NCP’s strategies to derail the referenda
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
September 12, 2010 — Divide-and-rule policy has been used for long time by the government in Khartoum to maintain power. Now the strategies that the National Congress Party (NCP) uses to derail the referenda are still part of divide-and-rule policy. NCP is planning to discredit the process leading to the lawful conduct of the referenda so that the international community does not recognize the results of the referenda. For example, Chinese newspaper People’s Daily reported Sudanese State Minister for Foreign Affairs Kamal Hassan on August 24, 2010 as saying that the result of the referendum in Southern Sudan will not be recognized if it does not bring about peace and stability.
Dr. Lam Akol of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement for Democratic Change (SPLM-D.C.) repeated the above statement in his recent article when he wrote: “The agreement stipulates that the choice shall be made consciously and the non-availability of the right circumstances for the conduct of the referendum will open the door wide for challenging the result, whether by Northerners or Southerners or even by others. The referendum must be conducted to the satisfaction of all so that the result could be acceptable to all. There is no sense in conducting a referendum whose result will be questionable or disputed.” This statement makes me think that Dr. Akol and his party are planning to challenge the referendum results in the Supreme Court of Sudan if the referendum is conducted in January, 2011. Dr. Akol is sure that the Supreme Court in Khartoum can easily nullify the referendum results if a Southerner like Dr. Akol is the one challenging the results. Well-thought-out strategy, isn’t it?
One cannot call Dr. Akol’s statement a mere coincident to that of the State Minister for Foreign Affairs because the State Minister for Foreign Affairs uttered his words on August 24, 2010 and Lam published his article on September 7, 2010. That means it is a coordinated strategy between NCP and the SPLM-D.C. Dr. Akol has even taken one step ahead of NCP in his demand when he said this: “The various levels of government should work to bring about a conducive environment including the security situation and the provision of freedom of expression for all the people as well as freedom of assembly and movement.” Provision of freedom of expression for “all” the people. Is that a realistic condition for the conduct of the referenda?
Statements like these from the leader of SPLM-D.C. make it like SPLM-D.C. has allowed itself to be used by NCP as a tool for insecurity in the South so that the referenda are not carried out. Dr. Akol’s position is spelled out in the following statement after he gave some conditions that should be met before January 2010: “Therefore, unless these circumstances are redressed, conducting the referendum at this time would be a violation of the agreement itself.” Can you imagine this?
Recently, the former Secretary General of SPLM-D.C. Charles Kisanga reported that SPLM-D.C. is behind the insecurity in Upper Nile State while getting financial support from Khartoum. SPLM-D.C. armed youths are alleged to have killed the paramount chief and six other people in Malakal area in order to intensify insecurity in the area.
Dr. Akol may have many reasons why he incites insecurity in South Sudan. The following statements show some of his plans: “The fundamental issue currently is that under the present adverse circumstances in South Sudan, there would be no way for a free, fair and transparent referendum. Therefore it would be in the interest of the advocates of unity and separation alike to unify their ranks and join efforts to impose the favorable climate for the dissemination of their ideas about unity or separation so that they reach the Southern citizen, the voter in this referendum.” In other words, insecurity means invalid results of the referendum. So, SPLM-D.C. can continue to incite this insecurity for the referendum not to take place.
I might be wrong in the way I look at Dr. Akol’s intention in the statement. But there are other statements in his article that make me reach this bold statement. Like this one: “South – South dialogue would be the safety valve which would slam the door in the face of people with hidden agendas concerning the referendum and the future of South Sudan.” Dr. Akol has confessed that there are people with “hidden agendas concerning the referendum and the future of South Sudan.” He might be one of them.
Dr. Akol and his SPLM-D.C. are not the only tools that the NCP is using to derail the referenda. On August 8, 2010, the organized forces of GoSS captured Helicopter M. I 8 ST-SFD-054 at Faluoch. On the helicopter were militias loyal to militia leader in Jonglei State Lt. Gen. George Athor Deng, including Athor’s number three in command. The pilot was a Russian national. His name is Anatoly Monogaro. The crew members were using Thuraya Phone to coordinate with officials directing them from Khartoum. The names of the officials directing the helicopter crew from Khartoum are Mr. Bareredin Abaker, Managing Director of Khartoum Office and Gatdor Pan, Field Coordinator of Pangak Area. This support for militias is causing insecurity in South Sudan.
NCP is also using delaying tactics at the demarcation of the North-South borders so that referenda do not take place as scheduled. In its recent report, the International Crisis Groups (ICG) reported that the dispute in the demarcation is “no longer a technical issue, but a political one, and should be treated as such.”
NCP officials are targeting areas that they see as resourceful and want to claim them as part of Northern Sudan. These areas include Jabalain County in Renk, Jebel Megenis in Upper Nile/ South Kordofan, Kaka in Upper Nile/South Kordofan, the Bahr al Arab in Northern Bahr el Ghazal/South Kordofan, and Kafia Kingi and Hofrat en Nahas in Western Bahr el Ghazal. These areas are rich in natural resources and fertile lands.
What the NCP is trying to do is to play delaying tactics that may cause anger in the South to force the referendum committee into conducting the poorly-organized referenda so that referenda results are not recognized by the international community. The other plan of NCP is the return to war if South Sudan is provoked to declare itself as separate nation, giving Northern Sudan some chances of occupying the above mentioned disputed areas. In order for this strategy to succeed, NCP should play divide-and-rule policy. Only sleeping person may fail to realize the above strategies.
We Southerners must unite and tell those who allow themselves to be used against their own brothers and sisters that now is the time for them to stop the game that they are playing. We must work for the freedom of the majority in South Sudan, not the interests of the few who want to milk the North at the expense of vulnerable Southerners. Freedom of speech in democracy does not include the incitement of violence as a strategy for achieving a particular goal, like unity or separation in Sudan.
Zechariah Manyok Biar, BA. Edu., MSSW, MACM. He can be reached at [email protected]