The Separation Argument: another side to the SPLM Vision and the CPA.
Reply to Dr. Deng, the Minister of Petroleum
By Dhieu Mathok Diing Wol,
(Gurtong - September 4, 2010)
The interview attributed to H.E Dr. Lual Deng Achuek, the Federal Minister of Petroleum in Government of National Unity (GNU) in the Sudan by the Al Sharq Al Awsat newspaper in Washington early this week and widely re-published by many Sudanese Newspapers for three consecutive days in the belief that it constituted the best statement issued by senior member of the SPLM party since the agreement was signed in 2005 and the party joined the government in Khartoum, generated confusion about the vision of the SPLM and views of its founder late Dr. John Garang De Mabior on the issue of unity and separation in the Sudan.
This reply acquired its importance from two different instances; misrepresentation of ideological prospective of the SPLM and blindness of Dr. Deng about the reality of the Sudan in the era of the CPA implementation. It couldn’t be classified as a mere lashing of the Minister’s ideas about unity and separation.
To begin with the SPLM Vision of the New Sudan, I believe Dr. Deng as a somebody who was closed to late Dr. John since the time of his studies in USA via era of the armed struggle knows more than any person what was in the mind of late Dr. John as far as the concept of the New Sudan is concerned. However, the SPLM vision of New Sudan in its totality is not something secret, it was/is published in the Manifesto in 1983 amended twice to comply with its reality in Chukdum 1994 and in Juba 2008 and widely disseminated.
The SPLM Manifesto defines the magnitude of the problem as connected to the Sudanese reality, historical and contemporary diversity. In very simple terms, the successive governments in Khartoum have failed to evolve a Sudanese identity that pledges a united Sudan irrespective of religion, race, tribe, color and sex. Accordingly, the formation of the democratic Sudan based on justice, freedom and rule of law; human rights, peace and good governance are what constitute a new Sudan.
The questions need answers from H.E Dr. Deng are, which one among these basic principles of the SPLM vision is currently observed in this viable Sudan? Did the SPLM/A fight the liberation war just for the sake of any kind of united Sudan? Or it fought for promotion of unity that complies with its own vision?
If Dr. Deng could recall the solution modalities proposed by the late Dr. John to resolve Sudan's conflict, he will find that during the interim period, there were two different states; one in the North and the other in the South and a union connecting these two states, which is actually the current GNU, the one he is serving as minister of petroleum now. This federal government is for all Sudanese and not for the North alone. The Southerners have been represented in that government since independence even before liberation wars in 1955 and 1983. The SPLM vision predicted merging of these two states into one country if principles of the New Sudan are accomplished.
Furthermore, he (Dr.John) believed that the union will disappear in favor of the two distinctive states. The Arab and Islamic state in the North meanwhile the other state dominated by the African and Christian identity in South Sudan as a result of the failure of having achieved New Sudan. Although this option was described as undesirable, its existence has been necessitated by the political circumstance of the Sudanese politics. It is not the separatists’ creation but constitutes the part and parcel of the SPLM overall vision.
Considering these solution modalities I believed the majority of Southern Sudanese people are now convinced that the establishment of the two distinctive states can solve their problem amicably which can not necessarily amount to a departure from the SPLM entire vision.
Could Dr. Deng remember that our late hero had spoken before he died by warning Southerners not to be second class citizens in their own country? If you believed the separation is a betrayal to the late Dr. John ideas then you should also accept the argument that the abandoning of his advice is a high treason.
Like you as somebody who was a separatist and converted to a unionist I can tell you that I have a similar experience but opposite to your equation. I was a unionist and changed to a separatist after a long experience with the North. The participation of Southerners in the federal government that you are proud of and considering it as a privilege that the northern elites are not enjoying, is blackmailing, because the Federal Government is not belonging to the North but to whole Sudan of which South Sudan should participate according to its ratio. The mentality of looking to the Central Government as a government that belongs to the North is unacceptable and represents cardinal promotion of Northern clique perception. If the North is unhappy with the autonomous government in Juba and considering it as cheating by Southerners then it is up to them to create a similar status that could satisfy their needs, since they will not go into bushes to fight for it, thank God, they possessed powers of doing it peacefully without going into war.
Comparatively, Dr. Deng could see how his ministry was broken-down upon his arrival! During the era of Dr. Awad al Jaz the ministry was inclusively sum-up to include Energy, Mining and petroleum. When his turn (Deng) came it was divided into three ministries and replaced with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a portfolio which the NCP would have loved to be held by the SPLM member who is a pro-NCP cadre, if failed to find that personality then it should be claimed back immediately. What a humiliation?
The failure of unity in the Sudan could not be attributed to any person in Southern Sudan; instead the North and the NCP are responsible for what has been going on since independence. This fact is known even by an ordinary citizen in the North. More than fifty years were spent killing each other, creating instability and dividing the people on racial and religious bases. The period of the national governments in power was marked by hatred, hunger, illiteracy, diseases and backwardness, although the Country was among first African states that obtained its independence from the colonial masters. The politicians could not benefit from lessons of other similar countries that have the same political reality like the Sudan. The civil wars in the Country consumed humble time and claimed dearly lives of the Sudanese citizens who died for a reason not worthy of their deaths.
The rigidity of the NCP in accepting the principle of separation of religion from state, and it’s obstinately position on the Islamic laws could be identified as a convenient reason for people of Southern Sudan to demand separation and defend it deadly. The self-determination came as pursuant to a serious abjuration of the NCP to the idea of establishing a civilized state that could accommodate all Sudanese people irrespective of race, religion and color. Apparently, it can be concluded that the rejection of the concept of separating religion from state implies welcoming of separation of South Sudan.
Again Dr. Deng should answer this important question; if we have to maintain the same Sudan then what was the reason our people died for? I concurred the same opinion with Dr. Deng that unity is a power but should this unity be all the time in our expense? What is the contribution of these Arabized and Islamized tribes in central Sudan and along the Nile towards unity of the Sudan? Who told you that Northerners care for unity? The unity they want is to be that one of the man and horse, full stop.
The most embracing speculation which was attributed to Dr. Deng’s ideas is a piece claiming that the South will be like Somalia if it secedes. How can we differentiate the mentality of our leaders from the enemy thoughts? South Sudan will never be like Somalia because of the liberations’ heritages that had claimed lives of the martyrs and blood of our wounded heroes and heroines. The statement is intentionally used by enemies of the secession to spoil regional and international support for the separation. Additionally, the insecurity prevailing in the South now is partially a making of the North.
The expectation of the SPLM unionists is supposed to come into zero levels after what had happened to the CPA. Nobody is expecting an SPLM senior member talking about unity in this crucial stage, because nothing is seen that could make them to be talking of necessity of unity in the Sudan.
In the negotiations, the CPA has not resolved two important issues; the issue of identity in the Sudan and the issue of unity and separation. These two important issues were purposely left in order to foster dialogue over them during the interim period. The NCP was supposed to make unity attractive. Unfortunately, what happened is that the opposite became true and separation was made attractive? The NCP instead of engaging the SPLM in a continuous dialogue decided to abandon the implementation of the agreed matrixes assuming that the fate of the CPA will be the same as the rest of those agreements signed and dishonored. Until this moment, many outstanding issues are not resolved; 1956 North-South border demarcation, Abyei Protocol and Referendum arrangements are still to be implemented despite the limited time framework.
Those conservative members of the NCP still believe that any unity which is not based on Arab identity and Islamic religion is surrendering to infidels. The same logic should be used by the separatists that any unity which is not observing rights of non Arab and non Muslims in the Sudan is a betrayal and not acceptable?
In conclusion, nobody will confiscate votes of unionists if they would willingly favor unity. However, it is advisable to our minister to distance himself from the game of unity and separation and leave it to those folks like Pagan Amum and Ann Itto to play it. The responsibility of the oil sector is a big challenge that needs his concentration.
Dr. Dhieu Mathok is former minister and author of Politics of Ethnic Discrimination in Sudan: A Justification for the Secession of South Sudan. aromjok@yahoo.com.