, on the other hand, who is a Nuer and who has managed to create some form of a multitribal coalition for now, you obviously find yourself in the context of a tribal conflict. The tribe plays a role in how people see themselves as actors in this war. The tribe will play a role when it comes to meeting a soldier in the street. We've had several cases of Nuer people who have had to pretend that they spoke Dinka in order not to be killed by Dinka soldiers, and the reverse has been true as well.

In the Equatorias, right now we see largely Dinka troops coming from the regions where the president and his chief of general staff originate, carrying the bulk of abuses as part of this counter-insurgency against people they see as potentially opposition supporters. Those would be people from Equatoria: the Bari, the Kakwa, or the Kuku. Those are the people who are being targeted, on the basis of their origin being from this or that area.

Not recognizing the ethnic dimension to this conflict would be a grave mistake. It may not have started as an ethnic conflict—as I said, it was a political conflict between two men who were trying to get to power—but unfortunately with time passing and with the conflict expanding, what we see now is more and more narratives emerging, and a lot of those narratives have to do with ethnicity. The government, unfortunately, has been encouraging this kind of perception through its actions, but also through its public declarations.

Hopefully, that answers your question.

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Michael Levitt

Thank you very much. We're now going to move to MP Hardcastle.

March 23rd, 2017 / 1:35 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to you gentlemen.

I want to pick up on something that Mr. Pedneault said with regard to the government relationship dynamic that needs to change. In terms of what our recommendations can be, offering your perspectives on that arms embargo question, do you think that's essential? Do either of you think an arms embargo is essential right now in the growth of the conflict in South Sudan? I want to hear about that.

The other aspect is the accountability. Is there more we need to be doing to pursue evidence in a way that can be used in these hybrid courts?

1:40 p.m.

Researcher, Africa Division, Human Rights Watch

Jonathan Pedneault

In the case of South Sudan, for its 2016-17 budget exercise, the Government of South Sudan has decided to spend almost half of its budget on the acquisition of military equipment and the payment of the soldiers who are currently fighting this war. If my memory is not mistaken, only about 20% or less was going to education and even less, something like 4% to health services.

The international community has allowed the Government of South Sudan to continue to buy weapons throughout this war, and they have done just that. They have recently received fighter jets from Ukraine that were flown into Uganda before being transferred into South Sudan. New weapons and ammunition are always coming in, and they do this perfectly legally. Canada has imposed its own arms embargo on South Sudan. The EU has done the same, but for the moment there is no international arms embargo on South Sudan.

Although it is highly likely that the government and the opposition would be able to procure weapons and ammunitions through underground channels, we think that the imposition of an arms embargo would heighten the cost of this war effort and make it more expensive for them to acquire weapons and equipment. It would also send a strong signal to the effect that after four years of abuses, after four years perpetrating a war through extremely abusive methods, there are consequences. For now, the international community has failed to do that, despite threatening to do so. This has decreased its deterrence capacity in South Sudan. By not following up with threats at some point, people feel as though the threats will never come. They feel as though they can continue their business as they do, and the abuses continue.

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Morley, do you have any insights with regard to our approach in our messaging?

1:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada

David Morley

I think it's important—this is more on the public perception side, which I think can influence us—to tie in the fact that this famine would not be happening if it were not for the war, and that therefore things like the arms embargo and a political solution are needed to address the famine. We can do our work to help those people who are there right now, but in the longer term—I think Mr. Pedneault has described it perfectly—it's going to take more than that to stop what's behind the cause of the famine.

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

I have a few more minutes.

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Michael Levitt

Yes.

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

I want to ask you about some of our next best steps towards alleviating some of the suffering and what Canada's role can be. We know that in the UN mission we have civilian sites, and people are staying for long lengths of time, unforeseen lengths of time. Do you see the service of these as more internally displaced persons camps? Just talk a bit about the reliance on these camps and the systemic issues with that.

1:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada

David Morley

May I respond?

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Yes.

1:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Canada

David Morley

Thank you.

I haven't been in South Sudan for about two years, so I'm a bit out of date. The POC places are absolutely necessary if they can be protected and not overrun. We've seen them overrun sometimes, but when they're there, they're a place for saving lives.

I have found in the places I have been, though, to see how this political struggle became ethnic and to see these ethnic divisions that exist in these different.... The POCs are there, right outside the town of Bor or outside of Malakal. If they weren't there, I believe there would be much more slaughter.

That's where we have to provide the services that we're able to. People are alive there, so we've been.... I'm just talking about us at UNICEF, let alone others, right? There are clinics and child-friendly spaces, and you're trying to do schools. You're trying to do what you can.

It's shocking because these are people who, in the past, were living together in these communities. It speaks to how this political struggle is now ethnic. As Mr. Pedneault is saying, we can't deny that it's ethnic now. It wasn't then, but I believe these POC places—I don't know what you think, Mr. Pedneault—are vital right now for being able to keep people alive who are there.

1:45 p.m.

Researcher, Africa Division, Human Rights Watch

Jonathan Pedneault

I would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Morley.

I was working in some of the POC sites very recently. Those are extremely bleak places. Those are places from which people cannot leave. I'm meeting lots of youth who have been stranded in those camps, with no trees and lots of dust, which flood when the rainy season comes and are full of mud, with latrines overflowing. There are no economic opportunities for them inside the POC sites.

Those people are not there by choice. They're there because they're afraid of leaving. They're convinced that if they go out, they will be killed. As we've seen repeatedly, they just very well may be killed. The sites themselves are essential.

What I would say is that in the context of South Sudan, we have 250,000 people living in all of those protection of civilians sites. They are a vulnerable population. There are over a million IDPs, or two million IDPs now, in South Sudan. Not all of the IDPs are in the POC sites. A lot of them are in the bush, in areas that are extremely difficult for humanitarians to access, even more so because government and opposition forces are so determined to constantly hamper humanitarian aid, or to use it as a token to punish one group or another, or to enrich themselves.

The question of the manipulation of humanitarian access by the government is a very important one and needs to be addressed. It's much easier for humanitarians to access areas under government control. Most of the schools that are open are in Dinka land right now, whereas a lot of the schools and hospitals in the states of Upper Nile, Jonglei, Unity, and the Equatorias are deeply affected.

What does that mean in the long run? It means children in those areas are being discriminated against in many ways, simply by virtue of the fact that it's easier to work in government-controlled areas. I think we have to be mindful of that. Clearly, the POC sites remain essential, despite UNMISS and certain segments within the UN wanting to close those sites because they consider them as using too many resources and requiring too many peacekeepers to protect them. Despite those pressures, I think it's quite clear in the current context that the government cannot be trusted with the protection of its own population.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Michael Levitt

Thank you very much.

We have a little more time. We need to have a couple of minutes at the end of our meeting for in camera business.

MP Khalid.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair. I will try to keep it brief.

Mr. Pedneault, I just have questions with respect to a statement that's been made by Human Rights Watch in the past, suggesting that international actors have unwittingly perpetuated the use of child soldiers by focusing on reintegration rather than accountability. You spoke as well today of there not really being any healing because the wound is so deep. You have really reiterated the need for accountability.

Can you please expand on what you mean by focusing on reintegration as opposed to holding to account? We are ultimately talking about children who have been victimized. I'm just looking for where that balance is when we're talking about the two.

1:50 p.m.

Researcher, Africa Division, Human Rights Watch

Jonathan Pedneault

I must confess that I'm not quite familiar with this exact citation. I would believe that whoever wrote it from my colleagues most likely meant that there was a need for accountability for the commanders—not for the children but for the commanders—who are responsible for abducting those children from their families or forcing those children to join their ranks. This is something that we've been actively and consistently calling for. It's one thing to reintegrate those children, which is highly important work and nothing that we would in any way, shape, or form criticize, but on the other hand, if this is not accompanied by punitive measures against those who are responsible for this horrific situation, then what are we doing? We're simply paying constantly to repair abuses or to repair lives being destroyed by people who will suffer no consequences.

Hence our focus on accountability, which I think is an essential component in any conflict, and all the more so in South Sudan. This is a place where the president is able to use events from 1991 to attack his opponents and gather enmity against a specific tribe for events that have never been investigated or tried. Even if we have peace tomorrow, or after tomorrow, in South Sudan, if we don't want to see war again five years from now, then it is essential that those who are responsible for all those abuses be investigated, charged, and tried.

Otherwise, we're just doomed to see a repetition of this horrific situation. The people of South Sudan have been suffering for way too long.