SPLM says Khartoum’s document on marginalized areas hampers negotiations
LONDON, March 21, 2004 (Sudan Tribune) — In the first official reaction to a document submitted by the Sudanese government for solving disputed issues in the current peace negotiations in Kenya, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, (SPLM) criticized the document, regarding it as not serious and “old”, and as a mere pretext to delay reaching a final peace agreement.
SPLM spokesman Yasir Arman said that the SPLM received the Sudanese Government’s paper in reply to a document that the SPLM had earlier submitted to the Sudanese Government. He pointed out that the SPLM will deliver a new document including all pending issue with the aim of reaching a final agreement, the London based Al-Sharq Alawsat newspaper reported on March 18.
Arman expressed his displeasure at the Sudanese government’s rigid stand on the issue of the Abiey area. He said that certain Sudanese officials view the Abiey area as though it would become “the headquarters of the Islamic caliphate, something for which some officials of the Sudanese regime yearn.”
Noting some observations about the Sudanese government’s paper, Arman said that the consultations in Khartoum “have produced a paper opting for a selective method in addressing the issues relating to power.” He said that the Sudanese government “chooses some items while ignoring a host of important issues relating to power. These issues were discussed for over a year and were listed in the final copy that was entrusted with IGAD [Inter-Governmental Authority for Development] Secretariat.”
Arman pointed out that the Sudanese government’s paper “noted in an ambiguous way that the issues of al-Nubah Mountains and the Blue Nile had been agreed upon on 25 February. However, it ignored that on 25 February three documents, that is, documents A, B, and C, were reached, and that document noted a breakthrough in the issues of the al-Nubah Mountains and the Blue Nile. The Sudanese government delegation then backed down on documents B and C. Now, which agreement of the three documents does the Sudanese government refer to?” Arman added: “If the draft agreement was submitted as a basis for agreement on the two aforementioned areas, why the reference to them was so general and ambiguous?”
Discussing the issue of Abiey, Arman said: “The gist of the Sudanese government’s paper is a repetition of an old stance and a reproduction of the same old crisis; in fact, it raises more questions than it gives answers.” He said: “We believe that the Sudanese government’s stand on Abiey is a mere pretext to delay reaching a final agreement. This stand is the result of erroneous domestic and foreign calculations.”
Arman added: “The Sudanese government’s paper demonstrates the Sudanese regime’s fear of the democratic transformation that would accompany the final peace agreement.” He said: “Some in the Sudanese regime now seem to regard the Abiey issue as though it would become the headquarters of the Islamic caliphate, something to which some of the Sudanese regime officials aspire.” He noted that there is “clear and deliberate confusion between the interests of our kinfolk herding their cattle and the interests of the influential Islamic advocates in the Sudanese regime.”
Arman underlined that “the fact that Abiey belongs administratively to Bahr al-Ghazal will not deny the population of the area their right to enjoy its natural resources, primarily oil and water. This is the essence of the stance expressed by the SPLM on this issue.”
Arman said: “It is really surprising that the Sudanese government which signed a document on self-determination for south Sudan should now regard Abiey as a major issue. It is surprising that some advocates of the major Islamic project should focus on the Abiey issue.” He added: “The other point is that selective talk on issues of power ignores important issues, primarily the issue of restructuring the security agencies, which is closely associated with democratic transformation, as well as the issue of the status of the national capital, which is important for Sudan’s unity.” The talk on the extent of power-sharing by the opposition political forces in the transitional arrangements was also vague and ambiguous. This issue is very important for national consensus.”