Subj:      ICCAF response to ESPAC/Hoile critique
Date:     6/20/00

SUBJECT: ICCAF Response to "Turning a  blind eye and a deaf
ear to crimes against humanity': The Inter-Church Coalition on
Africa and Sudan" published June 5, 2000 by the
European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council (ESPAC) and
distributed electronically by Mr. David Hoile of ESPAC

Earlier this month, the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
(ESPAC) and its staffer, Mr. David Hoile, wrote and distributed
electronically a document critquing elements of the Inter-Church
Coalition on Africa's (ICCAF's) human rights programming on
Sudan and making a number of allegations concerning ICCAF's
motives. The document singling out ICCAF's work follows other
recent critiques issued by ESPAC and Mr. Hoile, including of
Amnesty International (its May 2000 report on oil development in
Sudan) and several Western journalists whose reports have been
critical of the policies and practices of the Government of Sudan
(Linda Slobodian, Calgary Herald; Stephanie Nolen, Globe and
Mail; Julie Flint, British freelancer).

Because of the nature of the allegations made in the ESPAC
document, and the apparent extent of the document's distribution,
ICCAF feels compelled to register a response, as follows. We
respectfully request those who have read the ESPAC document to
read ICCAF's response in case false impressions have been created
of ICCAF and its work. Out of courtesy for those who already have
enough e-mail messages to read, we have tried to keep the response
as brief as possible.

ICCAF's response to the ESPAC document

ICCAF regrets that ESPAC and Mr. David Hoile did not take the
time or seemingly have the consideration to consult with ICCAF
before producing and distributing "Turning a blind eye..." (hearafter
referred to as "the ESPAC document"). Had consultation taken
place, we'd like to think that ESPAC's assessment of ICCAF's
programming on Sudan might have been quite different. Instead,
the document contains selected readings of ICCAF's statements
and resources on Sudan, comments taken out of context, and
factual errors.

ICCAF also regrets that ESPAC and Mr. Hoile have apparently
distributed the ESPAC document to an extensive international
electronic mailing list but have not disclosed that list to ICCAF,
thus denying ICCAF a full and equal right of reply. ICCAF asks
ESPAC and Mr. Hoile to correct this situation by disclosing the full
electronic mailing list to ICCAF or by demonstrating conclusively
that ICCAF's response has been e-mailed to every individual and
organization that received the ESPAC document. If ESPAC and
Mr. Hoile are truly committed to human rights principles, they will
hasten to comply with this request.

Before addressing specific allegations made in the ESPAC
document, ICCAF invites the ESPAC and Mr. Hoile to answer the
questions below, which have been posed by individuals and
organizations that have contacted ICCAF after receiving the
ESPAC document. If ESPAC is an organization committed to
principles of transparency, then it will not object to providing
answers. ICCAF further requests ESPAC and Mr. Hoile to
distribute the answers to all those who received the ESPAC
document.

Questions for ESPAC and Mr. David Hoile

- What is ESPAC? Documents distributed by ESPAC do not
contain information on what exactly the organization is. What is its
mandate/mission? How is that mandate/mission conferred and by
whom? Does ESPAC have a Board of Directors or the equivalent,
and if so, who specifically are its members?

- How is ESPAC funded and by whom?

- Who is Mr. David Hoile? What is his background? How did he
become involved in work on Sudan?
 
ICCAF responses to specific allegations in the ESPAC document:

ICCAF and the Sudan Civil Society Forum (Calgary and Ottawa,
June 5-9, 2000)

The occasion for the ESPAC document appears to have been the
above-mentioned forum. Contrary to what the document states or
implies, the event was not solely organized by ICCAF. The forum
was sponsored by the Sudan Inter-Agency Reference Group
(SIARG), a group of 21 Canadian churches and NGOs with
programming on Sudan. Membership is as diverse as to include the
Steelworkers Humanity Fund, United Church of Canada and
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. ICCAF has been the host agency
for the SIARG since its inception in October 1998 and plays a
facilitative role in the SIARG's ongoing work. The lead agency for
organization of the forum was Partnership Africa Canada, a SIARG
member. ICCAF was a member of the planning committee for the
forum along with four other SIARG member agencies. The forum
brought together Sudanese (Muslims and Christians) representing
civil society organizations from northern and southern Sudan. Its
purpose was to hear their views on a range of issues related to the
search for peace in Sudan. Because it focussed on civil society, the
conference was not open to official representatives of political
groups in Sudan (e.g. the Government of Sudan, SPLM, etc.).
However, IGAD peace process-member countries with
embassies/high commissions in Ottawa, including Sudan, were
invited to send a representative in an observer capacity. Two of the
sessions were open to the general public.

ICCAF and the SPLA

The main contention of the ESPAC document seems to be that
ICCAF is in collusion with the SPLA. The document refers to
ICCAF's "close association" with the SPLA and "ICCAF's SPLA
associates", and further alleges that ICCAF is being used as "a
propaganda vehicle for the SPLA". Yet it provides no evidence of
such an association, and the evidence it uses to allege
propagandistic activity by ICCAF on behalf of the SPLA is based
on a very selective reading of ICCAF's human rights documents.

ICCAF has never had a formal relationship with the SPLA. The
extent of contact with the SPLA, since ICCAF began focussing on
Sudan in 1991, is as follows:

- When visiting areas of Sudan controlled by the SPLA, ICCAF
staff  and staff of ICCAF member churches have applied for "visas"
from the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (the "relief
wing" of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement) in Nairobi,
Kenya. This is a standard procedure to which all foreign visitors to
SPLA-controlled areas are subject.

- During visits to southern Sudan over the years, including with a
fact-finding mission sponsored by the Canadian Council for
International Cooperation, ICCAF staff have met with SPLA
officials in the field, just as they have met with Sudanese
government officials in government-controlled areas of Sudan and
representatives of civil society generally. The purpose of these
meetings, in every instance, was to deepen and broaden ICCAF's
understanding and perspective on conflict in Sudan.

- In March, 1999, ICCAF's coordinator interviewed SPLA leaders
in Nairobi  and the Nuba Mountains as background for the
production of the video "Under Siege: The Nuba of Sudan", which
focusses on Nuba living in SPLA-controlled areas and suffering
persecution by the Sudanese government.

- Like it tries to do with the Government of Sudan and other parties
to the conflict in Sudan, ICCAF stays informed of policy
developments within the SPLA.

ICCAF's principal link to Sudan is through the Sudanese churches,
including those working in government and SPLA controlled areas. 
As members of civil society, the Sudanese churches function
independently from the government and SPLM/A and work hard to
ensure that independence.

As for the allegation that ICCAF ignores human rights violations
committed by the SPLA, ICCAF has reported on many occasions
that the SPLA has committed and continues to commit serious
human rights abuses for which it must be held accountable. Among
the SPLA's human rights violations in the past are atrocities
including the slaughter of civilians, rape of women and use of food
aid for strategic military purposes resulting in serious food
insecurity, if not starvation, among civilians.

ICCAF has also said, as has the Government of Canada and many
human rights agencies, that the bulk of human rights violations in
Sudan are committed by the Government of Sudan (GOS). The
Sudanese government's abuses are often particularly systematic and
widespread. To ICCAF's knowledge, the SPLA does not (like the
GOS) have a fleet of Antonovs that it uses to bomb civilian schools
and hospitals; it does not (like the GOS) abduct thousands of
civilians and confine them to concentration camps (euphemistically
called "peace villages") where they are subjected to forced labour
and effectively stripped of their cultural and religious identities; it
does not (like the GOS) erect humanitarian aid blockades around
war-affected populations (like the Nuba) and leave them in place
for more than 10 years causing immense human suffering. These
latter gross violations of human rights have all been exhaustively
reported by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and
many reputable international human rights agencies. (Curiously,
ESPAC documents never seem to make mention of such abuses.
Why is this?)  Nonetheless, the SPLA should not be excused for
committing human rights abuses of any order or extent. ICCAF has
always been emphatic on this point. No human rights group can be
credible if it chooses to profile the human rights violations of only
one party in a conflict and ignore those of others.

ICCAF and the Government of Sudan

It is factually incorrect to state or imply that ICCAF staff have not
visited government-controlled areas of Sudan or met with Sudanese
government officials. ICCAF's Coordinator has met with Sudanese
government ministers in Khartoum (during a fact-finding mission
sponsored by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation)
and in Geneva at meetings of the UN Commission on Human
Rights. ICCAF also receives statements and press releases issued by
the Sudanese embassy in Ottawa and tries to follow policy
development within the Sudanese government. Had ESPAC and
Mr. Hoile checked with ICCAF, they could have been made aware
of this.

ICCAF, and Sudan as a Muslim country

ICCAF has repeatedly emphasized that not only Sudanese
Christians and "animists", but also Muslims, are persecuted by the
current government in Khartoum. ICCAF regrets that some
so-called Christian European and North American organizations
appear at times to discriminate against Sudanese Muslims. ICCAF
is not now nor has it ever been one of these groups. ICCAF speaks
in support of the human rights of all Sudanese regardless of their
religious affiliation. Whether or not Sudan is or should be a
"Muslim country" is a matter for the Sudanese people to decide in a
free and democratic manner. ICCAF's concerns lie with the right of
the Sudanese people -- Muslims, Christians and otherwise -- to
decide for themselves and on their own terms what kind of country
they want to live in. Currently, the people of Sudan are not free to
exercise this right. The current government came to power in a
military coup, not democratically, and has cast a tightly-woven web
of security over those areas of the country under its control, making
free democratic expression virtually impossible. Sudanese Muslims
and Christians alike oppose this denial of their fundamental human
rights, which is why armed opposition to the current government
includes the predominantly Christian SPLA (which includes
Muslims in its membership) and predominantly Muslim groups such
as the Sudan Alliance Forces and Beja Congress (which operate in
alliance with the SPLA).

The UN and genocide

Neither ICCAF nor its coordinator have ever accused the UN of
genocide or complicity in genocide as the ESPAC document
suggests. ICCAF's coordinator, in an article in the National Post
and articles in other publications, have raised the issue of whether
the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) has contributed to what
some international human rights and humanitarian agencies have
called genocide in the Nuba Mountains, by not challenging
vigourously enough the Sudanese government's 10-year aid
blockade of this war-ravaged region, a blockade that has resulted in
depopulation and famine. This is a legitimate human rights concern
and issue for discussion. In the ICCAF video "Under Siege: The
Nuba of Sudan" (published February 2000), an OLS spokesperson
is interviewed and states explicitly that the UN has failed the people
of the Nuba Mountains, thus acknowledging the UN's controversial
role in the Nuba issue. Some people and agencies have said that this
failure amounts to complicity in genocide since the UN has always
been aware of the impact of the GOS aid blockade on the Nuba,
just like it was aware of the signals of impending genocide in
Rwanda in 1994.

The SPLA has also diverted food aid from civilians and used aid as
a weapon of war. ICCAF has reported on such human rights
violations and has never sought to ignore them as the ESPAC
document alleges. 

The SPLA's "memorandum of understanding" (MoU)

Canadian churches are aware of the MoU and its serious
implications, as well as the allegations that, as a result of the MoU,
the SPLA is contributing to human misery in southern Sudan.
ICCAF is naturally concerned about the human rights implications
of the MoU. Within the Canadian ecumenical family, however,
issues such as the MoU are properly housed with ICCAF's sister
coalition, Inter-Church Action for Development, Relief and Justice
(ICA).  It is not within ICCAF's mandate to comment specifically
on the MoU. Inquiries about the Canadian churches' position on
the MoU should be addressed to ICA. If ICA, on behalf of the
churches, issues a statement or position paper on the MoU, this
document could perhaps be made available on ICCAF's web site.

ICCAF, oil revenues, and the conflicts in Sudan and Angola

The ESPAC document is incorrect when it states that the
international community has not seen any evidence that Sudanese
oil revenues are being used to continue the civil war. The Harker
report stated otherwise; as did the Government of Canada when it
received the Harker report; as have other agencies and reports. It is
also untrue to say that ICCAF has never mentioned the fact that
Angolan oil revenues help to perpetuate the conflict in Angola.
Once again, the ESPAC and Mr. Hoile have been selective in their
reading of ICCAF documents, or have made assumptions that,
because certain analyses are not found on ICCAF's web site, they
therefore don't exist. At present ICCAF is preparing documentation
on Canada's involvement in the oil industry in Angola (and
Canadian corporate involvement in Africa's extractive sector
generally), something ESPAC and Mr. Hoile would have learned
had they consulted with ICCAF prior to publishing their document.

In conclusion, should the ESPAC and Mr. Hoile decide to publish
additional commentary on ICCAF's work on Sudan, we expect
them to be fair-minded and considerate enough to consult with us
first, so that we can give them what they need to draft an
assessment that is accurate, informed and balanced. Professional
standards demand nothing less.

- END -