Donors’ conference… a mountain to deliver a mouse
SHOULD I apologize for the article’s title, as it is a mere interpretation of an Arabic saying. It needs an Arabic cultural background to be understood, and really I have no idea whether the concept behind it is available in Western culture. But maybe the most similar is, “a big man talks small words,” which means the outcome is far less than what is expected, the feeling of letdown when something as huge as a mountain goes into a long parturition, and the result is so small. I believe that the text in Arabic is more eloquent and expressive.
The above is about the ongoing so-called “Sudan Friends Conference,” which was initiated by the
Germans and which will be held virtually through videoconference, so I recalled the Arabic saying when I read the news.
The “Sudan donors’ conference” will be held in Germany next June, according to a statement issued by the Friends of Sudan after a videoconference meeting chaired by France.
A quick look at the whole picture shows it to be almost a repeated story. The fixed scene, those who call themselves “donors,” with some fins for decoration. The conference usually is well organized and displays the generosity of the host country, well reflected in the media, particularly the pledges by the countries and the total amount, concluded with the press conference that is usually held with a lot of glamorization, announcing the astronomical figure of the pledges for the benefit of the media. And then alas! Nobody comes back to follow up — whether the pledges were fulfilled or were just talk in the air.
So, before sitting before the screens, the [ Prime Minister Abdalla] Hamdok government in Sudan should make a survey, to assess the conferences held before, presuming to save Sudan. The first one was at Oslo, the Norwegian capital, a donors’ conference after signing the comprehensive peace agreement, or CPA, of 2005, when the Sudanese participants returned home with a swelling patch of pledges, a total sum of “$ 4 billion,” which, as of the needs at that time, would turn Sudan into a paradise. But could any of those who participated answer the question how much percent was the fulfillment? Myself, I have no specific idea, but in general the response was so poor.
The second example was during Darfur donors’ conference that was held in Doha during April 2013, when the potential donors,“the same potential donors of today,” acted reluctantly to pledge small amounts of money. Then Qatar stepped in in a historical act to pledge half billion US dollars, almost equivalent to or more than what was pledged by the rest of the participating countries. Then the complex of the fulfillment, I say with confidence, Japan which pledged $ 25 million, and Qatar which continued paying and funding the program of the United Nations agencies in Darfur. The data is from the United Nations Development Program if anyone wants to authenticate.
I say here to my university mate Dr. Hamdok, we all know that there is no friendship for free these days; all are after their interest, so build Sudan relationships on this base — “mutual interests.” Better everything to be discussed bluntly on the table with the participants and let them spell their interest and what they want from Sudan. Being clear is better than serving a hidden agenda.
Colleague Hamdok, I still remember you coming from
Shambat to the center, talking about democracy. It is the time to achieve democracy through agriculture; no one will enjoy democracy or freedom with an empty stomach. So, drop all the donors’ slogans, such as gender etc., and take all the donors to the field, put the money there in true partnership for mutual benefit, and take along with you those who have dedicated themselves to agriculture and modernized it to the international standards. If you have no idea about them we will help you.
Really I don’t want my pessimism to come true. We want the mountain to erupt in a great volcano of contribution — through partnership, investments and facilities, not donations. Let us be dignified.