Unilateral independence should not be uttered for public distraction

By Justin Ambago Ramba

August 12, 2009 — The Sudan though still a united country known as the republic of the Sudan in the official circles, the country has since the signing of the CPA adopted a one country two systems with the South enjoying a semi –autonomous status under an agreement that brought to an end the two decades civil war that pitted the Northern Arabs against the Black African South.

As history remains the best judge, the liberation war that was fought in south Sudan in the period 1983 – 2005 under the leadership of its founder the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior, will always be remembered as a struggle of a people who were so desperate to get to what they wanted that they had to move from one ideological camp to the other as dictated by changes in the regional and international politics with its ups and downs especially during the Cold War era.

The mutiny that sparked the fire of the south Sudanese liberation struggle occurred before the Independence of the Sudan that followed later in January 1st 1956. The aim of the mutiny was to defeat the northern Jallaba army and declare an independent South Sudan because the southerners were put off by the Sudanization policy where they were the victims of great deals of marginalization, exclusion and underrating by the northerners who were busy preparing to get into the shoes of the departing British colonial administration.

Some northerners who didn’t want to accept situations easily saw no clear reasoning in the Torit mutiny because they felt that how could the southerners mutiny against the northern Arab led Sudan when the southerners had not yet had any experience of being under a united North – South indigenous rule. The northern elites of that time maintained their strong stand considering the southerners as being victims of external influence of which the church was held as the main culprit in spreading an anti – Arab and anti- Islamic sentiments amongst the people of the south.

It was a hurried conclusion and to stress that the church was in the heart of the southern rejection and subsequent mutiny against the northern dominated political system was also a fallacy as disapproved by the presence in the ranks of those who became the banner holders for separation which included many South Sudanese practising Muslims like those of Ali Gbutala, Abdel Rahman Sulle, Ahmed Marajan………..only to mention but a few.

What the northerners failed to recap or intentionally chose to ignore and deny was the fact that though they were not allowed freely in the south during the Closed Districts Act, the black African Sudanese people of the south had already known the northern Arabs as the descendants of the great slave trader Zubeir Rahama, a man who stained the north /south history with unforgettable and unforgivable events. It is because of Zubeir Rahama that his off springs in northern Sudan remain to look at their fellow south Sudanese as second class human beings and this alone is the cornerstone around which all the Sudanese political moves and counter-moves tend to be.

The mutineers of Torit knew that even if the northern Arabs are to be given another century they would never ever change their attitudes to one that can accommodate the people of South Sudan as equals in a united Sudanese state, and this is what SPLM is unfortunately still expecting to happen after half a century when it refers to unity of the Sudan on new basis.

The current National Congress Party (NCP) of President Al Bashir which is the senior partner to the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the government of national unity in Khartoum came to power in a military coup on 31 June 1989 when the SPLM/A was already operating in the jungles of south Sudan for over six years and had battled the totalitarian regimes of the late Jaafar Nimeri and the democratically elected government of Sadiq al Mahdi. Following from there the two then went through several peace talks in different venues without the least progress and it was obvious to all that the National Islamic Front (NIF) were bent towards a military victory rather than any peaceful settlement that would allow a democratic transformation thus opening room from the accommodation of the other different political rivals.

Though Khartoum did enjoy a short lived euphoria fallowing the 1991 split in the SPLM/A ranks, its involvement in international terrorism and association with the al Qaida leader Bin Laden prompted the US administration to step its support towards the military strengthening of the SPLM/A in a move that the former US State Secretary under President Bill Clinton, Lady Madeline Albright made no secret of it.

However it was under President George W. Bush that the US administration finally took interest in finding a solution to the humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in southern Sudan by appointing the special envoy John Danforth to start the IGAD based Sudanese Peace talks. Yet as fate has it, it was the 9/11 that put the NIF/NCP for the first time in a weaker negotiating position especially when the Mighty America declared its war against terror. “You are either with us or with the enemy”, George Bush put it clearly to the whole world. NIF/NCP had to comply and it did cooperate by providing the much needed intelligence to the US administration thus saving the regime from facing a similar fate as to what happened to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the late dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

In brief the 2005 CPA signed between the warring sides were understood differently in each camp, though both were primarily bent to give the unity of the Sudan a trial over the six years before the referendum scheduled for January 2011 as the agreement ends on the 8th July 2011. And no where in the entire document is it mentioned that it can be extended to accommodate any unforeseen events e.g. a delay in the referendum etc.

The SPLM has reiterated its position on the unity of the Sudan more than enough to make any one with a sound mind never ever to doubt that it is basically a unionist party, even if this position may not be shared by all its members. As a signatory to the CPA the two partners i.e. the NCP and SPLM are expected to provide the peace dividends in a true patriotic way so as to make unity of the Sudan attractive to the few south Sudanese who for reasons only best known to them have failed to take a position (separation vs unity) since the time the first war broke out in 1955.

Otherwise it will not be an exaggeration in any way if say that the South Sudanese have already unanimously come to the irreversible conclusion that they should better have their separate country, far away from the Sudanese unity that to the best can only send the southerners back to another civil war. What the people found in the CPA is a clear recognition of their right to self determination, with the ultimate aim of seceding. All these northern propagandists and their unionist allies in the SPLM who have coined the term of voluntary unity are in fact trying to mock the Southerners minds.

What does voluntary unity stand for? If at all there is any thing voluntary in maintaining this rotten unity in the Sudan, it would only be referring to the voluntary submission of the people of south Sudan by putting their fates in the hands of incapable people who are planning with the enemy to stop them from democratically voting for their independent nation.
It is sad to learn that the unionists who have their initials on the CPA have left the important points in referendum laws for example who should participate in the polling and what percentage should be considered as the cut line all un exhausted at Naivasha only to be use for political bargains in the Sudanese political power struggles as to whom amongst these unionist should dominate the power in the centre. What does it mean to the true south Sudanese nationalists when they read these statements of the SPLM Secretary General as reported in the Sudan Tribune 11.08/2009 which stated that the SPLM Secretary General Pagan Amum speaking at the party’s headquarters in the Sudanese capital said that the choice of unity versus independence is contingent upon the realization of the “true interests” of Southerners.

Assuming that Mr. Pagan Amum is serious and realistic, does he know the true interest of the southerners? Somebody needs to inform this politician that the choice for the south Sudanese have already been made since 1955 and it is only him and his like who are waiting to see if the “Jallaba ” will finally make unity attractive.

In USSP, the unity of the Sudan can never be made attractive as it is itself the most unattractive event in the life of each and every south Sudanese who had to pay the price of this unity through either the loss of loved ones, displacement, immigration, perpetual insecurity, poverty and a indefinite frustration while awaiting the day when this nightmare would come to an end, once and all.

When the SPLM warned that they may resort to a unilateral declaration of independence if no agreement is reached with the National Congress Party (NCP) on the referendum law, the message sent here is an ambiguous one. The SPLM being the second signatory to the CPA is expected to continue engaging the NCP and even exposing it to the world opinion that it is not dealing in good faith and there is no need threatening with the unilateral declaration of independence which would be unconstitutional. Logically such a move is not different from a military coup and yet we have never ever heard of coup plotters who go about threatening that if a certain condition is not fulfilled then they would stage a coup. By doing this one only ends up selling out ones position as the enemy would have been made aware of your intentions and it would immediately move to antagonize you be it militarily, politically or diplomatically.

However, what does SPLM think its rivals in the NIF/NCP would prefer to have as a scenario should the south be heading for separation? Would it prefer a peaceful exercise of a plebiscite where it could either win or loose or get back to a military confrontation with the south and take it from their? Again where does it become difficult for south to achieve its independence, is it when done through the expected referendum in 2011 or when the south resorts to a unilaterally declared independence?

The referendum laws as they remain to be negotiated between two peace partners needs the SPLM to mobilize all its internal and external supports and it should not allow itself to be too much distracted by the other side to the extend of declaring things that it is not prepared to do. An opportunity missed here is the failure incurred when the SPLM dominated government of South Sudan (GoSS), instead of challenging the North with practical examples of good governance, proper planning and the rule of law; on the contrary it failed the test. This 4 years failures of the SPLM in providing the peace dividends not only made the CPA repulsive to the people, but it went as far as forcing people to loose confidence in the SPLM as a party that can lead the southerners to the promised land.

As for the NCP, though it thought that by failing the SPLM it would win the hearts of the southerners, has wrongly calculated its chances because the miseries being experienced by the southerners fall within the definitions of the North’s exploitative policies towards the South, coupled by issues of the struggle over the oil fields , areas of contentions like the Abyei and further more the appalling situation of the southerners who are still stuck in the IDP camps in the North that have not in any way improved, these and many others keeps the NCP on the list of parties that do not appeal to the majority of the southerners leave alone the indictment of its leader President al Bashir whose previous personality as a strong leader has been flattened down to that of a fugitive.

What we would want fellow south Sudanese to understand is that the time to live in suspense while a waiting for the SPLM or its partner the NCP to make the unity of the Sudan attractive is long gone. Unity between the North and the South Sudan has long failed and its presence is indeed a nightmare. It is ugly and unattractive so how could it be made attractive again. It is just impossible as trying to recover the saltiness of a salt that has become tasteless. How can salt that has lost its saltiness be made salty again? It can only be thrown out to be trodden on by animals.

South Sudan must be given a chance to go for elections in April 2010 because it needs to come up with the necessary changes in its leadership. Some people in a futile attempt to maintain the status quo would want us to buy into this fantasy of unilateral declaration of independence. We want to work through the CPA that provides for democratic transformation as an initial step in our journey towards a democratic independent South Sudan. If SPLM is thinking of skipping the coming elections, then it should also be ready to skip the constitutional positions as we are no more ready to tolerate an undemocratic setting when there is an opportunity provided in the agreement for a democratic transformation and a peaceful transfer of power between the various political groups. Any current situation that the SPLM wants to use as an excuse for it to have the coming elections cancelled has in fact come to being as a result of its(SPLM) poor quality leadership. If it is the Census results, whatsoever the interpretation is, yet it is the SPLM to be blamed for that.

If there is only one reason to justify an election in South Sudan it would be the terrible failure of the SPLM to deliver in the South. We want the people’s government to come and furnish an explanation to the people of South Sudan how exactly the $7billion dollars were wasted by the SPLM headed GoSS and to urgently address the chronic issues of insecurity, food shortage, unemployment and prepare the south Sudan for the dawn of an independent democratic nation come 2011.

By boycotting election meetings, the SPLM is not only giving room for others to take a stand in its absence but actually painting a picture that it is not tough enough to push its points through at all costs. Because each time it pulls back it only returns to participate from a more weaker position as witnessed when it pulled out earlier from the government of national unity and went back only to be completely muted at the Presidency in Khartoum.

If the key sticking points that are currently delaying the announcement of the referendum laws which include the percentage of votes required in the referendum to declare it favoring independence, the population allowed to vote, determining the post-referendum process and the share of Sudan’s debts the South would carry with it if it secedes, these are still issues that can be discussed how tenacious the process be. If at any stage the discussions are not making any progress the international community can be involved even if it means going back to the International Court of Arbitration again and again.

Of course when the NCP talks of the separation of the south as a red line to their party, we would also like to make it crystal clear to them and all those who stand behind them or share their views on the so called red line, that we are for real separation of the South from the North. We are and we shall continue to mobilize our people to understand what lies behind being an independent country and the pride it carries that they will never want to miss. If every South Sudanese Nationalist genuinely puts in enough effort to make sure that every head of a household takes the effort to make sure that his/her family members register and participate actively in the referendum which is the chance that we have through the CPA, a yes percentage to justify the separation of South Sudan can be scored even at percentages above 90%. Everything good only comes through effort, so why don’t we put much extra effort in the mobilization of the masses so that they can get registered and vote for separation rather than sticking to all these rhetoric of going contrary to the CPA.

Can it not be possible for fellow south Sudanese nationalists (Separatists) to set up voluntary charities which are entirely dedicated to the work of making the independence of south Sudan a reality? It is our fate and we have to have our destinies in our hands. When we talk about the independence of south Sudan, it is a call above all political orientations and our independence is our common destiny. When al Bashir declared that he and his party are not going back on Sharia, we must make him also know that we are not also going back on our independence.

We are proud that we have sacrificed all political posts for the sake of our political correctness, transparency and clear conscience. The people of South Sudan have come a long way and we not afford to loose any more. To those who carry dubious political genes which enables them to comfortably exist as both unionist and separatists, our message to them is that this dual personality though may be what you have chosen to live on as for now, but remember that the enemy is actually using your own recourses to pay you for all your dirty assignments that prolongs your people’s stay in bondage. You need to emancipate yourself and come join us in this dignified walk towards an independent South Sudan.

Those who have already sold their birth rights to the North in the name of unity, we are not imbeciles as you think. We are aware that if you are to lead in Khartoum you would go for unity, and if they reject you there you think you can just revert to the South and still be in the ruling seat as power is what you’re actually running after. We will expose everything and everybody to the South Sudanese voters and concerned citizens and when the time comes they will be the ones to judge you.

.

Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, General Secretary of the United South Sudan Party(USSP) and can be reached at: [email protected] or [email protected].