High level diplomacy for unity of Sudan

By Jacob K. Lupai

October 12, 2009 — In my article, “Indirect use of force for unity of Sudan”, that appeared in Sudan Tribune of Tuesday 18 August 2009 I had highlighted options Northern Sudan could have to maintain the unity of Sudan. One such option is the use of proxy war to make it virtually impossible for the referendum in Southern Sudan to take place. The use of proxy war, which seems to be in full swing in the face of sporadic tribal warfare, is to portray Southern Sudan as dreadfully incapable of standing on its own feet as a sovereign state. The strategic plan of the proxy war is disunity among southerners in order to make unity of Sudan more attractive as the best option to stop the carnage in Southern Sudan. Of course the North does not lack resources for strategic planning to destabilize the South. In contrast the South appears powerless to counter effectively the northern plots of destabilization. Insecurity in the South is rampant though there are efforts being made to improve security. Tribal conflicts are sporadic and seem uncontrollable like raging wildfires. The perception of the South in such a dire situation as a future sovereign state must be worrying but could be a welcome development by the North.

There are serious differences between the North and South on the expected result of the referendum, a right granted to the South by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 that ended the civil war in Sudan. The North as represented by the National Congress Party (NCP) expects the result of the referendum for secession to be 75 per cent. In contrast the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) representing the South expects the result to be 51 per cent to qualify the South for independence. However, to make independence to the South a distant probability the NCP has raised the expected result to 90 per cent. There are other differences too. The NCP and SPLM differ in their definition or clarification of who should vote in the referendum in the South. This all seems to suggest that the North will do anything to maintain the unity of Sudan.

Like the indirect use of force the North is also engaged in a high level diplomatic offensive to maintain the unity of Sudan. The arrival of northern key political figures in Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan for the All Political Party Conference (APPC) seems to have ushered in an era of recognition that the naked use of brute force for unity of Sudan might be counterproductive. However, the NCP leadership never arrived to participate in the conference. This is nonetheless immaterial. Among themselves the northern political parties never differ on the unity of Sudan. In fact any northern political party represents the northern vested interest in the unity of Sudan. What is, however, important is for the South to watch carefully the lips of northern political leadership. In most cases the northern political leadership spices up unity of Sudan to look more than attractive but will speak grudgingly of secession. For example, in position papers presented by northern Sudanese political parties in the British House of Lords on 16 February 1994, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said they uphold the unity of the Sudanese land and people, and will not accept the carving up of the country or people under unnatural circumstances such as those imposed by the Al-Turabi dictatorial Front. The DUP leader claimed that Islam being a tolerant religion does not condone the on goings perpetrated by the government of Omer el Basher. While the DUP leader was selling the virtues of Islam to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom at the same time Islamic jihad had been declared on the South for forceful unity of Sudan.

On self-determination to Southern Sudan the DUP has other views. In a paper presented in Cairo on the 1st February 1994 the DUP rejected self-determination on the ground that, “— the people of the Sudan did finally settle the issue of self-determination according to the self-determination agreement and the principles of the international law and the resolutions of the UN and OAU”. The DUP claimed that the Sudan was united throughout its history and that on many occasions the Sudanese will for a united country was expressed. They cited the Juba Conference of 1947, the Circular Table Conference of 1967 and the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 as all assuring that the Sudan cannot be but a one country. The DUP also claimed that the Nairobi Communiqué of 17 April 1993 which accepted the cultural, religious and racial variety of the Sudan was a one more confirmation of the unity of the country. This was, however, on the basis of New Sudan but not the Sudan implementing divisive Islamic law. They blamed all the military regimes except themselves for all the problems facing the country. This is misleading to say the least. The DUP was the party that hoisted the Sudanese independence flag but what did it do in government to address the problem

When delivering their key note speech in the British House of Lords the DUP asked the British for assistance to preserve the unity of Sudan. The implication was that self-determination to the South, which could secede, was never entertained by the DUP. However, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) of which the DUP was a member declared it its 1995 Asmara Declaration that, “the right to self-determination is a basic human, democratic and people’s right which may be exercised at any time by any people”. This declaration seems to contradict the DUP official position on self-determination. The DUP claim that the Juba Conference of 1947 confirmed the unity of Sudan is debatable. From the minutes of the Conference it seems there was a heated debate on whether the South should be united with the North. It was obvious from the minutes that the North was determined that the South was part and parcel of the united Sudan. This was evidenced by the high level delegation from the North that included a judge and a doctor. As people who were well informed, the northern delegation put up a strong argument for unity of Sudan while the southern participants were skeptical if not outright suspicious of northern intentions. Southerners put up some resistance to the manipulation of the northern delegation. However, the highly educated northern delegation used their knowledge of politics to persuade the unsophisticated and uninformed southerners. Judge Mohamed Saleh El Shingeiti who appeared to be the leader of the northern delegation lied to southerners that the North would not exploit or harm the South in any way.

Half a century later Judge Mohamed Saleh El Shingeiti’s lies were confirmed. The Juba Conference of 1947 had led the South like a goat into unceremonious slaughter. The unity the South was led into became a unity of destructive wars and dehumanization of southerners in their own place of birth. As southerners of today are different in sophistication from those who attended the Juba Conference, the North has returned to the drawing board for fresh policies and strategies. The South has an army and a strong one for that matter, and a highly informed leadership. This is causing a real challenge and worry to northern ideologues. A full blown war for unity of Sudan may not be won. The indirect use of force may be effective in the short term. However, the indirect use of force in the long term may drag into a full scale war that will only make Sudan like a wrecked ship. The use of diplomacy both in the short and long term may promote a peaceful co-existence. The use of force either directly or indirectly should not be allowed. Sudanese of all colours have suffered enough. We now need an angel savior either from the North or South but not a dogmatic religious lunatic whose actions are no different from those of a two-horn Satan who wants to drag peace loving Sudanese to hell fire.

The Umma Party position paper presented on the 16 February 1994 to the British House of Lords said, “The current civil war is no win situation. —- War is no longer a realistic or rational alternative”. The paper went on to say that, “Self-determination should not be allowed to lead to renewed armed border conflicts between the North and South, nor to hostilities within the South”, and added that, “The choice in the self-determination process should be between unity in a just Sudan and separation. Such a choice is not possible under the present regime which defines the identity of the Sudan in a narrow partisan sense”. It should be noted that the position papers of northern political parties presented to the British House of Lords were before the CPA in 2005. It can be seen that the Umma Party position paper shows bitterness of the Umma Party with the NCP government and conciliation to the South. This is of course understandable as the NCP came to power through a military coup orchestrated by Al Turabi National Islamic Front (NIF) that overthrew the democratically elected Umma Party government. The conciliation note to the South by the Umma Party was most probably to get even with the NCP for overthrowing their government and keeping then out of power for so long. The Umma Party was in government and what did it do positively to the South. Sadly the Umma Party contributed to the destruction of the South while in government.

The DUP had claimed that the Circular Table Conference of 1967 confirmed the unity of Sudan. However, a critical analysis of the conference hardly confirmed the unity of Sudan because acute differences remained. The DUP also claimed in their position paper presented to the British House of Lords that the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 confirmed the unity of Sudan. This statement was grossly misleading. First of all the South was negotiating from the position of weakness when the North could dictate the terms of the agreement. The then Minister of Southern Affairs who was himself a southerner was under strict instructions by the northern dominated government to inform the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM) in no uncertain terms that only a peace agreement could be signed on condition of a united Sudan. To secure an agreement the Minister of Southern Affairs went further to inform the SSLM that the majority of southern intellectuals were in favour of the offer of the Sudanese government to end the civil war in the South and so the SSLM was under immense pressure not to reject the government offer of solution to what was then known as the southern problem. The same person who was the Minister of Southern Affairs became the first president of the autonomous South. As power at times corrupts greed and nepotism became so rampant that the North found it easier to abrogate the agreement without much resistance. The SPLM was later to describe the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 as an agreement for some few hungry elite who were seeking jobs and opportunities for self interest at the expense of the marginalized masses.

The DUP blamed all the military regimes that had ruled Sudan for the failure to draft a permanent constitution that would have addressed the southern problem. Again the DUP is not doing itself a favour. According to the DUP the military regimes did not allow a peaceful atmosphere to draft a constitution. Obviously the DUP was engaging in a white lie as if others were completely uninformed. The draft constitution made in 1968-69 was under a civilian government but was based on religion, Islam. How could that constitution be of service to the South? In protest southern members of the constitution draft committee walked out from the committee. Now how on earth could DUP blame the military regimes for the failure to make a draft constitution that could have addressed the southern problem? The northern political parties might have been successful in deceiving the South in the past. However the South of today is different because it has learned the hard way.

The high level diplomacy undertaken by the most senior leaderships of the northern political parties seems to be the last desperate attempt to beg the South to remain in a united Sudan. The most senior leaderships of the northern political parties were in government in one way or the other but what did they do to make the unity of Sudan attractive? They instead made the unity of Sudan the most unattractive through insensitivity to the aspirations of the people of Southern Sudan. The northern political parties with the exception of the Sudan Communist Party favoured and declared a jihad (Islamic holy war) against southerners, the supposed fellow countrymen. They advocated Islamic constitution knowing very well that Sudan was and is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country. In some sense the massive destruction of Southern Sudan and the enormous loss of lives make the northern high level diplomacy for unity of Sudan contemptuous. However, the APPC held in Juba between 26 and 30 September produced something that the South might be comfortable with. The APPC stressed the full implementation of the CPA as central to sustainable peace and confidence building between the North and South Sudan, and the enactment of Referendum Bill during the current National Assembly with simple majority vote (50%) as the basis for maintaining unity of Sudan or for the South to opt for separation. However, the battle is not yet over.

The NCP is always shifting the goal post with the main aim of sabotaging secession of the South. For example, as already mentioned above at first the NCP wanted the result of the referendum to be 75 per cent for the South to secede. The NCP now has shifted the result to be 90 per cent of the referendum for the secession of the South. This only makes it clear that the NCP by all means wants the South to remain united with the North despite the lessons learned from the history of unpalatable North-South relations. The contemptuous perception of the South by the North is one.

Northern fear of the unknown is appreciated. The North may have no clue as to what will happen if the South goes separate ways. However, the North’s fear is over exaggerated. So far independence to the South is the best option for cordial North-South relations. History clearly shows that there will never be peace in Sudan when the South is occupied and its human and natural resources are plundered. We have tried to be a united country since 1956 but for the last 53 years it has been nothing but blood shed and pain that have characterized North-South relations. There were people who rejected the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972. Arab naked racism and religious bigotry will never ever be the basis of a united Sudan. Whatever diplomatic niceties emanating from the northern political leaderships are only like sugar-coated bitter pills. Although the Arab element in the North is envious of the abundant southern resources independence to the South is in the best interest of the North in the long term, assuming that independence to the South was peaceful in contrast to a violent unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). First of all an independent South will be the closest ally of the North in Africa and in the Arab world. There will be special relations between the North and South so that the use of passports and other restrictions may not apply. The North and South will be strong trading partners. There will be mutual respect as independent nations and especial bond of friendships will flourish. There may be a military pact such that an attack on the North is an attack on the South and vice versa. There may also be a mutual sharing of resources in the best interest of the North and South. In international fora the North and South may work jointly for their common interest.

In conclusion I can envisage the North and South that will have especial relations similar to those between the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK). When a student in Secondary Technical School, Khartoum Technical Institute a friend who was my classmate and also my hall mate, Fadul Salama asked me whether we would not meet again because the South was separating from the North. The question was immediately after Aggrey Jaden had delivered his key note speech in the Round Table Conference of 1965. In response I laughed and said we would still be together. And indeed the North and South would still be good neighbours living together in peaceful co-existence with a strong bond of brotherhood among the people of the Nile Valley.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my greetings and wishes to my friends Fadul Salama, Mahir Mohamed Taha, Mahmoud Ahmed Jiha, Yacoub Ahmed Jafun and all those my classmates who were with me in Secondary Technical School, Khartoum Technical Institute, in 1964-68. I hope all are alive and well as I am in this part of the world.

The author is a regular contributor to Sudan Tribune and can be reached at [email protected]