By Gamal Adam

My 18, 2012 —
The African Union’s recent road map which the United Nations Security Council has endorsed with the Resolution 2046 includes a clause that puts pressure on the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) to negotiate with Khartoum in order to settle the Sudanese problem in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile — a clause which the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) has refuted through its commander in chief, Abdl-Aziz Adam Al-Hilu, who said that selective negotiations are not acceptable because they will never lead to sustainable peace since they do not address the root cause of the conflict in Sudan (see www.sudantribune.com 10/5/2012). Mr. Al-Hilu also added that the international community has short memories with regard to Sudanese conflict and he tried to remind the AU and the UNSC that “Bashir has dishonored more than 43 peace agreements including key provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement….”

I say yes, Al-Hilu and Sudan Revolutionary Front have got it right, whereas the international community represented by the African Union and the United Nations Security Council got it seriously wrong. The road map which has been endorsed by the Resolution 2046 might be suitable for the settlement of the crisis between Khartoum and Juba, but including to it South Kordofan and Blue Nile is a serious mistake. It is something in a gold dish, as Sudanese saying goes, which unexpectedly came across Khartoum’s way because it never thought that the AU and UNSC would be in such a level of naivety or even dangerous carelessness.

There are many questions which those who included South Kordofan and Blue Nile to the road map for the settlement of conflict between Juba and Khartoum should have first asked themselves before doing what they have done. They should have asked themselves: “Where are the agreements which Khartoum signed with several fronts in 2005 and 2006, including Abuja Agreement, Asmara Agreement, and Cairo Agreement? Why did the majority of southern Sudanese opt for independence rather than unity? Was the unity really attractive and southern Sudanese did not want it simply because they wanted to have their own country for no genuine reason? Why did Pagan Amum cry that the SLPM/A and the NCP started the division of portfolios nicely as if it was a spoon for the NCP and a spoon for the SPLM/A, but as soon as they reached the portfolios of finance, energy and mining, security, interior, and so forth, the NCP threw its spoon away and used both hands? Why is Tijani Seisei crying that his Doha agreement is dying (even though I had told him many months before he signed it that his Doha was going to be born dead because he did not take right steps toward its conception)? How can Doha be an agreement without ceasefire and why have most of the crimes of which Al-Bashir and leading members of his party have been accused continued, including killing, rape, and various types of humiliation (e.g. farmers farm their own farm lands and harvest crops on condition that regime’s militiamen take what they want of the crops and leave the rest to farmers or farmers rent their own lands from militiamen or else they should not farm, militiamen also rape women almost every day and those of them who try to defend themselves or their relatives are killed, stabbed or seriously beaten up, and so forth)? And have Minni, Abul-Gasim Imam, Al-Hilu, Agar, and Arman gone back to arms simply because they are naturally inclined to fight, risking their own lives for no genuine reasons?”

The people who formed the Sudan Revolutionary Front did not form it only to be dismantled by selective negotiations which lead to no settlement. In fact, the selective negotiations regardless of their number (43, more or less) did function like a type of medicine that doubled the resistance of virus once it was taken. One of these examples is the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which the NCP and the SPLM/A signed in 2005. Had that agreement been signed between the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), including the SPLM/A and the other constituents of the NDA, Sudan would still have probably been one country ruled by a democratically elected leader, the fruitless agreements that took place in Cairo, Asmara, Abuja, Doha, and Addis Ababa would have been avoided, and efforts and money wasted in them been invested somewhere else. Also, Dinka, Misseirya, and other Sudanese would have been interacting peacefully in Abyay and Hijleej, Al-Bashir’s racist speeches and Al-Intibaha’s abhorrent writings stopped, and the games of hatred in the name of Islam outlawed. However, according to some authentic sources, Dr. John Garang had at the beginning insisted that the problem of the whole Sudan be solved at once in Naivasha, but he let the idea of including the NDA to the talks go because of the mounting pressure that some IGAD members and friends exercised on him. There is no doubt that Khartoum had in some ways influenced the mediators to exclude the other members of NDA, as any move toward the segmentation of Sudan’s problem constitutes a dream that comes true for the NCP regime whose existence in power is based on dividing the Sudanese society at all levels starting from the smallest unit such as family to the entire country. For example, the regime divided members of the same families between supporters and enemies, causing conflicts among them, made population of the same villages kill each other, and tore the social web of Sudanese society by categorizing the people as either Arabs and non-Arabs (‘Abeed—slaves or non-full-citizens) and treat them accordingly.

I would like to correct Mr. Al-Hilu that the problem of Sudan is not only limited to Blue Nile, Darfur, and South Kordofan—it has now reached almost every corner in the country and most Sudanese, except NPC members, and Al-Mahdis and Al-Marghanis and their entourages, are convinced that the NCP regime has to go by all means. The document which 12 Sudanese political parties and movements signed in Washington DC on May 10, 2012 and in which they decided to work together for the regime change is evidence that most Sudanese want this regime to go. Moreover, the Sudan Revolutionary Front does not only include SPLM/A-N and the Darfur movements, as the Beja Congress and Kush which represent the far north and east are also its members in addition to some important political figures from the DUP and Umma party who had been fed up with the incompetent leadership of Al-Mahdis and Al-Marghanis and decided to join the SRF. I also met many individuals from the eastern, northern, and western parts of Kordofan who were members of the movements that were fighting the regime in Darfur and which are now part of the SRF.

All of these efforts leading toward keeping the remaining Sudan united and even bringing South Sudan back in the future, if we are able to completely exclude religion, ethnicity, and race from politics, and make everything be based on citizenship. The frustration of these efforts, exerted by Sudanese of all backgrounds toward finding an inclusive settlement to their country’s problem, will definitely lead to further complication of already complicated situation, as there has never been peace in Darfur and Asmara Agreement did not bring any genuine stability in Eastern Sudan. Moreover, western Kordofan, far north, and many parts of Al-Jazeera (central Sudan) are all potential conflict areas. As Al-Hilu has mentioned, the way toward reaching sustainable peace for Sudan is the inclusive negotiations that will lead to the birth of a constitution that genuinely guarantees equal rights for all Sudanese citizens regardless of their backgrounds, bestows on them the right to never accept again any more coups d’état and resist dictatorships by all possible means, establishes a real national army, as there is no longer Sudanese army, and allows the people of each region to run the affairs of their own region, including the management of resources.

I have to point out that the leaders of Sudan Revolutionary Front are partly responsible for the mistakes that the international community is about to make on Sudan, as they are not able to quickly get rid of the factional labels (e.g. SPLM/A North, SPLM/A Adelwahid or Minni, JEM, and so forth) that make them look divided. They have to raise themselves to the hopes of most Sudanese, pave the way for a Sudan that is for all Sudanese, and put an end to Al-Bashir’s Sudan of masters and slaves (or humans and insects).

I hope that Sudanese all over the world will demonstrate against the AU and UNSC’s clause on South Kordofan and Blue Nile that will not only further divide Sudan, but will also prolong the suffering of Sudanese people under a regime which many Sudanese describe as the worst ever in the history of Sudan since 1821.

The author can be reached Email: gamaladam@yahoo.ca

Article source: http://www.sudantribune.com/On-the-African-Union-road-map-and,42645

By Jacob K. Lupai

May 19, 2012 — Peaceful co-existence is what is expected of people the world over in promoting security. Nevertheless, how does peaceful co-existence come about? There are many concepts. The main one is respect. Many human rights violation occurs in the absence of respect. Cordial relations between two neighbours are guided by respect of each neighbour’s space. A violation of one’s space may invite a retaliatory action which will not augur well with the essence of peaceful co-existence. South Sudan and Sudan are two neighbours. Previously South Sudan was an integral part of united Sudan. However, as it were South Sudan divorced North Sudan which had been like an extremely naughty person. The divorce left North Sudan, now simply known as Sudan, very bitter like a divorcee that had not been adequately compensated and a very bitter divorcee can be extremely dangerous. South Sudan on the other hand was very happy to go separate ways from a forced marriage that was doomed to fail from day one. The challenge now is how to bring about peaceful co-existence between South Sudan and Sudan.

North-South Sudan conflict

North-South Sudan conflict is as old as any story from ancient times and a tedious one to relive. However, brief highlights may be sufficient. North-South conflict was basically the problem of underdevelopment aggravated by racist overtones and religious bigotry by a minority clique in the centre. South Sudan only became a lucrative destination for the representatives of this minority clique to milk whatever resources available. All successive governments of Sudan were dominated by this minority clique whose vision of socio-economic development only favoured central North Sudan. South Sudan was left like a zoo for exploitation and perceived as a land of slaves. However, the minority clique in their racist overtones and religious bigotry underestimated South Sudan. To correct all the wrongs and injustices perpetrated by the minority clique, South Sudan articulated a mechanism that would have made Sudan a strong united country in Sub Saharan Africa. Nonetheless, in their greed the minority clique rejected outright South Sudan’s call for equality of citizenship, equitable development and a secular system of governance as a basis of united Sudan. The circumstances created by the refusal of the minority clique of racists and religious bigots gave South Sudan no choice but to embark on one of the longest armed struggles anywhere else on the continent. South Sudan struggled for a total of 39 years when the minority clique finally realized that it was costly to colonise South Sudan. The minority clique reluctantly agreed to conclude a peace deal with South Sudan.

Comprehensive peace agreement between North and South Sudan

After a protracted second phase of armed struggle lasting some 22 years the minority clique in the North as represented by the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) as representing the South concluded a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA). Among other things the CPA stipulated a six-year interim period where there was self-rule in South Sudan and thereafter a referendum for South Sudan to determine its status either to remain a part of Sudan or to opt for separation and subsequently independence. In the interim period North-South borders would have been demarcated and the territory of Abyei, which was annexed to North Sudan for administrative purposes during the colonial era, would have had a referendum concurrently with South Sudan. The people of Abyei who were originally from South Sudan were to decide in the referendum either to remain in North Sudan or to join their kindred in South Sudan. The NCP as the dominant ruling party in the central government in the interim period deliberately ignored the demarcation of North-South borders and the referendum in Abyei. It instead manufactured all sorts of obstacles in the implementation of the CPA. Like a very bitter divorcee the NCP wouldn’t let the CPA be implemented fully in the interim period.

Independence of South Sudan

At the end of the six-year interim period a referendum was to take place in South Sudan. The NCP tried all types of tricks to obstruct the referendum. However, the SPLM, the dominant ruling party in government in South Sudan, asserted emphatically that the referendum was a red line that couldn’t be crossed. The message to the NCP was loud and clear. A return to war was imminent and the NCP knew it would be to blame. The referendum in South Sudan went ahead as planned. The result was a resounding victory for separation and the breakup of Sudan into two independence states of South Sudan and Sudan. Shortly thereafter South Sudan formally declared itself independent Republic of South Sudan with instant recognition by many countries of the world including Sudan. South Sudanese were celebrating while Sudanese were mourning. It was not difficult to understand why Sudanese were mourning. Independence of South Sudan was a devastating loss for Sudan of the vast resources and wealth to the South which Sudan had taken for granted. All of a sudden Sudan found itself in a miserable situation of having lost the vast oil reserves and luxuriant pastures to South Sudan. This was a bitter blow to the economy of Sudan that understandably the NCP would try any means to destabilise South Sudan in order to have unlimited access to its lost share of resources. This may explain Sudan’s bellicose response to the declaration of independence of South Sudan.

Sudan’s reaction to independence of South Sudan

Sudan reacted negatively to independence of South Sudan. First Sudan tried to charge exorbitant price for South Sudan to sell its crude oil. Secondly Sudan was stealing South Sudan’s crude oil. Thirdly Sudan launched air and ground attacks against targets deep inside South Sudan resulting to unnecessary loss of civilian lives. Fourthly Sudan is adamantly refusing to have the North-South borders demarcated as on 1st January 1956. Fifthly Sudan is fanning flames of conflict by refusing to withdraw from Abyei. Some of all these are grand designs of the NCP to undermine the Republic of South Sudan. The ultimate objective of the NCP is for Sudan to have unimpeded access to resources in South Sudan. The NCP does not care about what the United Nations Security Council says of Sudan’s naked aggression against South Sudan. Sudan is contemptuous of the United Nations Security Council’s resolution on deescalating North-South border conflict. It turns a deaf ear to the call of international community to stop bombardment of South Sudan’s territories. This is because the NCP is aware that whatever the international community does is just talk and talk, and then begs and begs but nothing else. This encourages Sudan to feel it is in control but not the international community. If this was not the case Sudan wouldn’t have defied the United Nations Security Council’s call for cessation of hostilities. Sudan continues to bomb target deep inside South Sudan with impunity. The United Nations Security Council should be robust in the case of Sudan. A no fly zone should have been declared over North-South border areas to check the arrogance of the NCP. Alternatively South Sudan should have been provided with air defense system to safeguard its air space. Presumably it is South Sudan to acquire the capability of air defense. South Sudan has the resources but it is not clear why it is taking too long to have an air defense system. The world is flooded with mercenaries that could do the job magnificently. With abundance of oil reserves it is not difficult to conclude a mortgage with sympathizers and supporters to relieve South Sudan of the current poor air defense system. This could be a strong signal to Sudan as to what to expect for being utterly belligerent.

NCP obstacle to peaceful co-existence

It is abundantly clear that the NCP is the main obstacle to peaceful co-existence between South Sudan and Sudan. The NCP is the obstacle because it later regretted signing the CPA as illustrated by its refusal to cooperate in demarcation of North-South borders and conducting referendum in Abyei. The only way the NCP could do then was to obstruct the implementation of the CPA to the letter. The NCP succeeded when it obstructed the demarcation of North-South borders and the Abyei referendum. It will continue to obstruct any progress towards resolving the outstanding issues of the CPA. The United Nations Security Council should better take note of this. This is because what the NCP is trying to do is to punish the people of the two sisterly counties for its own catastrophic failures. The NCP cannot bully South Sudan into submission. It is aware of what South Sudan is capable of. The people of South Sudan and Sudan are ordinary folks who just want to go about their businesses without the intimidating behavior of the NCP. Yesterday they were of the same nationality. It was only when the NCP polarized North and South did the people of South Sudan find it necessary to separate. Separation did not mean enmity. It was expected that Sudan would be supportive of South Sudan in relevant fields in consolidating their independence for the benefit of the two countries. Instead of courting friendship and cultivating good relations, Sudan embarked on a desperate attempt to colonise South Sudan again. Nonetheless, it is most likely that South Sudan would collaborate with Sudan based on mutual advantage and common interest of the people of both countries. However, the NCP as an oppressive party always wants to dictate its terms on others. This is evidenced by the battles raging in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Southern Blue Nile. The only way to promote peaceful co-existence between South Sudan and Sudan, and within Sudan is the total obliteration of the NCP. This is not necessarily through the use of force. The Aboud’s and Numeiri’s military regimes were not toppled by the use of force in 1964 and 1985 respectively but by the weight of the masses. If all the political forces in Sudan put their differences aside and unite as a block, the NCP will soon be on the exit. This will enormously save the people of Sudan the embarrassment the NCP is causing in frustrating all their efforts for peaceful co-existence with their brothers and sisters in South Sudan.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the NCP is indeed the obstacle to peaceful co-existence between South Sudan and Sudan, and within Sudan. If a poll was taken it would be most probable that the overwhelming majority of people in Sudan would prefer peaceful co-existence to Sudan belligerence. Also if a poll was taken in South Sudan the majority of people might agree to share resources with Sudan on the basis of mutual advantage. What the people of South Sudan will strenuously object, however, is when Sudan engages in deception and dishonesty as the NCP is currently the chief coordinator of deception and dishonesty in Sudan. With the NCP out of the way there will be opportunities for peaceful co-existence between South Sudan and Sudan, and within Sudan. This will naturally encourage the people of the two sisterly countries to work together in the endeavour to improve their living standards through trade. In addition this will promote regional peace and security.

The author can be reached at jklupai@googlemail.com

Article source: http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-s-NCP-an-obstacle-to,42644

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

May 19, 2012 — Sudanese leaders seem to think they are smarter than anybody else in this world. They seem to recognize the legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) whenever it is time for them to complain about something. When the UNSC members agree to deal with the issue presented to them in a meaningful way, the Sudanese become selective on what the UNSC members should tell them and what they should not tell them. They seem to be using the UNSC a means to their end. This is shown by the complaint the Sudanese lodged with the UNSC against South Sudan recently over the new South Sudan’s map.

On May 19, 2012, the Undersecretary of the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Rahmatallah Mohamed Osman was quoted by the Sudan Tribune as saying this: “We call on the Security Council to apply the necessary measures against the Republic of South Sudan, including measures relating to the violation of [UNSC) decision.”

One wonders what that means legally if one carefully follows how Sudan behaves in relation to the UNSC and South Sudan!

I do not think the memory of the Undersecretary is that short to remember that it was the Sudanese Parliament that rejected some elements of UNSC resolution on May 9, 2012. Not only that, President Bashir said this on the following day: “We only do the things we want to do. And no security council or the whole world for the matter can force us to act otherwise.” Was it the map of South Sudan that let President Bashir defy the UNSC resolution?

If what constitutes major violation of the resolution is the adding of disputed areas to any map of the two Sudans, then who has violated the resolution the most between those who maintain these areas in their map and occupying them at the same time and those who are adding them to their map in theory and have withdrawn from them until the solution is found, as directed by the UNSC resolution 2046?

The Undersecretary seems to have forgotten that it was the same UNSC resolution 2046 that ordered both the Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw their forces from the disputed areas and return to the negotiating table within two weeks. Who is still in the clearly disputed are of Abyei now? It is the Sudanese army. The police from South Sudan was verified by the UN last week to have completely pulled out from Abyei. Who is now violating resolution 2046?

What evidence can the Undersecretary show for Sudan’s respect for the UNSC? But we can show many examples of Sudan’s disrespect for the organization. For example, it was the same UNSC which issued a statement ordering both the Sudanese Government and the rebels in Southern Kordofan early this year to allow the delivery of aid to civilians in the area. But the Sudanese Government said on May 16, 2012 that it will not recognize humanitarian surveys in South Kordofan. Why then did Sudan not listen to UNSC this time if it follows its directives?

All the above shows that Sudanese leaders really think they are smarter than anybody else in the international community. They bite South Sudanese harder and become the first to cry louder that we are criminals. Will the international community believe these leaders?

Zechariah Manyok Biar lives in Juba, Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at manyok34@gmail.com

Article source: http://www.sudantribune.com/Is-UNSC-only-legitimate-to-Sudan,42646