SPLM-N split casts doubt over New Sudan’s vision
August 27, 2022 (KHARTOUM) – Yasir Arman, former Deputy Head of the SPLM – North (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North), on the morning of October 25, 2021, was held in Kober prison, while, at the same time, the chairman of the movement, Malik Agar, who was in “Golo” area, south of the Blue Nile area, received a phone call from General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan briefing him on the political developments that took place in Khartoum.
A source close to the SPLM-N chief, who spoke to Sudan Tribune under the cover of anonymity, disclosed that Agar immediately told al-Burhan that what had happened was a full-fledged military coup. Al-Burhan, in return, riposted that it was a “corrective measure” and asked him to return to Khartoum.
On the same day and before heading to Khartoum, an influential tribal leader in the Blue Nile region close to Agar cautioned him against a return to war. Further, he reminded the SPLM-N leader that their ethnic group (the Ingasana) was a minority group in the region. He further requested Agar, as “a regional leader”, to mull over this fact before taking a position on previous and current developments in Khartoum, the sources stressed.
The Gap Widens
Once in the Sudanese capital, Agar did not resign from his position as a member of the Sovereign Council despite the fact that his deputy was the only former rebel leader to be arrested after the coup.
To explain his mindset about the situation, the source reiterated that Agar “had played a pivotal role, along with Lt-Gen Burma Nasir of the National Umma Party, to persuade the ousted Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok to sign the November 21 agreement with the military component after the coup.
His position was perceived as a clear bias toward the junta, especially since the man had a good relationship with Burhan. In addition, he developed strong ties with the Deputy Chairman of the Sovereign Council Mohamed Hamdan Daglo aka Hemetti.
After the coup, Agar sent a letter calling to release his deputy to the regional and international peace guarantors including the African Union, IGAD, EU, Troika countries, UN agencies in Sudan as well as accredited ambassadors to Khartoum. However; the military coup created a huge gap between the movement’s leader and his deputy.
However, the gap began to widen further when Arman voiced a position totally different from Agar: “The solution of the political crisis should be based on ending the coup that has failed both politically and economically, and moreover failed to provide security and to protect civilians.”
The Rivalry Heats up
After statements criticizing the Forces for Freedom and Changes (FFC) and Resistance Committees, the spearhead of the anti-coup protests, Agar issued a statement distancing himself from the pro-democracy political coalition. “SPLM headed by Malik Agar has not delegated any of its members to participate in the meetings of the (FFC) Central Council. Hence, any member that participates in the Council represents himself solely and not the movement,” read the statement. In Fact, he was irritated by the growing role that Arman plays in the FFC activities.
Agar’s statement emphasized the need to enforce the security arrangement and ensure the return of displaced people and refugees in line with the Juba Peace Agreement. For his part, Arman stressed that his disagreement with Agar is limited to the assessment of the current political situation and reiterated his commitment to the peace pact.
“The peace agreement is facing a real crisis because the coup has undermined its political framework, i.e. achievement of democratic transition. Also, it has impeded the building of a unified national army. The agreement has been based on two pillars: the first is political, namely the transition to democracy, which no longer exists. The second is the security arrangements that are based on the protection of civilians, reforming the military system and building a unified national and professional army to reflect the Sudanese diversity. The coup would not allow all the above to take place.” he told Sudan Tribune on April 2022.
Arman and his supporters underscored that their position on the coup is based on the SPLM-N manifesto of 2019 which provides that a political agreement should not lead to reproducing the old regime at the expense of the revolution. Also, it should not be a toll for aborting the revolution and a mechanism for integrating the revolutionary movements in the old regimes.
Amicable Split
Al-Hadi Idris Chairman of the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) separately met with the two leaders and stressed the need to end their difference at this critical stage in Sudanese history. Also, he organized two meetings between them in his presence where everyone put his positions on the table.
Nonetheless at the end of the second meeting, which was “very cordial”, they decided to amicably split, taking advantage of their previous experience with al-Hilu.
“The two sides have reached the conclusion that the disagreements are substantive, too deep, and difficult to agree on,” read a joint statement they issued at the end of the second meeting on August 18.
New Tracks
Following the second split of the SPLM-N, Arman and his supporters announced the formation of the SPLM Revolutionary Democratic Current (RDC). Also, they endorsed the Movement’s manifesto and constitution of 2019. Agar, for his part, said he would keep his faction under the name of SPLM- Sudanese Revolutionary Front. (SPLM-N SRF).
These developments pose a question on the RDC position vis-à-vis the Juba agreement and on how the peace pact would accommodate the split. In response to this question, a leading member of the Democratic Current Mohamed Salih Yassin told Sudan Tribune they are committed to the peace agreement with the government but now the priority should be given to the removal of the putsch.
” I was rapporteur at the time while Arman was chief negotiator, but let me draw attention to the fact that the Juba agreement was based on the December Revolution. The coup against the revolution is also a coup against the agreement,” Salih said.
“Furthermore, the lack of a democratic atmosphere has disrupted the mechanisms for implementing the humanitarian, political and security tracks.”
“The security arrangements, which should be implemented in three phases, have completed the first one and the second is about to end without any progress. In conclusion, this agreement will reach an impasse, so I think what is important is to defeat the coup and return to the democratic process,” he stressed.
Apprehensions of military conflict
Asked about the impact of the “amicable split” on the fighters of the SPLM-N, Yassin ruled out the occurrence of military confrontation between the two groups. He further said that their priority is to become a political group and to integrate the RDC combatants into the national army.
“I do not think that a military conflict between the two sides is possible because the fighters of the SPLA have great awareness and deep understanding of the issues. It is true that the split between Agar and Al-Hilu triggered a military conflict in the Blue Nile region, but that happened as a result of ethnic provocations,” he said.
“There is no room for violence to occur again today unless others intervene to sow and fuel discord between the two sides. Some quarters seek to plunder the resources of the region and ignite conflicts so that they can achieve their goals”.
He added that the Revolutionary Democratic Current wants to achieve a transition from an armed group to a civilian movement through the integration of the movement’s forces into a unified national army.
Factors that Ignited the dispute
This is how the long association between Agar and Arman came to an end, but what were the reasons that caused the separation?
Sudan Tribune asked the writer and political analyst Abdallah Adam Khatir whether Agar faced pressure from the Blue Nile region that dictated his choice to continue as a member of the Sovereign Council and compromise with the coup leaders.
“There is no doubt that Agar was affected by the ethnic rifts in the Blue Nile region which weakened his position among the ongoing (ethnic) polarization in the region and attempts to break down the cohesion of the region’s people,” said Khatir.
“In addition, one should take into account the fact that (Agar) has no emotional ties between him and the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC). It is true that he is not part of the military component, but he is closer to them. So, he is (part of the military-led Sovereign Council) because he is a signatory of the Juba Peace Agreement,” he further said.
Alluding to al-Hilu’s split, Khatir said that following the independence of South Sudan, SPLM-N had faced a series of challenges that resulted in confrontations among its three leaders,
He added that after the coup Arman behaved like a rival to the head of the Movement, “so they are now standing in contradictory positions and appearing to be rival leaders”.
Back to square one
The SPLM/A-N was formed in 2011 ahead of South Sudan’s independence. The group decided to prepare a new political programme and work out a negotiating position on the status of the Two Areas.
However, divergences surfaced among the three leaders over the negotiating position. Al-Hilu submitted his resignation two times before splitting in 2017 because he wanted to include self-determination in the position paper of the movement in the African Union-brokered talks. Agar and Yasir rejected the idea.
Commenting on the breakaway of the al-Hilu faction in 2017, Agar said that the rationale of al-Hilu’s resignation letter is similar to what the former splinter groups said to justify their breakaway.
He meant to say they split on local grounds and abandoned the New Sudan’s project
Arman, for his part, says that it is possible to enforce the movement’s vision now after the revolution, pointing to the millions of people who supported the democratic change, notwithstanding the fragility of political forces and state institutions.
He believes that the unity of the revolution’s force is the key missing factor needed to implement this political project which is no longer limited to the SPLM but shared by many groups.
However, Khalid al-Tigani, a writer and political analyst, says there is no objective reason for talking about “New Sudan”.
Al-Tigani said that this vision was defeated once when the original SPLPM succumbed to the logic of the separatists in 2011 and again when the Movement failed to accomplish the idea in South Sudan and had fallen in 2013 into a civil war that made the country a failed state.
The political analyst went further to say that the SPLM-N suffered also from these divisions because “the movement’s project and slogans have no base to support it.”
He stressed that the SPLM experience reflects the crisis of the political mindset in Sudan.
“It is not limited to the SPLM only, but encompasses all the forces that call for radical change and end up defeating themselves by themselves,”.
The lack of solid political and social structures in Sudan made it easy for the military to seize power and establish three military regimes that confiscated freedoms and banned political parties.
The three repressive military regimes of 1958, 1969 and 1989 were organized or supported by political forces that failed to keep power or win elections.
(ST)