|
While the Commission on Human Rights, assisted by the Special Rapporteur
on Sudan, remain the focal points for assessing reports concerning
slavery in Sudan, it seems timely to bring some information about
recent events and controversies to the attention of the Working
Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery.
In January 1999 the broadcast of a television documentary in France,
which was seen by many here in Geneva, set the ball rolling by showing
some 1,000 Sudanese whose release from slavery had been secured
by the Zurich-based Christian Solidarity International. Their release,
it was reported, was secured as a result of paying US$50 for each
person, to agents who had visited the areas in which the 1,000 individuals
were held captive. While this was by no means the first time such
releases had been publicised on television, it did provoke much
more pressure on United Nations institutions, and UNICEF in particular,
to do something effective to bring about releases. Following the
broadcast, UNICEF came under harsh criticism from the American Anti-Slavery
Group (a recently created organisation which is not affiliated to
Anti-Slavery International) which had apparently provided the money
for the January releases. This criticism was essentially because
representatives of UNICEF went on the public record, saying that
the purchasing human beings was unacceptable in any circumstances.
I have no doubt that the members of the Working Group on Contemporary
Forms of Slavery, like other anti-slavery activities, would share
this sentiment. In the case of Sudan, however, we are faced with
a pattern of unlawful captive-taking and enslavement, which has
been going on for more than 12 years, and which, the adoption of
recommendations and resolutions by UN institutions in New York and
Geneva had apparently done nothing to stop. Any of us who have tried
to secure freedom for individuals who are unlawfully or unjustly
held prisoner, whether by state agencies or private individuals,
know that while bribery and ransom payments are not the long-term
answer, they may appear to be the only way of resolving the situation
in the short-term. Members of the Working Group might like to share
their observations on this issue with UNICEF and others, as it is
difficult to condemn a system of paying for releases if this is
truly the only option available, and if there is no evidence of
harmful side-effects such as the release money providing an incentive
to slave holders to embark on more raids to acquire new captives.
It was against the background of this heated debate that this year's
Commission on Human Rights considered a report from the new Special
Rapporteur on Sudan and eventually decided not to make an explicit
reference to slavery. While at first sight this appeared a regressive
step, it may not have been such a bad move - as the Commission's
resolution was passed without disagreement from representative of
the Government of Sudan, and it now shows some signs of being implemented.
This year's resolution 1995/15 expresses the Commission's "deep
concern" (in Article 2.a.iii of the resolution) "At the abduction
of women and children to be subjected to forced labour or similar
conditions", that is to say, the very specific pattern of abductions
and enslavement which has been reported regularly to this Working
Group for more than ten years.
The Commission went on to call upon the Government of Sudan (in
Article 4.e of the resolution) "to investigate reports of the abduction
of women and children taking place in the framework of the conflict
in southern Sudan, bring to trial any persons suspected of supporting
or participating in such activities and facilitate the safe return
of affected children to their families as a matter of priority,
and to accept, inter alia, a multilateral investigation into
the causes of the abduction of women and children subjected to forced
labour or similar conditions, as well as ways and means to obtain
the eradication of this practice".
The Sudanese authorities appear to have moved relatively promptly
to give effect to this resolution, for by mid-May the Minister of
Justice issued a decree establishing a 12-member "Committee for
the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children" (CEAWC), with
the mandate of investigating reports of abductions of women and
children, as well as the causes of such cases when the victims are
subjected to "forced labour or similar conditions", and of facilitating
the safe return of the women and children affected.
A month later, in mid-June 1999, an amendment to the basic criminal
law was proposed to the National Assembly, apparently to strengthen
legal provisions against discrimination and slavery.
The Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery may wish to invite
a representative of the Republic of Sudan to provide more detailed
and up-to-date information about these developments, particularly
the work of the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women
and Children. As previous initiatives by the Government to investigate
reports of slavery seemed to deal only with the problem at the propaganda
level, and not in the communities and households where people are
held in what the Commission and Government have now been calling
"forced labour", current developments evidently require careful
monitoring. The areas of Sudan which require particular focus continue
to be southern Kordofan and southern Darfur, as this is where most
captures have been reported.
A representative of Christian Solidarity International spoke at
the beginning of this year of "tens of thousands" of people in slavery
in Sudan, and of "concentration camps" for slaves. At Anti-Slavery
International, we know of no evidence to justify an assertion that
20,000 people or more are currently held as captives and slaves
in these areas of Sudan. We know that abductions have continued
to be reported, despite the organisation of self-defence groups
among the Dinka of northern Bahr al-Ghazal, but realise that a number
as large as 20,000 would be more visible than the smaller group
which we understand is actually held, of hundreds or several thousand
individuals scattered around separate households. Domestic servants
and slaves throughout the world are a remarkably "invisible" group
of people, precisely because they are not concentrated in a particular
place and are attached to, and sometimes absorbed by, the households
in which they work.
While the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery has been
unable to accept the invitations made to it in previous years by
representatives of the Government of Sudan to visit Sudan to find
out more about reports of slavery, the controversy caused by criticisms
of UNICEF over the issue of ransoming slaves means that there are
issues at stake at the moment which go beyond the specifics of slavery
or "forced labour" in Sudan and may deserve some comment from the
Sub-Commission's human rights experts. The issue, ultimately, is
not whether "buying" or "ransoming" human beings is a legitimate
activity, but rather to what lengths people and organisations outside
governmental or inter-governmental structures may resort when official
institutions fail to uphold basic human rights. As the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 50 years ago, made clear (in
its preamble) "it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law". People in Sudan have resorted to rebellion and virtually every
imaginable alternative approach because quite simply their inherent
dignity and equal rights as members of the human family have not
been recognised.
|
