What are the main guidelines of your policy?
Transport is central to the country's economy, especially in a vast country like Sudan, because the transport system connects the areas of production with the areas of consumption and also with the ports for export and import. We have a railway system which is above 5000 kilometers; we have a river transport, a river which is navigable for most its length. The river Nile is the longest in the world and is navigable in most of its parts, only the northern part where there are the cataracts obstruct navigation. We have also a shipping line which is more than 40 years old. So all these means of transport are integrated with other means that do not fall under my ministry but form a part of transport sector. Building roads is not part of my ministry, nor is airways. On the railway, the challenge we are facing is to be able to compete in the coming period since Sudan is trying to join the World Trade Organization. Also it's a member of COMESA, and there are no more customs between the COMESA countries. This opens for Port Sudan the opportunity to be a part of a market of about 300 million people. But at the same time also since now there are no customs any more between these countries, there is a challenge for the products of Sudan to be competitive. They may be competitive if the production costs becomes lower and also the transport cost, which adds to the cost of the commodity. This is the challenge, the transport system must be able to meet the requirements of the coming big economic community like COMESA. Therefore, the railway network should be extended to the neighbouring countries: Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic. In fact we have taken steps with Ethiopia to see that the link between us and them sees light. So I sent a committee to Addis Ababa and they hope to involve a Chinese company. We hope that by 2003, the first stage of the project would have been completed. Also to make the railway more efficient, we have decided to separate the infrastructure of the rail from the actual operations of the rail itself which is the movement of the locomotives and the wagons. The infrastructure will continue to be run by the government because it is difficult to find investors who will invest in the rail tracks as it doesn't have a quick return. We want to privatize the operational aspect so the private companies can run the trains, buy them and put them into operation. We are doing the same on the river Nile where from Kosti up to the south where the Nile is navigable. We attach a very special importance to the river transport, and up to now the river transport corporation has been a government corporation, and we have decided as a matter of policy to involve the private sector in this important means of transport. One of the first demands of the southern population is to develop a more efficient and regular river transport system. So now the private sector can have their own boats, their own ships to operate between Kosti and the south, it is already possible. The river transport is cheaper than the rail, but the rail is more flexible than the river, if you can see the railway go to the west, to the east and to the north through the desert. We made a calculation of costs, and we found that the cost of air transport compared to the river transport is 31 to 1.
Is there any company that expressed its interest in investing in this field?
Yes, there is now one company; it's called Sudanese Development Corporation and it has its own steamers.
Is there any involvement from foreign companies?
We have made contacts with some companies in China and Iran, but these need to be concretized
What is the role that Port Sudan is named to play for those landlocked countries such as Chad and Ethiopia?
As I mentioned previously, we have an agreement with Ethiopia since last March to allow them to use Port Sudan for the import of their goods. For the other landlocked countries, in order to be able to use port Sudan for, say, Chad and the Central African Republic it was decided to build a railway line between Nyala and both the Central African Republic and Chad. This is what we are working on and as soon as we do that then it will help them being nearby Port Sudan, and our other ports at Sawakin, Osman Digna and Bashaier.
In fact one good example of cooperation between Sudan and Asian countries in the field of maritime transportation is the 20 year plan drawn by a Chinese consultant and aimed at developing Port Sudan. What is the role that the Asian countries and companies name to play,
since over the last 10 years most consumer goods imported through Sudanese ports were imported from Asian countries?
The trade in Sudan and Asia has been growing steadily in the last years, and in fact the American embargo on Sudan has opened wide opportunities for Asian countries to come and invest in Sudan. As mentioned already, the sea ports corporation have Chinese companies working with it on the ports. The Chinese Harbor Company (CHT) is one of the companies that are operating with us. The equipment used to handle the goods on the ports is also Chinese. The cooperation between Sudan and Asian countries specially China and Malaysia and other countries has grown steadily.
Beside Port Sudan there are some other ports such as Port Bashaier. These have been used only for exporting oil, why?
For the time being, the oil products need special handling and we don't want to handle them at the same port with other products in containers. This port will continue to export the oil products, and we have the ports like Osman Digna in Sawakin which is the main port in Sudan for export of live animals and passenger traffic. Sawakin is not far away from Port Sudan. The other ports, like the duty free zones, are integrated with railway line and connected with the
consumers.
The Chinese CMC company signed an agreement with the Sudan railways corporation whereby the Chinese side is to provide a loan of 18 million US$ to import a number of locomotives and maintain the lines. Could you provide us with some details regarding this agreement and what your plans are as far as expanding the railway network ?
As I said, the railway is a long network, more than 5000 kilometres and we intend to link it with the neighbouring countries. As a matter of fact, our link with Ethiopia connects us with the inter Africa rail that comes from southern Africa. This requires a lot of changes in our own system. We may need to change the tracks to be able to conform to the weights that are demanded by the inter African rails. This means we may change the sleepers. The sleepers today are wooden and we need concrete sleepers to increase the speed. We also need to change the wagons as a result of the American embargo. Since 1997 there have been many locomotives and wagons that are not in operation because they need maitenance and spare parts. The Chinese loans are covering all aspects of the operational system, and their objective is to be a part of an overall modernization exercise of the railway system. | You were the Secretary of the international relations of the SPLA, when you decided to split. What were the reasons behind this decision, and what is the direction that you think SPLA should take at this precise period of time?
First of all the question of the political split between us and Garang was repeated and a lot of documents have been written about that since 1991. It was internal difference on the way the movement was being run. There has been no internal democracy, the movement was not having enough delegation of authority, we did not measure up to our call for the change of the situation in Sudan, specially as regarding human rights. We did not respect human rights concepts as a movement. We did not have a coherent and clear policy on how to prosecute the war, also we did not have a clear policy on how to talk peace if the government ever thinks about peace. That were the issues that led us to split in 1991. We called for the self-determination of the south, and Garang was insisting that he wanted to unite Sudan. So we told him that unity is not the only option, that if the elements that make a united Sudan are not there, there is no way to impose unity. For any unity to be possible the two sides must feel that they are equal, they need to share certain things together, in a way they agree of all, but once one side is dominating the other one the unity cannot last even between couples. So, we said we want self-determination for the southerners. These were the reasons for our call made in 1991. Of course at that time it took many by surprise. At the end the government accepted to negotiate, in Frankfurt in January 1992, and again we met in Abuja in May 1992. Finally when the Khartoum peace agreement was signed between the government and Rieck Machar, the SPLA united studied that agreement, made some proposals to amend it, and that led to the Fashoda agreement in September 1997. So, we have been consistent with our demand for self-determination. The government said they agree to some self-determination. We cannot say no.
Do you think the positions would become radical if once the interim period expired this agreement is not implemented?
Before the interim period expires, we and the government must sit down and see what to do. That must be a joint position between us and them. If there is nothing like that, this means that it is the end of cooperation.
In case the self-determination of the south is achieved, and most of southerners decide to be independent of the rest of Sudan, do you think this independent entity would be viable?
I think the southerners are wise enough to know what they are out for. When they see they are going to be separate, it means they are going to live in peace. If they want to be a part of the united Sudan, it means that they are satisfied with the equality, justice and freedom in the united Sudan. So they are wise enough to be able to decide what is good for them. People come up with proposals for the southerners as if they cannot know what is good for them, as if they need somebody from outside to bring them together. But they have been living in the south for centuries, even before Sudan became a state. I remember even when the Sudan wanted to be independent, the British said the same that if we leave you alone you'll hurt yourselves. The elements that contribute to a good united Sudan should be promoted. I should not choose unity because I'm afraid that if I became independent I'll kill my other brother, because as soon as I agree with my brother we should not kill ourselves. Unity of Sudan should not be based on the fears that if the southerners became independent they'll kill themselves. Botswana, when it was carved out of South Africa, it was on the assumption that it was not viable. What is it now? One of the richest countries in Africa. So viability is a relative term. Hence, what do you mean by viable? Is it in terms of natural resources, human resources? Is it that the people are so wild that they would kill themselves? At the time when they didn't have education, centuries ago, they were there. Why is it now, when the people are gettting to the age of Internet and the third Millennium that people are still afraid of human beings killing themselves?
Out of the different factors that have to be on the table of negotiations, as for example the ethnic and religious issues, the redistribution of wealth of the country is a key question to be raised. How do you appraoch this matter?
I've always thought that diversity is not a reason for people to fall apart, because we can give examples of many countries that are multinational, multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural, so what always brings disputes is when the people in power don't take this consideration in mind, this diversity. If you have a government in Sudan where you have realistic proofs that matters would be run in equality, justice and freedom, that regardless of your religion and your culture you can also find any position in the land and unity will be guaranteed. In Sudan we have many cultures and many languages. If you respect the Sudanese diversity whether it is ethnic, racial and cultural, and if everybody feels equal in the duties, responsibilities and rights in their country, nobody will complain then. But failure to address these issues is what lead some southerners to separate. If you don't accept me as an equal, we cannot live together, it is better to find our separate ways. The solution is here in the north, the northerners must be ready to accept southerners and respect them as equals and not as a minority. The southern Sudan is the size of Nigeria, so you hardly can call them a minority.
Note: World Investment News Ltd cannot be held responsible for the content of unedited transcriptions. |
V.I.P. INTERVIEWS 
