ANALYSIS: The NAVISAHA PROTOCOLS And PEACE IN SUDAN IN 2004?
By Professor David de Chand
"Given the historiography of peace agreements in Sudan, any peace agreement signs in Sudan would neither be the Holy Qu’raan nor the Holy Bible. It will surely be dismantled one way or another." Professor David de Chand
BACKGROUND
Peace is the absence of war and war is the absence of peace. The paradigm underscores as "Democratic Governance" represents peace, democratic political system, institutions, socioeconomic development, and the absent of war. On the contrary, the lack of democratic governance yields to dictatorship, autocratic rule, suppression of basic fundamental freedoms, lack of participation and representation in any system, human rights abuses, systematic disappearances, lack of transparency and accountability, alienation; rebellion and bloody war. Given, the current situation in Sudan, it would be fair to state affront that the North-South divides is as a consequence of lack of good governance. Retrospect to Sudanization policy from 1953-56 in which more 1,200 or so senior level posts held by expatriates (British& Egyptians) were scheduled to be Sudanized, out of that only six of junior category were allocated to the South. The Arab-Muslim monopolized almost all of the positions. The lack of power sharing or the monopoly of it by the predominantly Arab-Muslim north could be cited as the root causes of political dissatisfaction, mistrust and rebellion by the then Southern Corps in the Garrison town of Torit on August 18, 1955. Additionally, the premature transferred of Southern Corps personnel to the North was perceived as an unconditional forced Arabization and Islamization. The measurements yardstick deployed by the Arab-Muslim north was that the South lack qualified persons, they are non-Muslims and in accordance with Shari’ a Al-Islamiyaah, (Islamic law) it postulates that non-Muslim cannot rule a Muslim but a Muslim has a right to rule non-Muslims because in Islam non-Muslims are termed Kufra’a, infidels, and ungodly." As a result, this neo-colonial mentality in the Arab-Muslim north has fueled and ignited Africa’s longest and forgotten Arab-Muslim "colonial war" otherwise described as a "civil war" by many scholars, international mainstream media, and Sudan’s experts from 1955-1972 up to presence. The war in the south is a war of liberation rather than so-called "Greater Autonomy" being propagated by the Marxist-Leninist SPLA. The Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972, which granted the South local autonomy or internal self-rule within a United Socialist Sudan, lulled the guns. The war in Sudan did not start in 1983 as being articulated in the press. In the post-decolonization era, the North failed to create a political balanced with the South, including other peripheral, backward, and marginalized areas in the North such as the Nuba Mountains, the Beja, and Southern Blue Nile (Ignessena Hills).
Specifically, the causes of the war are lack of political power, resources or wealth sharing, gross socioeconomic underdevelopment, denial of access to the sociopolitical and economic mainstream against southerners. Moreover, there was always religious ferverism or fanaticism though this was kept subtle, the political ambition of the Arab-Muslim north was to establish an Islamic state in which its Umma (masses) shall be Arabized and Islamized, including the non-Arabized-Islamized Southern part of the country. The absolute monopoly of political power and education by one group against another constitutes the absence of democratic governance in Sudan. According to Professor M. A. Salih, the South was often treated as a colonial area bequeathed to the Arab-Muslim north rather than as an equal partner in the process of nation building.
WHY CELEBRATIONS?
The talks in the streets, clubs, and homes in the Diaspora these days in many South Sudanese are focused on the protocols signed by the Government of Sudan and the Marxist-Leninist SPLA minus many armed and unarmed southern groups. Many who do not know the real history of war in Sudan and South Sudan in particular have joined the van wagon driving in the jungles with no exact route and destiny. This is surely pretty serious because such an aimless driving with no sense of direction, a map, and a pocket campus or Global Positioning System (GPS), could be dangerous and lead the van wagon to run out of fuel and then plunge on high cliff and then dips into the Nile River. Modern history has taught us that nation-states do go to war because of vital strategic, economic, and security national interests have been affected by one or more states. When we took up arms in the last four decades it was (and still is) the fact that our mutual and vital national interest in the South has been affected by the Arab-Muslim north with backing from Egypt with strategic interest is to control the Nile Waters, the League of Arab States (LAS), and entire Islamic world. When you tell the dwindling and confused Marxist SPLA supporters asphyxiated and infatuated by the empty political philosophy and political sociology based on the white communist lies, corroborated deceptions, mental manipulations, killings of the South best and brightest or crème de la crème, why should people celebrate? What have we achieved? Is this the time to all of these things? Surprisingly, many would immediately reply that because of peace. But really what kind of peace? Where is this peace? Many believe that because the USA is involved peace will come. Many of them of them do not know the function of international law and the fact that the United States of America is not the international policeman of the world. They should realize that the USA like any other country in the world has certain interests it must and ought to protect. Given, Sudan’s strategic location and its proximity to the volatile Middle East, it is not a top priority in US foreign policy agenda. The implementation of the signed protocols would depend on Sudanese goodwill both north and south rather than the international community. For those who lack the knowledge of international law and international treaties and how they are negotiated, the USA, my new country that I have honorably served, would not bring peace to Sudan without the concerted efforts of Sudanese, by Sudanese, and for Sudanese" both northerners and southerners alike. Second, the USA and the countries that have facilitated the protocols have got neither military nor strategic foreign policy commitment. The current US involvement in Sudan is as a result of pressure and influence in the Bush’s Administration from the Christian Rights who have perceived the problem in Sudan as being Christianity V. Islam. Thus, the responsibility of peace is left solely on the goodwill of the sovereign government of Sudan rather than international community. The celebration worldwide by the SPLA loyalists is an illusion if not a contradiction of the international political reality.
As a result of the precede paragraph, it is now high time for southerners to commit themselves to realistic, pragmatic, and genuine reconciliation, and unity of purpose among equals. Failure on our part to undertake these measures in the short run; we shall be doomed and remained in bondage forever lasting. If we were celebrating the recently signed six protocols in Navivasha on May 24, 2004, such protocols do not in any way indicate that they would restore durable peace to Sudan and South Sudan in particular. Individuals who chose to celebrate rather than to wait for the outcome of the protocols shall be disappointed at the end of the road. The road to freedom, liberty, and social justice in our original country- Sudan- remains a long way and zigzag. Because the SPLA has committed war crimes, genocide, massacres and mass killings against the population that it took up arms to liberate, its agenda is tinted with hate and blood. Thus, any liberation movement that has committed such war crimes, shattered so many lives could not designate itself to be a liberator. We could celebrate if we have won the war rather than the battles. We might have won the battles but not the war. If we were celebrating because the Marxist-Leninist SPLA leader Mr. Garang and his cronies have destroyed hopes, visions, and political destiny of our people for the creation of an independent and sovereign state in the South, freedom, liberty, pluralistic democracy, and total emancipation from the Arab-Muslim colonialism, exploitation, racism and racialism, Islamic apartheid, forced Arabization and Islamization of the African South Sudanese to abandon their African identity, traditional culture and heritage to become Black Arab-Muslims, then we could have reasons to celebrate. The protocols signed have got many flaws and those who signed them are not dummies but conscious, egotists, introverted individuals with blind political ambition. The first and foremost major flaw hovering the Navivasha Protocols is the 6-year interim period apart from others political flaws constitutes a diplomatic sham and deception because any of the countries that exerted pressure on the signed protocols do not have any strategic foreign policy and commitment compared to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world in Sudan and south Sudan in particular. In other words, it is the repeat of the defunct Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 that granted the South local autonomy within a United Socialist Sudan. The failed Khartoum and Fashoda Peace Agreements of 1997 are superior compared to the recent protocols signed on May 24, 2004. Although they were rejected by some of the European Union member States with particular emphasis on the United Kingdom and Norway, including the United States of America, it was not because they were weak or negotiated by Sudanese themselves, but it was due to the fact that there was strategic foreign policy and ideological differences between the EU and the USA with the Government of Sudan (GOS) at the time. A final note is that any peace that is externally negotiated and superimposed and not transparent, comprehensive, and inclusive would not produce lasting peace in Sudan. This is the bottom line.
Realistically, what is happening now is a real political deception and the repeat of Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 was haphazardly crafted in London/Khartoum by an abysmal semi-intellectual, inexperienced journalist and politician non other than the late Mading de Garang and the Honorable Judge Abel Alier the icon modern Bor-Dinka nationalism. Neither Mr. Mading de Garang nor Mr. Abel ever set foot in the bush. But, yet, they dictated the affairs of the conflict resolution in Khartoum and London just as Dr. Francis Mading Deng Majok from Abyei in Southern Kordufan has been running a one-man show in Washington, DC, in the past decades. Presently, Mr. Abel Alier is an advisor on both camps, namely, the Government of Sudan and the Marxist-Leninist SPLA in Kenya. Specifically, the SPLA leadership signed protocols because its knows dawn well that it’s most unpopular outfit and lack the support amongst southerners; it has lost trust; it has autocratically, undemocratically, and through authoritarian, Draconian- Praetorian-Machiavellian styles of leadership, and mismanaged affairs of the movement from its inception up to this day. It has also committed systematic human rights abuses; its lack coherent objective; and its lack the process of democratization; good governance; the rule of law; and transparency and accountability. Most importantly, Mr. Garang has failed to create a cohesive social base or a united grassroots base in the South. Hence, reckoning such acute political circumstances, he (Mr. Garang) does have a choice except to appease his external donors, viz., the Arab Fund for Development (AFD), the Egyptian Government, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID-Sudan Task Force) where the US taxpayer money is being wasted to appease the dictator and to bride any anyone known by the USAID officials opposes the SPLA to rejoin or succumb. In fact, almost all USAID good and services are highly centralized and concentrated in the predominantly SPLA controlled areas and most of the services are allotted are only to groups and individuals known by some of the USAID officials to be supporters of the SPLA that is a political party rather than the Government of South Sudan (GOSS). As a Sudanese-American, a veteran, and a Taxpayer, nothing could obstruct me not to inform my Representative and Senator in the US House of Congress, including the White House about this discriminatory and prejudice or bias activities being implemented by the USAID officials in South Sudan. It is without the shadow of the doubt that the USAID activities contradict the core of the American democratic values, the Constitution, laws and regulations as well as the US strategic foreign policy objectives. In fact, this is pretty wrong, discriminatory, and high corruption of the third kind and contradict the basic US foreign policy agenda in South Sudan. It should also be let known that because there is a significant Sudanese-American Community (SAC) in the United States such practices will reported to the highest authorities. This is known in the American political system as the "whistle blowers".
We should not therefore celebrate the lost and betrayal of the South to our mortal enemies-Al-Jellabas (Arabs). In 1997, When Dr. Riak Machar (Mechanical Engineer/Strategic Management and former Lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Khartoum) and Dr. Lam Akol (Chemical Engineer and former Lecturer at the Faculty of Chemical Engineering at the University of Khartoum) negotiated and signed the Khartoum/Fashoda peace agreements; Mr. Garang and his cronies made a hell of destructive criticism against the two brilliant and superb Engineers and scientists. They were treated lepers and threw eggs at them and were termed as ‘traitors’ and ‘sales out’ of the South to the Arab-Muslim north. If the above destructive criticism and figure pointing were true at all, to day the two Lectures and their colleagues would not have left Sudan again for the bush to fight the government. The Marxist SPLA has done the reversed and it would be up to the South and the world to judge whether the two pragmatic Engineers or doctors were "traitors", "sales out" or not. It would be worthwhile to indicate that the protocols are actually 99.9% copycat or reapplications of the Khartoum/Fashoda Peace Agreements. Whether the Khartoum/Fashoda Peace Agreements have failed to be implemented by the GOS, they remain to be mother of the protocols signed on May 24, 2004 and the would-be Peace Agreement in Sudan. Again, Mr. Garang made a sarcastic statement that the "NIF regime (GOS) was too deformed to be reformed". Isn’t it he (Mr. Garang) also too deformed to be reformed?
Finally, we have got nothing to celebrate. We have lost the war. We have been sold out to the Arab world in exchange for millions to dollars being channeled to the SPLA leadership by the Arab Development Fund (ADF) and the USAID. We are still in bondage and we shall remain there unless we devise or counteract the situation with another pragmatic and concrete action NOW rather than latter. The failure of the South was (still is) the creation and blind political ambition of the Mr. Garang and his cronies. They have achieved their personal glorification by aggressively accumulating wealth from all directions, namely, the Arab world through Egypt, the USAID, the Government of Nigeria, and the Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) and other secret sources to become the third multimillionaire liberation leader trailing the late Johannes Savimbivi of UNITA and Mr. Yasser Arafat of the PLO. A word of wisdom that I would be obliged to impart to those who have been excluded and alienated from the peace process is that- we have got the talent, the capacity and the ability to regroup, reunite our rank and files to pursue the armed struggle that has cost us so much. History and our martyrs shall not absolve if we were to abandon the struggle for freedom, liberty, and democracy un-finish. I urge and appeal to all southerners to sit down and make reflections on why more than 2.7 million lives have to die and more than 5.7 million people have to be internally displaced from their traditional habitat. Again, history has shown that nationalists and liberators do not suffer from "war fatigue" and they do not die but they only passed away. Luta Continua!
THE PUPROSE OF THE ARTICLE
We write this article because of our firsthand knowledge and experience in the peacemaking process, as a former negotiator and one of the framers of the internationally recognized document known as the Intergovernmental Authority and Development Declaration of Principles [IGAD/DoP] of May 1994 that now serves as the basis for a negotiated conflict resolution in Sudan. Additionally, I have been a frontline negotiator with the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime through IGAD (I, II, III, IV, and V) peace process and other media worldwide sponsored by the Intergovernmental Partners Forum (IPF), the European Union (EU), UNESCO to narrow the gap between the warring camps in Sudan and one of the Drafters of the Political Charter of April 1996 that served as prelude to the Khartoum Peace Agreement (KPA) of April 1997. The specific purpose for writing this article is to enlighten the American public, academia, international community, and the sponsors of the current ongoing bilateral talks between two autocratic dictators: Lt. General Hassan Omer Al-Beshir and Marxist-Leninist Dr. John Garang, and the grave dangers that lie ahead for the people of Sudan and South Sudan in particular. Both the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime and the Marxist-Leninist SPLA are not democratic, politically, and legally competent to produce any real peace for the country. They are both dictators and thus any peace would be a peace between two dictators.
The British journalist Julie Flint comparative analysis of both Lt. General Hassan Al-Beshir and the Dinka dictator Dr. John Garang in one of her commentaries for The Daily Star in London, UK, that any peace sign would be between the two dictators is correct and authentic analysis. We could not agree more with fact-findings. Of course, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in its Country Report made the most outstanding analysis ever on the current situation in Sudan and South Sudan in particular. It broke the iceberg that has been hidden for years. They have similar backgrounds, namely, they both served in the Sudanese armed forces in the pre-renewal of the 1983: Beshir was an infantry officer, Garang as an army colonel. Neither has been elected in free democratic elections. Both have led militaristic, oppressive regimes that have tortured and killed their opponents, suppressed civil society and grossly abused human rights of equal measures. Both have pursued a blind political strategy of capturing power to transform Sudanese society, rather than mobilizing the people in pursuit of political objective. For instance, the political ambition of Dr. Garang is to become the first Dinka President of Sudan. This is impractical, if not impossible, political ambition. Second, Dr. Garang political ambition is specifically focused on how to commit genocide against the Nuer nation, one of the largest, and the strongest in the South. Again, this political dream has asphyxiated the mad colonel and his tribesmen is absolutely unachievable because the Nuer nation with its large military cadres in the SPLA under the leadership of Dr. Riak Machar and its able commanders will not, I repeat, will not turn the muzzle of the guns against fellow Nuer in the South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF). Because it is well known fact that Mr. Garang wanted to sign the peace alone without the inclusion of the Nuer and other nationalities in the South could already be a double trouble. He could not govern the South and the Navivasha Protocols could be dead end and could not takeoff. The military forces of the SSDF and others would have to regroup under a new and pragmatic leadership to confront the SPLA in the South. At the end of the day, however, the SSDF would prevail. If the SPLM/A banks on the international peace keeping force intervention that is being planned by Blair-Bush Administrations in conjunction the UN Security Council would be a violation of international law and the New International Order (NIO). Most importantly, the African Union (AU) should be vigilant about the plan of sending military forces into Africa and Sudan in particular. We would like to make one thing clear, if the proposed UN peacekeeping force would include the UK, the USA, Norway, and Italy, they are not neutral parties to the conflict in Sudan. The British created the problem at the threshold of decolonization period, washed off their hands, and left it unresolved on 1.1. 1956.
The current political ambition of Mr. Garang including his anti-Nuer nation rhetoric, the Marxist-Leninist dictator should know as of date that the Nuer nation is solidly united, firmed, vigilant, and ready to confront anything for its survival and to defend its citizens, dignity, and integrity. Mr. Garang words of hatred shall never reverse the course of history. Of course, the world should know and understand that the Nuer national military forces would not be the first or the last to launch a pre-emptive military attack against anyone in the South. However, if anyone would dare to start any aggression, it will be crashed, disseminated, and destroyed for good. The SPLA’s genocide, massacres, and mass killings of the Nuer "Lost Boys" in large numbers and officers and men who have remained in the SPLA in Eastern Equatoria in the aftermath of the split on August 28, 1991, launched by Comdrs. Koul Mayang Juuk, Bior Aswad Ajang, Majok Aggot, George Ator, Ping Deng Majok, Daniel Awet Awet, including other SPLA warlords have not been forgotten and shall Never Again re-occur in the Nuer nation. The Nuer people have committed themselves honestly for the exercise of the right of self-determination- meaning political independence from the Arab-Muslim north colonialism with backing from Egypt, the League of Arab States and the Islamic world. Furthermore, they have made Dr. John Garang to be where he is today. It was a gross mistake and should be the first and the last mistake ever. Both groups are power mongers utilizing the platform and the "carrot and stick" policy and the "gunboat diplomacy" of the Bush’s Administration to make a quick fix peace deal in Sudan and uses it as political tool against his democratic challenger Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in this crucial election year in the United States of America. Both Lt.-General Beshir and Dr. Garang have no strategic policy of assuring peace because the discussions from Machakos to Navivasha Protocols are not transparent, comprehensive, and inclusive. They have been alienated and excluded an overwhelming majority of the political forces, armed and unarmed groups, and the civil society in both the North and South alike. The protocols themselves are copycat of the Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997. The IGAD mediators and international facilitators (USA, UK, Italy, and Norway) who co-sponsored the bilateral peace talks should have first considered many options before starting any negotiations. First, all parties to the conflict should have declared a universal truce; second, South-South Dialogue should have been a prerequisite that should have been given a top priority. Third, all armed and unarmed groups should have been invited to the talks. Without the doubt, South Sudanese have been divided due to worst leadership, systematic human rights abuses, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed by the Marxist-Leninist SPLA commanders and warlords per Dr. John Garang instructions between 1983-1991, and 1994 up to Present.
SOUTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE
There is an urgent need for South-South Dialogue, reconciliation, unity of purpose among equals, and the resolution of several fundamental outstanding issues, which led to the split on August 28, 1991. The South-South Dialogue should be conducted under auspices of a neutral moderator. The payment of more US$700,000 by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to inexperience and abysmal sharps to conduct South-South Dialogue was a mistake. The funds for South-South Dialogue should have been entrusted to a neutral party rather than the SPLA in the first place. The three main outstanding issues that led to the split were lack of coherent objective in the struggle, lack of democratization, good governance, rule of law, human rights protection, and transparency and accountability in the SPLA. The movement was and still is being managed autocratically and undemocratically by Mr. Garnag and his cronies like his own personal farm. Without the conciliation of the above, the roadmap to sustainable peace in Sudan and South Sudan in particular, remains grim. Because of unpopularity of Mr. Garang, it would be difficult for him to rule the South. The Marxist-Leninist SPLA, known for its poor quality leadership, is not fit to govern the South alone. The way forward in the south is the institutionalization of democratic and decentralized or a federal/confederal system of administration. No southerners including those of the Equatoria Defense Force (EDF) bought off by the pro-Garang lobbyists at USAID in Washington, DC, to encourage the Bor-Dinka hegemony. The Marxist-Leninist SPLA has to equally share political power, resources or wealth, equal development with other parties, adequate access, and equal opportunity for all citizens based on merit and meritocracy. The simplest logic is that if the SPLA is ready to share power, resources, and security with the Islamic government in Khartoum, it should also reciprocate the same with other southerners who have made big sacrifices in the past twenty years or so in the armed struggle whether as SPLA, Sudan People’s Democratic Front (SPDF), South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM), South Sudan Independent Movement/Army (SSIM/A) cadres, and South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF) that remains a major threat to peace in Sudan and the Marxist SPLA. Lack of any political compromise on the above could trigger war and irreparable national disintegration in the South thus permitting each region to do it on its own as an autonomous and independent Commonwealth of Independent States. This is the bottom line.
Furthermore, if the South is going to survive as a strong political entity, the outstanding political issues should be addressed, including the formation of a transitional democratic constitution, a flexible federal system of government, and a democratically elected Transitional National Parliament based on secret ballet of one man/woman vote and one value. Failure of the sponsors to misread and adhere to these vibrations could cause everything to go haywire thus producing possible situations in Katanga and Kevu regions in the Congo, Angola, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo combined. Having said that, the Marxist-SPLA lacks civil administration, existing infrastructure structures, transparency and accountability. Because of our firsthand knowledge of the SPLA system; its military training and indoctrination; we feel it is inevitable that without good civil administration; political; and constitutional safeguards; the likelihood of corruption; nepotism; and favoritism, tribal monopoly of power and wealth, and human rights abuses are possible. The sponsors of the current bilateral peace talks should therefore make a commitment to contain the Marxist SPLA dictatorial rule in South Sudan. In essence, without any guarantees, there could be an outbreak of war between the SPLA and other armed groups who have been excluded from the peace process. Surely, from the point of views of many southerners, the United States is making a big blunder by externally trying to install a pure dictator and non-democrat in South Sudan. The US Administration should know that Mr. Garang is a chameleon; a dictator and killer that deserve to be trail in an international Tribunal for war crimes, genocide and heinous crimes of the worst kind against humanity in South Sudan. On a scale of 1 to 10, Mr. Garang and his henchmen could be compared to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Pol Pot Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the 1970s-80s and Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany, and the Pinochet of South Sudan. In short, he (Mr. Garang) is not the George Washington of the South but rather the Benedict Arnold of the South.
We hope and trust that the Bush’s Administration would not be misled and misguided by Washington lobbyists and the so-called experts on Sudan in this foreign policy endeavor. Any political stumbling blocks in Sudan could produce serious consequences for the Horn of Africa and could have far-reaching adverse impact on US foreign policy in Africa (if there is one at all). We would like to forewarn the sponsors (The US, The UK, Norway, and Italy) that they should not attempt to install another dictator in South Sudan when these countries are committed and doing whatever is humanly possible to remove dictatorships in order to replace them with liberal democracies vs. illiberal democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. The lobbyists and the so-called experts on Africa should not again mislead the government and the people of the United States to create another Rwanda, Angola, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone…etc. because the consequences of another inter-ethnic fight in South Sudan could have far serious and dangerous results that could surpass the aftermath of the split in 1991-1995. We appeal to and urge the sponsors of the current bilateral talks to revisit their strategic plans before it is too late. As a South Sudanese intellectual in the Diaspora who has also been involved in the search for peace and the liberation struggle for years, it is imperative that the sponsors should not allow themselves to set off another war in South Sudan. Failure of the sponsors in the ongoing bilateral peace talks to adhere to this frame of reference (worldview) could lead to the creation of another Vietnam or Somalia in South Sudan and they shall be held accountable. Based on our reliable sources, Dr. Garang is not ready for a democratic and dynamic South-South Dialogue, reunification, peace and unity of purpose.
A NATION AT WAR AGAINST ITSELF
The African nation of Sudan has been a country at war against itself for more than four decades of prolonged Arab-Muslim colonial war, terrorism, and political instability. Realistically, if all the war dead were to be resurrected, it would be discovered that the majority of the population of a nation was wiped out, and if all the resources appropriated for war were to be utilized for development, what great development would have been produced. Moreover, many peace agreements have been brokered and dismantled by the previous regimes, including the Khartoum Peace Agreement [KPA], otherwise known as the Sudan Agreement of 1997, that has been incorporated into the 1998 Constitution under Articles 137 &138 by the National Islamic Front regime in 1997-2000. Although the KPA was dishonored by the NIF regime, the Machakos Protocol and current bilateral protocols is copycat to the said agreement. Neither the NIF regime nor the Marxist-Leninist SPLA has contributed any new paradigms to the talks at Machakos and Navisha. It should be reckoned that Dr. Machar and his KPA negotiating team should feel accomplished because Mr. Garang finally recognized their great contribution to peace in Sudan. Both the Marxist-Leninist SPLA and the NIF regime in Sudan are ready to sign a piecemeal document for peace, but it will not be the "Holy Qur’an or the Holy Bible." In short, the failure of the KPA should be blamed on some of the EU member states and the United States because they failed to support it as a result of political, ideological, and foreign policy strategic differences with NIF regime. What has changed now that the same countries that have refused to negotiate the Khartoum are negotiating?
The war in South Sudan has been described by many scholars as a "civil war," an "ethnic or tribal war" or a "religious war" between the predominantly Arab-Muslim North and the Judaic-Christian South in which the former seeks to superimpose itself on the latter. But this is unreal characterization of the war. From the Southern point of view, it is a "colonial war" to eradicate Arab-Muslim North colonialism, Islamic apartheid, racialism and racism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrorism supported by Egypt, the League of Arab States (LAS), and the Islamic world. The war that has been going on in South Sudan is the last colonial war in the African continent. Western colonialism and apartheid in South Africa have been defeated. In the short run too, Arab colonialism shall also be defeated. Specifically, the war is a demand for the exercise of the right of self-determination as God’s given right to "all peoples" on planet-Earth to free themselves from any foreign or overland colonial domination externally superimposed on them against their free will and consent. As a fact of life, almost all of the 193 or so member states of the United Nations attained their right of self-determination through armed struggle. The so-called African experts, the Washington lobbyists, and foreign policymakers in the US Department of State in Washington and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (BFCO) in London, who are known to be pro-Arabists, have characterized North-South conflict as a foreign conspiracy against Sudanese national unity. Was the American Revolution in 1776 a conspiracy against the British national unity? In fact, all of the above descriptions are unrealistic and could not provide a concrete explanation that truly justifies the causes of a war that has been waged for more than four generations. The main causes of the war are lack of power, resources or wealth sharing, unequal development, denial of access into the political and economic mainstream, forced Arabization and Islamization, or the process of political assimilation of the Africans to become Black Arabs.
Although this prolonged colonial war has cost the South more than 2 million lives, more than 5 million people internally displaced, hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homeland to the neighboring countries to become refugees and live a destitute life with no future in over-crowded and filthy refugees camps, and hundreds of thousands more have been forced to seek resettlement in the Diaspora, the international media and the international community have failed to do something worthwhile to respond to the flight of South Sudanese. I believe that the international community knew about the war in Sudan, but for reasons beyond anyone’s control and divergent of variant strategic national interests, decided to ignore it. It was only in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City (NYC), the Pentagon in Virginia, and the hijacking of a United Airlines plane flying over Pennsylvania that the world began to demonstrate some interest in Sudan conflict. Most importantly, southerners of the old school have not articulated appropriately to the international community the cause for partition and decolonization as compared to the struggles in Eritrea, Kosovo, and East Timor or any other nationalist movements elsewhere in the world. Assuredly, southerners have fought good fights and won many battles, but have not won the war. Furthermore, there has not been any strategic coherent national interest that the South has used as bait in propagating the war as an Arab-Muslim colonial war not only being waged against South Sudanese, but also Sub-Saharan Africa. To prove this point, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has contributed more than US$300b of its petrodollars for the cause of Islamic expansionism and conversion throughout non-Muslim nation-states worldwide and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular. The current situation in South Sudan would eventually affect Western Europe and the United States because they have the fastest growing Muslim population and they are targeted areas in so far as Islamic expansion is concerned. In retrospect, this was the clear message of Ayatollah Khomeini to the Muslim world. The war in Sudan is multifaceted and complex to analyze. It is conceived as a North-South conflict, which involves ethno-cultural fissures between the Arab-Muslim North and non-Arab-Muslim South, tribal and its primordial identifications, and politico-economic disparities are also important in the analysis and conflict resolution. This article has identified the main causes of the conflict as being gross lack of power sharing, lack of resources or wealth sharing, lack of democratization, good governance and the rule of law, respect for human rights, lack of a permanent democratic constitution to guarantee safeguards for all citizens, persistent denial of access for Southerners to the political and economic mainstream, under-representation and participation, geography, history, culture, language and religion.
Furthermore, there is lack of trust and confidence building measures and religious extremism. It’s a legacy of British colonial adventure in this vast, backward, and underdeveloped land in the 19th Century. The British colonial administration knew outright that cultural and racial distinctions are the inevitability of what Professor Samuel P. Huntington termed as the "Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order." The Arab-Muslim North with backing from Egypt and the League of Arab States against the African non-Arab-Muslim South Sudan is an issue that the world has ignored and put on the backburner for generations. The specific Egyptian strategic national security interest is the control of the Nile Waters that it secured under the 1929, 1958, and other subsequent Nile Waters Agreements. As a result, the British colonial administration envisaged creating two separate and distinct administrations. On one hand, the predominantly Arab-Muslim North was governed in the British pattern of Muslim administration found in Egypt and the Middle East, minus the modern Jewish State of Israel, as the only authentic democratic, economically and technologically advanced political culture throughout the Middle East. On the other hand, South Sudan was governed through indirect rule or the "Dual Mandates," developed in the Northern Emirates of Nigeria by Lord Henry Luggard in the 1900s, which became the standardized British colonial policy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
DEVELOPMENT GAP
The British had relatively developed the Arab-Muslim North economically and educationally, and it kept South Sudan grossly underdeveloped as a "Closed District" and extremely undereducated. In short, the policy of a "Closed District" was to prohibit by law any entrance by foreigners and the Arab-Muslim to have any interaction with citizens of the "Closed District." It was illegal to enter into any areas declared as "Closed District" and violators were punished with impunity. The status of the "Closed District" in South Sudan was removed in the aftermath of the Second World War in which more than 9,000 troops of the Sudan Defense Force (SDF) made the greatest ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government and Allied Forces against Field Marshall Rommel Afrika Corps in the Great Battles in the Libyan-Egyptian Desert of Al-Amin in North Africa. Of course, blatant Eurocentric racial discrimination against the darker skinned people worldwide, and in Africa in particular, coupled with stiff resistance such as "The Nuer Rebellion" -- the first national liberation movement in South Sudan against the British colonial rule for more than three decades (1900s-1930s) -- the British colonial administrators, nevertheless, were reluctant to provide socioeconomic and educational development in the area in question. In fact, education and socioeconomic development were entrusted to the Foreign Missionary Societies who were only interested in conversion of Africans to Christianity, but left them undereducated and underdeveloped, unfortunately. The South was made to be a sphere of religious influence. The gap between north and South remains, and as a result, many southern folks regard the intrusion of any religious faith without development as the opium of the people.
BRITISH RACISM AND RACIALISM
Although the UK prides itself to be the champion of peace, democracy, and human rights, it had committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in Africa. The Nuer people could attest to these crimes and they would soon file a Class Action lawsuit against Her Majesty Government (HMG) for compensation and repatriations for the crimes they committed against the Nuer nation during the 30-year war otherwise known as the Nuer Rebellion (1900-1930) against the British rule in South Sudan. They also murdered our Prophets who were (and still are) the symbols of the Nuer nations and its beliefs. The British had deployed the same tactics and some of the British Generals who fought in the Boer-British-Zulu War in 1898-1902 in South Africa, including the deployment of the Royal Air Force (RAF) against the fighting Nuer and did not surrendered to the British colonial authorities. Historically, the Nuerland was the first place in Africa where the British colonizers suffered their fate as the Italians also suffered theirs at the Battle of Adowa in Ethiopia in 1896-1898. The historic defeat of the Italians in Ethiopia was one of the causes that preempted the occupation of Ethiopia in 1935-42. Although the deposed Emperor Haile Selaasie I formally made protest to the League of Nations on the invasion and occupation of Ethiopia by Italy before the defunct League of Nations as a member state in 1938, he was unsuccessful. The consequences of the "Nuer Rebellion" against Turko-Egyptian slave raiders, the Mahdiyaah Islamic State, and the British colonial rule made the British colonizers to sarcastically describe the Nuer people as "chaotic" ungovernable" and "warlike" because they stood up for their inalienable rights to be controlled and directed by foreigners and strangers against the Nuer democratic customs and egalitarian way of life. Flipping the coin over, it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the British or any other nationality to accept any externally superimposed rule and laws against the free will and consent of the inhabitants of the areas in question. So, what gave the British the right to superimpose their rule, customs, laws, and culture on the Nuer nation or any other nations in Africa? The bottom line is that the desire and right to be freed from domination and exploitation does not constitute being chaotic, ungovernable, and warlike. But it is the assurance of preserving freedom, liberty, equality, and social justice for all. As a result, development in the Nuer country was scaled backward. At independence, the Nuer had only one college or university graduate in its population. However, the Nuer, as a great people and a great nation, has narrowed the gap and the political vacuum left by the British colonials in the past. The Nuer nation is currently the oil hub in the country, and has produced great statesmen, thinkers, academicians, and generals and will strive to produce more leaders in Sudan and South Sudan in particular. The Nuer nation will be ready to resist any attempt to be exploited by its enemies. The proud for nothing-English colonizers are indebted to the African people. Our forefathers and our fathers fought them their wars, viz., World I and II, they left no symbols to commemorate them or any token of appreciation.
THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT
There is a proverb, "where there is smoke, there is fire." Another states that when two elephants fight, the grass is destroyed. No human conflict occurs without a probable cause. The root causes of the war in Sudan are multiple. First, it is a war of decolonization, freedom, liberty, and political independence or the exercise of the right of self-determination as is aptly articulated in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Principles and the Fourteen Points, with an emphasis on Point No. 5 and resolutely accepted by the Charter of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. An anecdote that the readers should underscore is that the right of self-determination has two dimensions, external and internal. The external refers to any peoples who have been colonized, occupied, dominated, and/or exploited by a colonial power against their free will and consent that they have a right to resist the system because it is undemocratic and unjust. As a result, they have the right to create a nation of their own by legal means. Thus, the prolonged armed struggle in South Sudan is unequivocally crystal clear, demanding total independence from the Arab-Muslim North colonialism with backing from Egypt and the entire Islamic world. In a nutshell, the armed struggle is aimed at establishing an independent and sovereign state by legal means in South Sudan that would be able to hoist its flag amongst the nations of the world and member states of the United Nations.
Political historians could not agree more with this demand because it was Mr. Ali Jennah, the founding father of modern Pakistan, who proclaimed that Muslims should have their own state where they could practice their Islamic religion freely and without hindrance from the predominantly Hindu India on the Indian Sub-Continent. Thus, the demand by South Sudanese to create a secular democratic state rather than being forced to live in a predominantly Islamic state as second-class citizens in the Arab-Muslim North is a crystal clear message, non-negotiable, and shall never again be compromised. The South will struggle to attain this fundamental right by any means necessary. The claim therefore expounded by the Marxist-Leninist SPLA, that the struggle is for "Greater Autonomy", a "New Sudan", and a "United Democratic Sudan" is all selfish ambitions, unrealistic, and polemical calculations. The people of South Sudan shall not accept any settlement that falls short of total independence. The internal right of self-determination does not assure the creation of an independent and sovereign state. It does, however, guarantee civil, political, and cultural rights within the established existing political boundaries of the nation-state. In short, it usually facilitates the creation of self-rule or autonomy, federation, and decentralization as well as cultural and language rights. Examples to cite in this situation are Nigeria, Tanzania, Belgium, India (highly centralized federal system), and Ethiopia, including the post-apartheid Republic of South Africa. As for the people of South Sudan, the right of self-determination has been assured fully by the Inter-Governmental Authority and Development (IGAD) Declaration of Principles of May 1994 [Article 3.7] and the Khartoum Peace Agreement of April 21, 1997, which had been incorporated in the Sudan Constitution of 1998 under Articles 137 and 138 respectively. The Machakos Protocol and its proposed 6-year Interim Administration would be only a "copycat" of the Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997, which proposed a 4-year Interim Administration and then followed by an internationally supervised referendum on two options, viz., unity or secession negotiated by Dr. Riak Machar and his colleagues of the South Sudan Independence Movement/Army (SSIM/A) that was categorically rejected by Mr. Garang and his cronies as a "sell out" and "betrayal of the South."
SOUTH-SOUTH DIVISIONS
Divisions among Southerners are based on leadership struggle, political and ideological differences, and tribal loyalty and its primordial identifications. Southern nationalism, like Arab-nationalism, is expressed in terms of the "tribe" rather than as a unifying force to enhance the creation of "one united national interest." Thus, South-South nationalism based on ethnic nationalism is just as acute as North-South dividing lines. In the south there is also lack of equitable power, resources or wealth sharing, unequal development, lack of good governance and the rule of law, and denial of some Southern ethnic nationalities and minorities in particular to be included in the politico-economic, and educational mainstream. For instance, as his boss, the then-junta Nuiemeri, rewarded Mr. Abel Alier Bor-Dinka was appointed to become the President of the High Executive Council (HEC) in the South in the aftermath of the Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972, he [Abel] and his Bor-Dinka mafia monopolized power and exerted Dinka hegemonic tendencies in the South. As a result, the Equatorians resorted to organizing a secret society known as Kokora to lynch the Dinka and other non-Equatorians in Juba town and demanded the unconditional re-division of the South into three autonomous regions. When Mr. Garang hijacked the movement from its founding fathers, whom he had ordered assassinated, and declared them as "separatists" from within and converted from the national democratic movement to become a Marxist-Leninist up to this day, he not only monopolized power, but he systematically murdered the best and the brightest or crème de la crème in the South, with the help of Colonel. Mengistu Haile Miriam of the Dergue in Ethiopia (1974-91). The partial list of those assassinated by the SPLA per the orders of Mr. Garang and his cronies is available and could be produced when a class action lawsuit is filed against the SPLA. Mr. Garang should be charged with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity under Article 11 of The Sudan Peace Act [HR5531] that was passed by Congress and signed into law in the White House by President George W. Bush in October 2002. As a consequence of these brutalities, war crimes, human rights abuses, and genocide, it would be appropriate to refer to Mr. Garang as the prototype of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and /or the recently deposed Iraqi dictator Mr. Saddam Hussein.
The United States and the UK governments could not afford to install another dictator in South Sudan when, in fact, they are getting of rid of a dictator in Iraq. To externally superimposed an autocratic and dictator like Mr. Garang on the people of South Sudan would be a travesty for democratic values. The Washington DC lobbyists on K Street led by Mr. Roger Winter of the United States Committee for Refugees (USCR) (now Chief for Disaster Relief at USAID), Mr. John Prendergast, a former Clinton US Department of State official and now a consultant with the International Crisis Group (ICG) in Brussels, and Mr. Ted Diagne, an Ethiopian Immigrant at the Congressional Research Center, Dr. Francis Mading Deng a technically Arabized Dinka from Abyei, as well as many of the US NGOs in particular, including State Department officials, have asserted that Mr. Garang is the George Washington of South Sudan. On the contrary, he is the Benedict Arnold of South Sudan. Instead of the before-mentioned actors seeking to plant the seeds of "liberal democracy" vs. "illiberal democracy" it seems they are vying to superimpose a Marxist-Leninist dictator and undemocratic leader to the country. They should join other political forces now at work in South Sudan to indict Mr. Garang and his cronies on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity they have committed in South Sudan. In the past, it has been difficult to indict the SPLA leadership in the United States, the EU Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France, or the new United Nations International Criminal Court (ICC). However, there is now a great window of opportunity to indict Mr. Garang and his cronies, whose crimes against humanity are similar to those of Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Under Article 11 of the Sudan Peace Act [HR 5531] signed into law in October 2002 by President George W. Bush of the United States, the road is clear for any South Sudanese or any other persons who might have been aggrieved by Mr. Garang to seek legal remedy through the court systems in the US, Europe, and Africa, including inside Sudan. It is a contradiction that dictators like Saddam, Musseveni, and others who have protected Western national interests, have been hailed and adored as heroes of democracy. On the other hand, when they become anti-Western foreign policy fanatics, the US and its allies would not hesitate to depose them by any means necessary. The Anglo-American actions are shortsighted and too dangerous for democracy to implant its seeds in these backward and volatile areas like South Sudan and the Arab world. However, the Western world should be ashamed of itself trying to export "illiberal democracy" vs. "liberal democracy" in Africa.
The US and its Western allies are known for having been responsible for creating dictatorships like Saddam of Iraq, Shah of Iran (1953-79), Mbotu See See Sekou of Zaire, Museveni of Uganda, Marcus of the Philippines, and many other dictators worldwide in the name of democracy. Having said that, any actions were undertaken to preserve their vital national strategic security and economic interests of the US and its Western allies. Should the West repeat these acts in South Sudan in this Millennium of freedom, liberty, equality, and social justice under the banner of the right to self-determination of any peoples, the road to peace in this war-ravaged Sudan remains grim. It should be made crystal clear at the outset that South Sudan will never unite under the Marxist-Leninist Colonel John Garang leadership. We, therefore, urge and appeal to the US Administration that as soon as a transparent, comprehensive, and inclusive peace is achieved, general elections should be held to democratically determine through the ballot box of a would-be Interim Administration. This should occur prior to the date that a referendum could be held by the people of South Sudan to give their verdict on unity or secession vs. partition or independence.
THE WAY FORWARD IN SOUTH SUDAN
The way forward in South Sudan would be on the implementation of the following paradigms: -
The ongoing current negotiations under the Machakos Protocol reflect a pro-unionist overture, which is not good for anyone in the South except the Marxist-Leninist SPLA leadership. The proposed 6-year interim period illustrates the flaws in the much ado about Machakos Protocol, which makes it redundant, impractical, and if not impossible, to achieve peace in North-South conflict. Who will accept a 6-year interim period in the South? Who will accept a peace agreement signed by the SPLA and the NIF regime? Who gives the SPLA a mandate to be the official representative of South Sudan? It should be stated at the outset that in the event that the Marxist-Leninist SPLA and the NIF regime should come to an agreement, it could only constitute a bilateral agreement, and the concerns of the majority of all political forces and armed groups would be excluded. It should be underscored to the readers that as far as the NIF is concerned, any agreement brokered in the Machakos Protocol will not be the "Koran or the Bible." Both the Addis-Ababa of 1972 and the recent Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997 have taught Southerners unforgettable lessons that the Arab-Muslim North could not be trusted to keep its word of honor. The Machakos Protocol is not an agreement, but rather a framework aimed at achieving peaceful and political conflict resolution. The Machakos Protocol has six major flaws: -
The current SPLA leadership is wanted for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in the South. They should all be charged and put on trial for their crimes in an International Tribunal similar to the one created for Rwanda, and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be set up for South Sudan. Some primary causes of the war have been a gross monopoly of power, resources, or wealth sharing. There has been unequal development and persistent denial of access into the politico-economic mainstream of the non-Arab-Muslim South. There have been extreme and irreconcilable religious differences. The monopoly of power structures by one group, including hegemonic tendencies and superimposition of its culture and religion on others against their free will and consent, has poisoned the political atmosphere in this fragile amalgamated heterogeneous political culture. The Arab-Muslim North assumed the position of being the neocolonial masters who replaced the British at independence on 1.1.1956. The South itself was not represented in the independence negotiations in Cairo under the pretext that it did not have political parties. The question to be probed is this, if the Arab-Muslim North’s intention is to build unity in diversity, why have they failed to include southerners in their parties’ delegations? There is no one common moral high ground to unite the Arab-Muslim North -- Islam has been used as a tool to create a common bondage.
PEACE PROCESS
The ongoing bilateral peace process between the Marxist-Leninist Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime of Lt. General Hassan Omer Al-Beshir is bound to have many obstacles and hurdles ahead. First, the process is not transparent, comprehensive, and inclusive. Overwhelmingly, the population and armed factions in the South who fought equally in the war have deliberately and willfully been excluded. The SPLA itself does not have the military muscles to govern the South or to implement the agreement once it is signed. The Lobbyists in Washington DC have oversold the SPLA to the Bush’s Administration as being the "good guy" on the block and the rest are the "bad guys" in South Sudan, unfortunately. The political historiography of the SPLA is full of bloodshed. It has committed murders, massacres, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity since its inception in 1983 up to present. It has not been a democratic movement. As a result, the split in August 1991 was based on three basic issues -- lack of concrete objectives in the movement; lack of democratization, good governance and the rule of law, and transparency and accountability. Mr. Garang de Maboir, a student of Marxism-Leninism under the tutelage of the late Professor Water Rodney at the University of Dar-as- Salaam, Tanzania, managed the movement as if it was his own personal farm or plantation. He had systematically executed and murdered the true nationalists with the help from his old buddy, former Ethiopian dictator Colonel Menngistu Haile Miriam of Ethiopia (1974-1991), who lives now comfortably under the wings of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe since he was deposed in 1991. Because of human clouds engulfing Mr. Garang and the SPLA in South Sudan, it would be premature for the USA to build another Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler or Pinochet in Sudan. Peace in Sudan cannot be made by those who seek only to shed their old skins for new ones like snakes at the expense of those who strive for a complete change, like a caterpillar turning into butterfly.
Cognizant of the long history of dishonoring agreements in Sudan, nothing on the face of this Earth could prevent any would-be peace signing by the two parties at the expense of others. As is common, the Arab-Muslim North will sign the agreement, but will not implement it and at the end of the day will dishonor it just as with previous peace agreements, namely, the Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 that ended the First War by granting the South self-rule or local autonomy within a United Socialist Sudan, and the recent failed Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997, which out rightly assured the exercise of the right of self-determination within an interim period of four years. This agreement was fragmented and dishonored in less than two years, though it remains in the books and forms part of the 1998 Sudan Constitution in Articles 137 and 138. Many Northerners would term any peace signing as not a "Qur’an (Koran)" or "The Bible" as they termed that "The Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 was not the Bible or Qur’an." Because the NIF and the SPLA are both unpopular in the North and south alike, it is predictable that they could sign a peace agreement but many people in both camps would not honor it. For Southerners, the Marxist-Leninist SPLA would have to come to terms in sharing power with other parties and movements in the South. Because Mr. Garang is unpopular in the South, including his own Bor District, he would have a hell of a time daring to seek political leadership through undemocratic means. Any Southern leadership should underscore that the age of dictatorship is gone forever, and that dictators should be replaced by the process of democratization, partnership, participation, representation, and elections for any leaders vying for public office. In short, the dictatorship of Mr. Abel Alier in the post Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 and his mafia shall never again be repeated in South Sudan because the people shall envisage that South Sudan shall be federated and the power shall be equitably shared between the federal, state and local governments without any interference into each others’ jurisdiction or domain.
NORTH-SOUTH CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Many peace agreements have been signed, dissipated, fragmented, dishonored, and are gone with the wind. There is also the likelihood that any eventual bilateral peace agreement signed between the Marxist-Leninist SPLA and the NIF regime could also be dishonored. The Arab-Muslim North is known for not keeping its word of honor. Because the North-South debacle is a colonial war with direct backing from Egypt and the League of Arab States (LAS), the only practical solution is that the South must and ought to reconcile, unite, and speak with one voice in order to be decolonized from Arab colonialism, imperialism, Islamic apartheid, racism and racialism, and forced Arabization and Islamization. There are ways to achieve decolonization in the South. The hard way would involve the intensification of the armed struggle and peaceful and political conflict resolution through an internationally supervised referendum with the unity of Sudan and secession of the South as an independent and sovereign state. The SPLA propagates the concept of Greater Autonomy for the South. This demand is contrary to the overwhelmingly southern opinion. Because the North is committed to the political philosophy of creating an Islamic state, it would be impractical for non-Muslims to become part of the perceived Umma Al-Islamiyaah. In accordance with Shari ‘a laws, the non-Muslim population may not become part of the Islamic state unless they are converted to Islam through Jihad or voluntarily submitted to Islam. Another reason for the South to be decolonized from the North is that every person has the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they are free to determine their political destiny, economic, social, and cultural well being as well as the right to develop a great African contribution to the United Nations. Thus, in the South there are two schools of thought -- pro-independence and pro-unionist. The SPLA is a pro-unionist outfit. The leader of the SPLA has made this point loud and clear since he hijacked the movement from the late charismatic Colonel Gai Tut, the fearless Colonel William Abdullah Chuol Deng, General Gordon Koang Chol, and General Vincent Kuany Lajor. The ongoing bilateral talks between the SPLA and the NIF would not produce peace, but more chaos because many political forces and the armed groups have been excluded. Both the SPLA and the NIF are unpopular parties. Hence, they seek to forge a partnership to rule the country.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAVIVASH PROTOCOLS
Now, is the time to provide critical, scientific and methodological analysis of the Navissha Protocols signed between the government of Sudan and the Marxist-Leninist SPLA to end the Africa’s most forgotten, chronic, and longest Arab-Muslim colonial war. The first problem that the protocols have is the six years interim period providing a referendum on south Sudan. The time is too long and it is not up to the expectations of many southerners particularly those in the SPLA. The Khartoum/Fashoda Peace Agreements (KPA) of 1997 provided for a referendum after four years with clause that it could either be prolonged or shortened depending on the political circumstances in the South. Knowing the GOS well, it accepted the six-year because it knows that will eventually dismantle it as it did with the KPA similar to previous agreements. Many southerners and the SPLA followers in particular were expecting the interim period to be shorter and more than one year to years. The situations in East Timor in 1999 and Eritrea in 1994 are still pretty fresh in the minds and hearts of many south Sudanese from all walks of life. We believe that the SPLA abysmal negotiators have goofed in the interim period. The second major problem with the Navivash Protocols is the wealth sharing. The oil belongs to the South rather than the South. Why should we divide it? The protocols also assured only 2% to the Nuer nation v. 40% allotted by the KPA in 1997. This non-visionary decision could disrupt any agreement.
The oil first belongs to the Nuer nation and its people. To exclude the Nuer from their wealth is a call for trouble for the SPLA. The Nuer nation and its people will not permit its vital strategic resources to be extracted or expropriated at their own expense this time around. We built places like Bor town with our cattle and talent in the aftermath of the defunct Addis-Ababa Accord of 1972 it was appreciated at all. We will not be like the Ogoni people in the oil delta of Nigeria. Both the SPLA and the NIF regime should underscore this point unequivocally loud and crystal clear. Third, there must and ought to be equal power sharing across the board. The SPLA should assume that it has got the right to monopolize power. All southerners have fought for the south from Turk-Egyptian, the Mahdiyaah Islamic state, the British colonial rule, the Arab-Muslim north hegemony or colonial rule, to the rise of the SPLA in 1983. Does not matter whether any southerners is a member of the SPLA or not, which party he/she represents shall equal treatment and access. Without adequate political power and resource or wealth sharing in the South, it’s inevitable that the South will disintegrate and will never ever reunited. If this what Mr. Garang dreams about, it will surely happen sooner or latter. Most importantly, there shall be a democratically elected Transitional National Government (TNG), a federal constitution, and an elected bicameral national Parliament comprises of the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus and independent judiciary. The south should also have a House of Nationalities independent from Parliament with nominal powers. The function of the House of Nationalities shall to ensure that all nationalities are presented in the system as a vehicle to create diversity, multiculturalism, and fairness in enforcing democratic values. In short, the south shall be a federal system or a decentralized system of administration. The repeat of the monolithic heydays of Mr. Abel Alier and his Bor-Dinka Mafioso shall not be repeated in the South.
Furthermore, the SPLA whether it likes it or not, must and ought to support a "genuine reconciliation". It was indicative that during the visit of the SPLA delegation visit to Khartoum in December 2003, it failed to meet with its major military foe. There’s a point that we would like to register to the SPLA and its international supporters is that there are militias in the South. They are soldiers like the SPLA or the Sudan armed forces. The usage of the term ‘militia’ is inappropriate for any southerners to use it against another fellow southerner who’s fighting for the same cause. The continuous use of the term will certainly diminish and likelihood for new and old allegiances and the SPLA outnumbered in everything cannot survive the lack or the absence thereof allegiances. Any regional analyst who may assume that the SSDF will realign with SPLA is dead wrong. The SSDF will stand-alone and shall consolidate itself as a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of the South. There are illusions that the SSDF will be disarmed. Neither the SPLA nor Khartoum has got the guts and gusto to do it now or in the foreseeable future. The proposed UN peacekeeping force for Sudan will not either attempts to disarm the SSDF because that would be in violation to its mission to monitor the ceasefire. The SSDF will not pose a threat to peace if it were to share power, resources or wealth equal with the SPLA from the pre-interim period to the end of the interim period. The process to achieve this end is through the "South–South Dialogue" and "genuine reconciliation". Finally, the IGAD mediators and the international facilitators will yield to these already prevailing local factors or paradigms, the peace process could easily fall apart even if a comprehensive peace were to be signed under the god auspices of the IGAD Chairman, the president of Kenya and the IGAD mediators.
CONCLUSION
We would like to conclude this work by making the following remarks. Our advice to the people of south Sudan and the Marxist-Leninist SPLA cadres and supporters is that do not celebrate too early and too soon about peace in Sudan. There are still so many hurdles to overcome to make home run. The established goalposts could be shifted or changed unnoticeably in the interim. The signing of protocols does not often produce peace agreements. In fact, the protocols signed by the SPLA and the Khartoum has been externally manipulated. As a result, they will not produce genuine, real, and authentic lasting peace for Sudan. Moreover, any agreement sign between the autocratic and dictators in Sudan will not be the Holy Qur’aan or the Holy Bible because in the long run such a peace agreement will dismantled due to intransigence posed by both the SPLA and the government of Sudan. Thus celebrating now is like putting the cart before the horse or counting your chickens before they hatch. Both sides will sooner or later disappoint many of those who are celebrating on delivered promises. We should not slaughter our bulls, lambs, and praising God’s that peace has finally returned to this war-torn African nation of Sudan. There is still a long and zigzag road to go. We have not yet reached to the mountaintop. We may or may not get there reckoning the historiography of peace makings in Sudan. It is now time for the South to consolidate, unite, fight, and die for a specific cause. Without any political unity of equals in the south we shall not achieve our objective at the end of the day. Let’s unite to seek first the political kingdom and rest shall be added.
To South Sudan folks, the signing of the protocols illustrates we have reached the turning point in the long struggle against Arab-Muslim colonialism and the long walk to freedom that many in the Sub-Saharan Africa and the international community have been aloof to assist morally, political, and materially for over four generations in South Sudan. The international community and Sub-Saharan Africa has now known our problem as Arab-Muslim colonialism with backing from Egypt, the League of Arab States (LAS) and the Islamic world. We should also thanks the US and the Christian Right Movement that perceives the North-South divides as Islam v. Christianity and for having pushed the Bush administration to brink to do something in Sudan. We should also know that there is no US strategic policy in Sudan and south Sudan in particular. The US knows that both Mr. Garang and General are vulnerable in many ways: first, General Beshir has had closed contacts with terrorists and made the Sudan to be save heaven for them, including the world’s most wanted number one terrorist Osama bin Laden. Second, human rights abuses by both the government of Sudan and the SPLA are the worst worldwide, including many other weak links. For Mr. Garang lacks credibility, is a committed self-styled communist, and uses the war as a business source to build his financial empire through the sweat and blood of his dying people. In other words, the guy is not the George Washington, but rather the Benedict Arnold of South Sudan.
The Anglo-American peace initiative is one of the six peace initiatives on the Sudan conflict, namely, the IGAD peace process, the Libyan-Egyptian Initiative (LEI), Eritrean Initiative (EI), Nigerian Initiative (NI), the Multilateral Peace Initiative (MPI) sponsored by the European Union (EU) and the US unilateral peace initiative (The Sudan Peace Act (HR5531). Without the shadow of the doubt, everyone on both sides of the conflict is yearning for peace. However, how to attain peace is the thorn in the bud. The Arab-Muslim North does have a history of not keeping agreements. What kind of magical power will the Anglo-Americans have? The political historiography of peacemaking in the North-South conflict has shown that many agreements have been brokered, un-implemented, and dishonored at the end of the day. The last peace agreement to be dishonored was the recent Khartoum or Sudan Peace Agreement of 1997. Now, through Anglo-American initiative, another peace agreement is looming at the horizon through the Machakos Protocol of July 2002. The questions that we would be obliged to probe are what kind of peace process do we anticipate in 2004? How credible are the Marxist-Leninist SPLA and pro-Islamic NIF regime in the peacemaking process? What have we learned from the Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997 and the previous agreements before it? Has the NIF regime scrapped the KPA from the books? Will the Machakos Protocol bring peace to war-ravaged Sudan? We would like to wait for the results of the Anglo-American peace initiative to answer these questions. Both the Marxist-Leninist SPLA and the Pro-Islamic regime in Sudan should know that they have a moral responsibility to stop the bloodshed, and the people of South Sudan and the world are diligently watching them! The US should understand that both Garang and Beshir have many things in common. For instance, they are both dictators of the worst kind. They both served in the Sudanese Army. They both have killed many people on both sides of the warring camps just to maintain power. The people of Sudan would like to have the US commitment that the two dictators and their cronies should not be able to exclude anyone from participating in the political process. The South has been divided by ethnic or tribal animosities, political, and ideological differences. Hence, there is a greater need for South-South Dialogue for reconciliation, forgiveness, and unity of purpose among equals. If there should be any failure on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom in providing safeguards to any agreement and democratic federal constitution in the South, the possibility of the peace to be derailed are greater than ever.
We shall conclude by quoting an unknown South Sudan woman who said that " I was born in war, I grew up in war, I married in war, I raised my children in war, and my children fought in that war, what a hell are they saying to stop it". Finally, based on the threats emanating from the SPLA leader and his cronies, we think that he loves to see a Nuer fight a Nuer will be doomed. The Nuer nation and its leaders within the SPLA, SSDF, and inside and outside of Sudan should unite their ranks and files to wait and watch vigilantly what Dr. John Garang could do not without the Nuer nationality in South Sudan. He should reckon that if it would mean that the Greater Upper Nile region one of the richest in oil reserves declares itself as an autonomous region or as a commonwealth it is viable survive alone without the rest of the South and no Southerners would dare to invade it. Our forefathers fought the British with bare hands during the 30 years of the Nuer Rebellion against the UK colonial rule and were not defeated. Does Mr. Garang thinks the modern Nuer with highly sophisticated educated people should assume that they would succumb or surrender to the SPLA? The answer absolutely NO and NO for ever. Dr. George Lukas writes that "who have forgotten history are bound to repeat it". Succinctly, we remind Mr. Garang and his cronies that they should not forget history and repeating it would be hard read it, swallow it, chew it, and digest it before he starts a fire that he is not able to quench. Peace is too far away to return to Sudan and South Sudan in particular given the ill-conceived concepts and bitterness being expressed and vibrated into the airwaves by semi-intellectuals like Dr. Garang and his abysmal cronies.
______________________
© 2004 The author of this work is a former South Sudan diplomat and Professor of international relations/law/political economy at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He is also an expert in international terrorism, international trade/political economy, and Government/Politics in Africa/Middle East. Contact: David_chand@hotmail.com