Peace agreement would not change the Sudanese rgime : DUP figure

Dec 20, 2005 (KHARTOUM) — In the fiercest and most open attack on the developments in Sudan following the Naivasha peace agreement when he returned on Saturday (17 December) from Cairo after two years of absence, the secretary-general of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Sayd-Ahmad al-Hussein, said the Salvation regime had not changed and would not change as a result of the peace agreement or any other agreement.

in a statement to Khartoum based Al-Watan, he said it remained the same totalitarian regime ,which controlled all the key areas in the state and its resources in the same old unilateral and exclusive way. He said that perhaps in response to local, regional and international pressures, the government had changed some of its methods but its aims and principles had remained the same.

Regarding the participation of some DUP members in the national unity government, al-Hussein said: “We refuse to join this regime at any level, be it parliamentary, state, central or executive”. He said such an alliance would only back the regime and provide it with additional means to strengthen its dictatorship and grip.

He added that this regime and its followers now had vast interests which they were striving to maintain, therefore perpetuating the status quo by all possible means. He said that during the 16 years of its rule, the government had created a class of parasites, who had taken over control of the country’s resources and capabilities, and would not give them up easily.

In response to a question regarding the DUP’s position on the peace agreement, al-Hussein said: “This does not really concerns us, we did not participate in its making or its drafting it and we have our own way of describing those who have participated in our name. It was simply a written agreement between two warring sides, the ‘Salvation’ and the ‘Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

We had previously reached a better agreement than the one they hail today. It was a just, honourable agreement which guaranteed the country’s freedom, independence and democracy. It did not contain a clause on ‘self-determination’, which could lead to the division of Sudan. I personally led negotiations on that agreement until 30 June 1989. We were due to return to Addis Ababa on 4 July that year but the National Islamic Front — later called the National Congress Party — rejected the agreement because it would have brought about peace and established democracy. Therefore it plotted the coup to overthrow the democratic regime and destroyed the constitution, kindled the war in the south under the slogan of jihad, (holy war), depleted all the country’s resources and destroyed lives.

Here it is today, trying to convince us that it has brought about peace and democracy, which it destroyed completely and which are neither part of its ideology nor its political approach. This is an attempt to fool people and therefore we will not support any of its steps, simply because we understand. We, the Unionists, who brought about independence and freedom for our people, will not take part in backing the ‘Salvation’s’ totalitarian schemes, whether they are drastic or not.”

Regarding democratic change, al-Hussein said: “This is our work and the work of all democrats. The regime, which overthrew democracy and is still boasting of the crime it committed on 30 June 1989, will not reinstall democracy out of its own will. It will only give up totalitarianism if it is forced to do so and whenever the balance of power will shift to the interest of people and democracy.”

Hussein pointed out that the government was playing its old tricks to strengthen its grip on the unions, as it happened in the recent lawyers’ and farmers’ elections.

(ST)