Vive John Garang (6-6)

By Setepano Wöndu

August 5, 2008 — This July, we need to make a progress report on Dr John Garang’s solution modalities in the Sudan conflict. According to the digression, Sudan can only exist in one of five possible political formats. He presented his thesis in a scientific approach with a mathematical illustration. So far I have not seen any challenge to his model. The sequencing of the presentation of the models is intriguing because it never follows the standard number line; one- two- three- four- five. Instead he had his own number pattern; three-four-two-one-five. In this review we shall retain Dr John’s unique number line.

Model 3

Before January 9th 2005, the Sudan was an Arab Islamic state in which the South was a tolerated but dominated entity within it. This model was the cause of the conflict. As long as it remained in effect, the country would be unstable and could, in the long run lead to the break up of the country. In Garang’s own words: “Model 3 is the present Islamic Arab Sudan. It is the problem. The non Arab and non Moslems are excluded from this type of Sudan. Now it is even worse. To be included in this Sudan one has to be an NIF. So those of Mansour Khalid are not included in this type of Sudan. This model is unstable. It has led to two wars: the Anyanya war and the present SPLM/SPLA war. That is the old Sudan and it must go”.

Today, we can say that the CPA has vindicated Dr John Garang’s assertion with respect to Model 3. It has been outlawed by the CPA and the interim national constitution. Has it actually vanished in practice? Yes and no; depending on which part of the elephant the blind man is touching. If you ask Comrade Salva Kiir, the old Sudan is staggering away like a drunken man. Whether it will reach the horizon and disappear or return to torment us is the mother of all questions. Dr Mansour Khalid describes the CPA as the bridge between the old and the New Sudan. The fate of the Sudan will depend on whether our leaders choose to cross the bridge or to double cross it.

Model 4 is the inverse of model three; a secular African State where the North is a tolerated but dominated entity within a united Sudan. Like model three, this arrangement would be unstable and could also lead to the break up of the country in the long run. According to Dr Garang, “Model 4 is for a united black African Sudan. It is a hypothetical model but it is not far fetched. If the 31 % Arab population can claim to have an Arab Sudan, there is no reason why the 69% Africans cannot claim a black African Sudan. This model is also unstable. The non Africans can resist this model and call for their own state”.
This arrangement never existed in Sudan’s contemporary history so it is really provided as a scientific analogy.

Model 2

The Sudan is now three years into model two which for all practical purposes is the CPA arrangement of temporary power sharing. The CPA created a one-country-two systems Sudan as we all know. There are some salient and subtle differences between the CPA and the original model two. Model two speaks about three entities; a Southern state a Northern state and a common entity (Confederate Government). The CPA has only two governments: a Southern and a National government. It is very interesting to read Dr John’s pre-CPA text and see, with the benefit of our three years’ experience, whether the North and the South are converging towards a more cohesive unity or drifting farther apart. He said “model two is a transitional model. This is the confederal model. The essence of it is that we have two states; one in the north and one in the south linked by a central authority responsible for the matters in which we have an agreement. These are what we call the commonalities. It is a model to end the war. You end the war by accepting the realities of the country. There is no way, for instance, in which we can compromise on the question of Islamic Sharia no matter how it is coated. We believe that we must leave the issue of Sharia or no Sharia to each state to decide for itself. Those who want it can have it 100%. They can cut off their hands if they want to. We are opposed to the practice but we are not going to stick out our necks for it.

Meanwhile in the South we would have a secular state. This model can end the war and can be stable during the interim period. It is also a model that can resolve the issue of Islamic fundamentalism if there is cooperation from the international community. If we have a Sudan that is characterized by this structure and we have free movement of people, goods and services, this would provide a serious challenge to the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism in the Sudan and beyond. If the southern part of our country develops very rapidly and has the correct economic and political system, then it would have a demonstration effect on the north. We would have development going from the south to the north. I have given the example of somebody sitting in Khartoum thirsty for a glass of cold beer. Since there is freedom of movement he can get his cold beer in Juba. So he will have to take a flight to Juba each time he needs a beer. After a while he will begin to ask why he cannot have his beer in Khartoum. Thus during the interim period, if the Southern economy works very well, the pilgrimage might be to Juba rather than to Mecca. This is how communism collapsed. It was undermined through the demonstration effect. In this respect, this model is subversive”.

Model 1

During the transitional or interim period, the people of the north and the south can reduce their historical disagreements over identity, development, discrimination, stereotyping, domination, marginalization, prejudice etcetera. During this period, the northerners and the southerners can expand their areas of common interest like patriotism, nationalism, health, religious tolerance, culture, sports etcetera. If these things happen, the Southern and Northern entities would merge to form one united democratic secular Sudan of justice and equality for all regardless of religion, race or gender. In Dr Garang’s words, “The confederal model can lead to the creation of the New Sudan through the expansion of the commonalties over time. That is the maximum possible outcome. The SPLM/SPLA National Convention decided not to wait for that day. They have already defined the New Sudan to consist, for the time being, of the South as per its borders of January 1956 and the areas of Southern Kordofan and Southern Blue Nile. Other parts of the country may join as future developments unfold.

Model 5

If Model two fails to reconcile northern and southern aspirations, then the inevitable outcome would be a break up of the country. If, during the interim period, disequilibrium in economic development continues to persist between the north and the south, if we do not come to terms with the reality that we are Sudanese first and anything else second, if the factors that unite do not expand, if the factors that divide do not diminish, then the Sudan falls apart. Model 5 is therefore a residual result of our failure to unite rather than a strategic objective. Let us get this point from the horse’s mouth. “The confederal model can also lead to the disintegration of the country through the diminution of the commonalties during the interim period or the lack of them in the first place. We underlined this very point in Abuja (in 1992); that if we cannot rise to the challenge and move to the New Sudan, it is better that the Sudan breaks up (to two parts) before it breaks down (to innumerable fragments)”.

The author is the Sudan’s Ambassador to Japan