Dr Justin Ambago Ramba.
(Gurtong edited and posted)-When President Omer Hassan al Bashir boarded his presidential plane back to Khartoum on the eve of the 9th July 2011 after having joined the people of South Sudan in their celebrations that saw the lowering of the flag of the Republic of Sudan and its replacement with the flag of the new republic of South Sudan, he knew that was it. He knew he was a witness to the moment that not only is he no longer a president over that very soil where he stood, but also that neither him nor his delegation would be visiting that same spot any time in the future without first going through the lengthy processes of filling visa application forms and having to wait for somebody to decide whether to approve it or reject it.
On the whole this new development understandably is not limited to al Bashir as such, for it extends to affect many other people like myself who spent decades in high profile jobs and major academic achievements in national institutions in different parts of what today is the North Sudan. More so are those born across the political divide that can now, only through similar procedural routes, have access to their personal or family properties in land only recently designated as foreign territory. Many will have to seek the assistance of their diplomatic missions, acknowledging that they are no longer citizens in those parts as was the case prior to 9th July 2011. Whether they would be happy with their new status when they make their first visit to North Sudan, following the official secession of the South, shouldn’t really be an issue to any South Sudanese.
Nothing in all the above should sound any unfamiliar since our people have travelled vastly and lived in foreign lands where they acquired jobs and properties. As I write, I now reside with my family of five in the UK, after fleeing the harsh realities of marginalisation wherever we were in Northern Sudan during the civil war and especially so under the Islamists rule of today.
However, in the UK my family and I enjoy full rights to the basics of life in a way no less to those native-born. This is also true of other fellows from North Sudan who resided here even earlier than me and we all interact under the British Law which we find to an extent, accommodative to all. Where I was born, Juba the capital of the republic of South Sudan, life continues to ooze with a cosmopolitan atmosphere characteristic of a major trade centre that remains open to business involving persons from different parts of the world.
However, a historical fact remains unique that many businesses were and continue to be run by merchants from North Sudan. We are all glad that the leadership of the new republic has made it clear that people of North Sudanese origin will continue to do business and hold properties in South Sudan. Some who fulfil the conditions and opt to have South Sudanese citizenship will be offered citizenships per the constitution of the new country. Isn’t that civilized!?
Surprisingly though, is the official position of the authorities in North Sudan who are slower to upgrade their judgements and levels of interaction so as to accommodate the new realities on the ground while at the same time not jeopardising the much needed good neighbours relationship. It was natural that South Sudanese be affected by the referendum result that favoured secession, however, judging by previous precedence as was the case between the Sudan and Egypt before 1956, it can be seen that the North Sudanese policy makers have shown too much irrationality in some of their decisions.
There exists much similarity in the situation between how it was between Egypt and the Sudan before the later formally declared its independence. The Mahdist revolution was a movement to free Sudan from the Turkey-Egypt rule, which can be compared to the many other south Sudanese armed struggles like the Anya Nya or the SPLM/A. Egypt, which instigated the Sudanese to call an end to the colonial rule expected the Sudan to choose unity with it when the British left.
Unfortunately it wasn’t to be for the very person in the centre of ‘the Unity of the Nile Valley’, Sayyed Ismail al Azhari on the first opportunity chose independence of sovereignty over unity with Egypt. Al Azhari and his colleagues whose roles in confronting the Anglo-Egyptian rule can be compared to that of Dr. Garang and the SPLM/A vision of the’ New Sudan’, they didn’t hold a referendum to decide which way Sudan was to go, and obviously to avoid the possibility of a popular vote in favour of unity with Egypt, the very politician who was in the frontline campaigning for this unity showed a change of heart in the last minute when he declared the independence of Sudan from inside the parliament.
How was this news received by Egypt is everyone’s guess, yet the official reaction from Cairo resembles nothing like what we are seeing today happening between Juba and Khartoum.
On January 1st 1956 there were thousands of Sudanese nationals serving in Egyptian institutions, especially so in the Border Guards, the Police Forces and Hotel Chefs, Gate Keepers and many other private sectors. None of those Sudanese where forced out of their jobs as we saw happened to South Sudanese following the results of the 9th January 2010 self- determination referendum that came in favour of secession.
In Egypt, following Ismail al Azhari’s declaration of Independence, the Egyptian Authorities reacted with a very high level of self-respect and understanding and they accepted that decision as the choice of the people of the Sudan although it didn’t come out of a democratically conducted popular referendum as expected. Egypt gave the Sudanese in their work force the options of either choosing Egyptian citizenships or to remain as Sudanese nationals, but in both cases they remained entitled to their jobs, properties, residence with minimal or no alternation at all.
There were none of these irresponsible and childish statements like denying people basics such as treatment to the extent that Obeid, a government minister, threatened that South Sudanese remaining in North Sudan will be denied even syringes and medical injections. This of course sent South Sudanese to imagine scenarios where midwives attending their women in labour would be arrested for cooperating or being involved in illegal activities with foreign nationals with ‘persona non grata’ status..
The hostile attitudes shown by North Sudan’s National Congress Party (NCP) a.k.a National Islamic Front (N.I.F.) politicians in addressing the post-split South Sudan was based on a true reflection of their deeply seated frustration as if the poor South Sudanese who fled the civil war northwards were to blame for the regimes multiple failures. This is a malicious intent to undermine the huge contributions by the South Sudanese to make Khartoum the city that it is now. This modern City is what it is because of the oil money from the oil fields of South Sudan, and almost every brick in those tall beautiful buildings were soaked with the sweat of manual labourers who mainly hailed from the South.
Even in the absence of the million or so South Sudanese, Khartoum will still be predominant black, especially so in what has become known as ‘the black belt’, city suburb. The Nuba of South Kordofan, the black Africans of Darfur and the South Blue Nile, together with the millions of others from the neighbouring Chad, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, who make the bulk of the working class in the city and the other big towns of North Sudan, will continue to give that part of Africa its ‘ blackness’.
Now we officially have two Sudans, yet the tasks of nation building for both remain the same. For us in the new republic of South Sudan, we have an obligation to participate with the international community in maintaining global peace. In our new dealings with our northern neighbours, we will as much as possible opt for more dialogue and diplomacy through the channels availed to us by our new sovereignty to address the much contentious issues of international borders or agreements. This we hope should also be the change in attitude in the North. Much of our dealings with the neighbours in Khartoum will no doubt continue to request the involvement of the various international institutions, given the attitudes of the northern officials as shown above, until such a time that sensible politicians take over there.
The split of Sudan into two is not the final solution in itself, but the solutions to those issues that led to this events are to be found in the lessons learnt by both sides if ever they were learnt. For North Sudan, the elite may yet risk seeing a much small versions of their country if they don’t accept that the so-called ‘Islamic Civilization Project’ is both a failure and unrealistic. ‘The Islamic economy’ was another utter failure and any improvement that happened from 2000 onward was due to the oil money from the South and has nothing to do with the raised slogan of Islamism.
Again the destructive pursuit of a purely Arabic speaking, Arabized and Islamised Sudan is another delusion. This kind of bigotry can only be realised by again relinquishing the whole of Darfur, the South Kordofan, and the Blue Nile regions. Those who find it difficult to accept the new map of Sudan can go ahead to imagine the map of a purely ‘Arabized Sudan’, after excluding the above mentioned areas.
Given the facts of ‘the climate change’, the desertification and droughts, North Sudan will continue to depend on its border areas with South Sudan for water, pasture and security. The Nile water agreement is another issue with a huge regional political impact. North Sudan will have to learn how to adjust to the facts on the ground and possibly learn from the much advanced Egypt that only good diplomatic relationship with South Sudan can guarantee for mutual co-existence. Without any doubt, Khartoum’s behaviour over the fees of transporting the South Sudan oil through the North’s territory is yet another ill-timed brinkmanship for which NCP/NIF will hugely regret.
As for the new republic of South Sudan, the challenges are multiple. But to start any sensible development, the new government must find more realistic ways of addressing the broader state of insecurity in the country. South Sudanese are the cause of most of their problems, even though nature and climate has its role as well. We have seen many rebel groups following the only general elections in our recent history, largely because we didn’t conduct ourselves well. In future worse things can still happen if the ruling party insists of the way it addresses issues of nominations, campaigns, voting, vote counting etc. It was badly done, and again those declared winners through fraud wanted to have it exclusively.
Democracy and elections are good as long as they are fairly conducted. On the other hand a clumsy democracy and sham elections can destroy the national fabrics of the state. Say you don’t want it and go for one party dictatorship and in places like South Sudan, you are stuck with crazy nationwide rebellions. If we found it easy to condemn the North for failing to provide democracy, then now it is us to bear the ultimate blame should South Sudan go bananas.
The ‘Old Sudan’, failed to hold as a country because the Northern elites sought to correct the issues of the Sudanese vast diversity by opting to eliminate it (diversity) altogether in favour of a single identity. Where is that country now? Non existent, and in fact ‘dismantled’, is the correct word. In south Sudan we need to do things differently, but sincerely recognising our diversity, and genuinely managing it as our reality. It is good to talk about fighting tribalism, but it only changes when you take actions. National Institutions have the capacity to eradicate tribalism by realising inclusiveness and fair representation.
The basic criteria to qualify an institution as national are its national nature, mission and composition. You can have a national assembly quite easily because you can by law request for representatives from all sections and parts of the country in a fair representation. This goes on to serve the nation well.
However in other settings, like having a national army without strictly stressing its inclusiveness at all levels, betrays its claim of being national. Our diversity can only be managed through brave decisions and policies which deliberately aim to include all sectors and segments of the society in nation building.
If we really choose to fight tribalism by adopting a national inclusiveness, then we can do it by making it a policy and a practice. Otherwise tribalism is what naturally happens in an African setting and unless there are clear directives to put limits to it, it is bound to flourish. The marginalization of segments of society, which we are supposed to have walked away from by choosing independence over unity with the North, should be fought by clearly defined policies. We are not in any way immune from any of the vices that we used to attribute to the Northerners, nor are we immune from the crisis that followed.
In conclusion one can say with much certainty that it is not the split but the lessons learnt from the split (why, the timing, associated and immediate events, how ………etc) that can offer the recipe for the viability of the two Sudans, with each independent in sovereignty, and both inter-dependent as good neighbors.
The author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. Secretary General – United South Sudan Party (USSP).