New Sudan vision and independent South Sudan are not exclusive
By Dau Reng
December 24, 2009 — The subject of colonial geographical Southern Sudan’s separation from the rest of Sudan makes most none Southern Sudanese very uneasy. They feel like they are being left behind by the boat that was going to take them to the promised land, New Sudan, a Sudan based on democratic principles of secularism, human liberties, equal and fair sharing of wealth and power. They see a contradiction of the New Sudan vision by overwhelming majority of South Sudanese at this point in time as Southerners continue to eagerly await for the day of “peaceful divorce” between the South and North Sudan (at least it is the hope). I think the concern of “enthusiasts of the country’s unity” are real but are based on fear of uncertainty following Southerners self-determination referendum that will inevitably lead to South Sudan’s independence. However, the New Sudan Vision is not mutually exclusive of a new South Sudan nation.
First, before the New Sudan Vision became the anthem of the marginalized Sudanese after the people of Southern Sudan had on numerous occasions stood up against both European and pseudo Arab rulers of Sudan demanding their fundamental rights, and in the process sacrificed countless lives to attain them. Southern Sudanese attempt to gain their rightful place and dignity in the Sudan as exhibited in the struggles of both the first and second Anya-Nya rebellions following the so called independence of Sudan in 1956 are very important context when weighing the insurgency of South Sudan nationalism that is fueling call of separation. It is particularly important to look back beyond 1983 so that another marriage that will end bitterly is avoided yet again. Therefore, the SPLM is responsible for assuring that the mistakes of the pass resistance movements are not repeated. Accepting the choose of Southern Sudanese to be in a independent country would be inline with the principles of the New Sudan vision. As acknowledged by most the New Sudan Vision itself is a work in process. It is an ideal situation.
In fact, it would be contradictory for the SPLM, a political movement that stands for democratic transformation in the Sudan to go against the democratic right of majority of South Sudanese to call and vote for separation of South Sudan now and comes the self-determination referendum. The combined liberation struggles leading up the peace agreement of 2005 involved many sacrifices by South Sudanese in particular. Properties looted, town and villages torched to earth, families separated, parents, children and youth killed in their millions, and many more humiliated beyond repair.
It is also important to pull back and finally acknowledge that the people of Southern Sudan can not impose secularism or ideas of democracy on others Sudanese who are not ready for such concept or have chosen to live with shackles of mental bondage as many others have chosen around the world. Politicians will be incline to say the truth on this matter but it is the whole truth. Those marginalized Sudanese who want freedom and dignity will seek and certainly find it but only with sweat and maybe blood. Freedom does not come in golden plate and therefore should not be expected by other marginalized Sudanese to come wrapped in one.
Southerners should not be obligated to subject its remaining orphans and widows to another war to give others freedom in a golden plate while it is not out of forest itself. The SPLM/A flag is there for any marginalized group or region who want its virtues to take and defend. Take it and defend it in the streets, parliaments and assemblies of Sudan and your Southern brethrens will always be with you. It is a covenant written in blood.
Indeed, independent South Sudan is a necessary foundation or “launching pad” for the New Sudan otherwise all sacrifices made during the struggle shall be in vain. I don’t think the ruling party in the government of national unity, NCP will accept any transformation that will compromise its grip on the Sudanese without giving a suicidal fight if no tangible pressure is placed on it by friends of human dignity around the world.
On the other hand it would also be ungentlemanly to say that the SPLM has cower by not calling for the unity of Sudan which will subject its remaining orphans and widows to Sharia law again, a doctrine that most geographical northerner Sudanese do not object. To many Southerners the idea of an Islamic Arab State in the heart of Africa is a cause for separation. This makes it unconscionable for many leaders in the people’s movement to say that secession of South Sudan is worst than unity of the country. The first bullet of the SPLA, the people’s army may have been fired at a Southern separatist but ever since then the SPLM has been able to refocus its aim to the right target. If it has not been refocused then Southerners will not forgive anyone who knowingly eliminates a Southern nationalist again.
Furthermore, I have been waiting for anyone to clearly articulate why the SPLM should sings songs of unity while they placed they already tried on many occasions by placing Southern vehicle on the road that was going to lead to voluntary unity. If the driver, NCP had been driving the vehicle with instructions from the CPA maybe we would not be talking about separation at this late hour.
The insurrection of South Sudan nationalism has indeed began to rage like a wild fire on the windward side of valley. This is a result of a metamorphosis that has been going on for a long time among the majority, silent separatist of Southern Sudan. Therefore, the phenomenon can not be blamed on the people’s movement, SPLM. The opposite could hold water at least until the first national convention of 1994. There is no doubt by now that Southerners know what they want, independence.
It would therefore be unfair to say that the SPLM is abandoning its core principle by not singing praises of how great unity will become because there is nothing great to sing about unity. On the contrary, I thought far more leaders of the movement talked favorably about unity while it was continuing to be made unattractive by the hour since the signage of the peace agreement up to late this year, 5 of 6 years into the interim period. If not to make unity attractive why would the SPLM let its top cadres, heroes and freedom fighters be subjected to humiliation while demonstrating for nullification of the unjust so called security laws that contradicts everything democracy? Maybe had the NCP been more cooperative during this interim period and implement the provisions of the CPA at least in letter then perhaps unity would have been made attractive even to this author.
This brings me to the credible question that asks; what is attractive about separation? It is a question that I have seen many times even though the reasons are abundantly everywhere for anyone. Even a foreign football player recently brought to Sudan’s national football team discovered the reasons that are making separation attractive in less time than a woman’s gestation period. This question is no longer sincere but to give benefit of doubt let me give just four random personal reasons. Lets just say, first, it will end the imposition of Sharia laws and replacement of our African identity with the foreign identity and culture, a symptom of inferiority. Second, it will end exploitation of Southerners natural resources. Third, it will reduce unwarranted arrest, detention and abuse of Southerners. Fourth, it will be glorious tangible benchmark of the New Sudan Vision.
Additionally, independent Southern Sudan complements the New Sudan Vision than it contradicts it because the peace agreement provides an indefinite time and means by which to politically transform the rest of the country following a successful separation. New Sudan vision will continues to live also through the unpopular popular consultation for the transitional areas. As for the rest of the country the introduction democratic process and the upcoming elections will give them the chance to further democratic transformation even if the continue to be not free and unfair. Sudan has truly been changed to borrow words of a living Martyr.
Finally, the New Sudan vision that invigorated Southerners and awaken other marginalized Sudanese is still alive and will probably live on until the end of time. Therefore, separation of Southern Sudan from Northern Sudan will not change the equation of New Sudan Vision but it will rather simply it. This is my humble opinion. I like frank discourse and therefore would not support alienation of opposing opinion on any subject. Whether it is by self identified unionist or separatist. I also hope that silencing of opposing views is not a practice within any political party in the Country and particular in the SPLM, the champion of democratic way.
May God bless us and protect the aspiration of the marginalized Sudanese and all people on earth who have endured oppression in the hands of their fellow human beings.
Dau Reng is a concern Sudanese currently in the United States. email: [email protected]
Oduck Bol
New Sudan vision and independent South Sudan are not exclusive
Mary Christmas and happy new year to you mr Dau Reng. I hope you good luck in 2010. Let us start a new page and for give each others. Always Nykang, Dinkdid and Ngondang be with us, special we southerns because they are our founders. Thanks to you one more.
Kim Deng
New Sudan vision and independent South Sudan are not exclusive
Unionists,
Don’t waste your time talking about that blind vision. Mr. Marxist-Leninist Garang self-claimed poor vision “New Sduan,” is gone. “New Sudan,” vision was the setback of uninification of Southern Sudanese for the last damn 22 years. Southern Sudanes are more united than ever before because Mr. Garang is gone along with his blind vision.
Gatwech
New Sudan vision and independent South Sudan are not exclusive
Dear readers,
Late Dr. John Garang just realized in the last minute that he had no followers of his “New Sudan Vision” as far as the people of South Sudan are concerned. The so-called marginalized people in the North just wanted to use the SPLM/A, which majority of population is from the South, to actually hijack the vision of separation of the South and destroy it in the name of liberating the whole of Sudan. They wanted the South to abandon the vision of independence and pursue the vision of new united Sudan so that they benefit from it more than the southerners could benefit from it. Good enough that Garang after the CPA realized this trick and told southerners NOT to vote for unity because it would be voting for second class citizenship. He gave up on what he thought was easy, and that was why he said the Northern system was “too deformed to be reformed.” But he was really for unity of the Sudan in the first place.
Don’t deceive yourself that the so-called “New Sudan” is a new concept in Sudan. It is just the name “New” which proceeds it that people think is really new, when in fact it is as old as other claims by former dictators who masqueraded as democrats.
Let me give you an example from where the SPLM got its slogan, Ethiopia. Former Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam after taking over power from King Haile Sellasie in 1974 called his vision “New Ethiopia.” Actually to him socialism was the vision he described to be forming a “New Ethiopia.”
Late John Garang got the name from Mengistu in 1983. If you remember well the first SPLM Manifesto (look for its copy), you will find that Garang called for “New Socialist united Sudan,” in the same way Mengistu called for “New Socialist Ethiopia” and he was against separation of Eritrea from the rest of Ethiopia, just like Garang was against the separation of south Sudan from the rest of Sudan. So in the sense of socialist system established by dictators who know nothing about democracy, they think they are building a “New” whatever!
Then came the post-1991, late Garang changed the name of the vision to “New Secular united Sudan” where democracy, equality and justice for all would prevail. Did he know any of those things during his bush leadership, or was it just a pressure from the 1991 move on self-determination and therefore he was trying to introduce in his faction another system for a united Sudan that would be seen democratic on paper? Do you know the big difference between socialism and secularism? These are conflicting visions of SPLA/M of 1983 to 1991 and (SPLM/A) of 1991 to present time. But they all qualified for the word “New”. Very interesting, ah!
Also the so-called democratic leader in Sudan, Sadiq Al-Mahdi was calling for establishment of democratic system in the Sudan. To him also the name “democracy” was enough to deceive people that he was really for it.
My friend, Dr. Garang was against independence of South Sudan. This is why he decided to fight against his brothers like late Samuel Gai Tut who argued to pursue separation of the South. Garang did not see his leadership secure in independent South. He wanted united Sudan where he would rule the South. Many people who were close to the CPA deal say there were secret deals between Garang and Ali Osman that would have eliminated separatists and introduce a third choice in the referendum if it would indeed be conducted. This is why they had inserted the wording “inter alia” in the referendum protocol. He would have fought within the SPLM those he thinks are pushing for separation during the interim period. He would have himself mechanised ways to make unity attractive and impose such mechanisms on the South. God knows why he took him away not to implement the CPA himself.
So, don’t try to misinterpret Garang’s vision as a new concept which Sudan had never tried before. Dictators always use the word “New” to attract visionless followers that something new would really happen. It would have been the same old Sudan of imposed unity with shariah law in Khartoum and dictatorship plus corruption and inequality in the South that would have constituted the word “New.”