Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, I'm very glad to be here today with you all.
Um, as Sudanese, um, it's. I know that is quite easy to speak about.
Peace comparing to actually making peace.
But, um, one of the main reasons why I accepted to coming to the conference is the title which says New actors.
And I always think that the title should include, um, new actors, um, uh, conflict prevention, um, peacekeeping and peacemaking of peacekeeping.
Uh, at schools, we all learned that, um, very early that prevention is better than cure.
Yet, um, all of our processes, uh, is more of the post-conflict or peacebuilding rather than the conflict prevention.
Um, my background, uh, in climate change, uh, had taught me that in various ways building the resilience of the communities,
reducing the tension coming from the scarcity of the resources,
um, reducing the competition on main things like water, like land, like food, um, is one way to actually very much reduce the possibility of conflict.
Um, in Sudan, conflict kind of care for many, many, many reasons.
It could be climate change in one area. It could be bad governance in another area.
But the most important is the process, uh, to stop that conflict and to actually build the peace is rather always,
uh, missing a lot of components, specifically, um, the local participation component.
Today, I didn't prepare, um, um, a presentation because I believe that each day, in each moment is a learning, um, moment.
And I prefer to, um, give you the most updated learning process, uh, of, uh, of the journey rather than a prepare a prepared thing.
Um. It is.
It is very important to acknowledge that in Sudan as we speak, uh,
peace is is something that we hope for, but unfortunately it doesn't have many supporters as we speak.
A lot of people thinks that war is the only way to get rid of the Irish.
Have, for example. And other people think that the war happened anyway.
So let's see until the end. Who's going to win? Selling peace have never been, uh, this hard for the Sudanese people once who were peaceful by nature.
But the new obstacles and the new, uh, polarisation made it even worse.
As people, we find ourselves, uh, faced by many obstacles, continuing our lives elsewhere,
um, caring for our hopes and dreams for the country that we are losing, um, right now.
It's a it is a very, um, hard decision to be taken.
And, um, all of us in the room should at least push somehow in order to, uh,
be able to make the international peace process hold on, at least in one country.
The Security Council going back to climate change. The Security Council had um, 16 hearing sessions about climate change security.
Want. Um, one can very much, uh, connected to the war and the conflict in Darfur.
How environment was the core root cause for the conflict,
but then the mismanagement and the mis dealt with the with the conflict itself by the previous regime made the situation worse and worse.
Also, there was an attempt by UK, among other countries to pass a resolution during the Security Council,
which I had the privilege to, uh, already prove three times.
Yet the revolution. The resolution was vetoed.
A lot of countries, even our own people who, uh, called so-called the Global South, who are with us on the same side,
are sometimes resistant to the securitisation of climate change, although climate change is a security issue and a security threat.
But the actual terminology is that they are not afraid of the securitisation, but they are afraid of militarisation to climate change.
They are afraid that, um, as the previous speaker, Roger mentioned, um, the,
the liberal piece where some country would say I will in that country just to keep the environment friendly,
just to keep the climate change processes. Well.
It is. I mean, we've seen many, uh, examples of the external, um, influence into the processes.
Yet one of them very shocking results of some small project that I was doing, uh, in, in in Lake Chad.
Yeah, that the main reason for 48% of the people, young people specifically who joined Boko Haram, joined because of Lake Chad.
Uh, for a lot of people. Um, Lake Chad was not only resources, was not only, um, source of livelihood,
it was also a source of, um, prestige, um, uh, a social, um, uh, setting.
And they lost everything. They lost their livelihood, they lost their social setting.
So the only way to compensate that was to actually join Boko Haram, to get both the money,
but also the power of the guns and the weapons is similar in the RCF,
where all people who joined Lord's have are people who lost their livelihoods
due to climate change and due to desertification and environmental reasons.
Their high hopes was to join the RCF,
go to Yemen and fight for a few months and come back with a lot of money where they can actually start the family.
These hopes change into different. Something different. When I started to, uh, interfere with that.
As I said earlier, it's always easier to speak about, um, peace than to actually make the peace.
Just to to end up with a summarisation.
I want to experiment again with all of you.
And this game, uh, shows that sometimes we receive any information, we try to act on it, but sometimes we act.
If we receive too informations, then we act on the last one, not taking into account all of the information together.
And here today we had the privilege to actually repeat the experiment.
But in real life this privilege is not there. And one wrong decision can actually change things to a very worse situation.
Thank you very much.