Sudan: principled position of South Sudanese civil society to the Chairman of IGAD, General Lazarus

News and Press Release
Originally published

Having gone through the protocol of understanding between the two parties, we are pleased to note that some points are positive in highlighting the case of the South. Resultantly, the Civil Society groups: NESI- Network, FOSCO, NSYA, SSINCC and SWAN state the following:-

1. The question of unity has not been clearly defined. Unity is based on consensus and willingness of the people who enter into that agreement. What happened in post independence of the Sudan, the Arabs imposed unity based on internal colonialism. And because of that there has never been peace in that Country but continues conflict.

a) Unity must have a purpose. The South has never been allowed to participate in the welding of state power, economy and in all aspects of development in the country. Every National activity has a purpose and the purposes of every state is to uplift the citizens economically, socially and raise the standards of living and the state is there to enable the people to carry out their social-economic activity. On the contrary the people of the South Sudan since independence were locked out from state power.

b) Any unity must be based on principles. Such principles must be humane, national, pro-people, empowering and enabling the society as a whole. The Northern Sudanese have been using negative principles of Arabism, Islamism and imposition of culture of Islamic theocratic state and these conditions cannot create unity in the Sudan.

c) Unity must be creative and dynamic, in order to create new horizons for social-economic development to be empowering talents, resources and institutions for the whole involvement of the people in the affairs of the state. The two authorities, either NIF or SPLM in the interim period should not be the institutions to determine the way the people should unite. It should be the people to determine and not to the exclusion of them.

d) Unity should come from the base rather than from above. Now unity is lived out through the widest possible participations of the masses and not only the elites or ruling clique. In other words, unity must be peoples oriented. Unity between leaders can easily collapse if it is not owned by the people.

e) Only the people within their popular organizations can sustain and guide the agreement through the support and mass protection during the interim period. The NIF and SPLM can be a part of the process of the people's struggle.

f) Unity must come from the grassroots (Mass based).

g) Unity is a democratic process through free will. Unity and dictatorship repel each other as they serve different objectives.

2. Foreign interference in the Sudan imposed this situation on the South in 1953 ignoring the interests of the people of the South. The will of the South Sudanese people cannot be seen in the circumstances that led to the signing of the protocol.

i) Our people never exercised the right to self- determination since 1947, 1953 in Cairo and Juba and in January 1956 including people of Southern Kordofan, Abyei and Southern Blue Nile.

ii) The fact that Sudanese independence - Arab independence was followed by series of wars since 1955 in August up to March 1972 in temporal Addis Ababa Peace Agreement. And again in 1983 after the abrogation of that agreement up to today. So, the interim period signed in the Machakos Protocol does not hold. Unity had never existed. What unity are we talking about?

iii) The South and South Sudanese are colonized people.

iv) The interim period under the Protocol should not emphasize unity. The Protocol should emphasize on how the South should be decolonized. If we accept the issue of decolonization, the question of six years will follow as that one of the Estimor and Namibia as the examples of the decolonization which makes the period of six years irrelevant and should not arise.

v) We should not like to sound to be pessimistic but if the Polisario case is to go by, then we shall wait for the interim period indefinitely.

vi) In our judged opinion we would like to suggest that putting the SPLM and the NIF who are interested parties in power sharing to determine the system they would create in the interim period and would work well to determine or not is misleading history as well as making the two parties monitor the interim period is likely to compromise thee interests of the South again.

b) The African Countries do not seem to see their present and future geopolitical interests. Nether have they bothered to read the Arab intentions in terms of the geopolitical interests. Their imperialists design and the strategy of the Islamization of the strategy of the whole Africa under full per view should be a concern of African Nations. For example, both Egypt and Sudan have declared the Nile water their water. What are we going to do about that? As of today, it is now known that the oil reserves in the South Sudan is very big. In addition of other resources - water, mineral and agricultural potential virgin land (Fauna and Flora) etc. The logical question is, if the Arabs combine these huge resources under the Arab control, what will happen to black Africa in terms of political economic and military power of the Arab world built in the use of these resources.

3. South Sudan has not been defined in the protocol. The Civil society position is that it should come as it was in 1922. The Civil Society supports the SPLM position defining the South according to close district Act of 1922. Up to 13th parallel to include Southern Kordofan, Southern Blue Nile. This should be conceptualized in the common struggle for national liberation and not Civil war. The case of this region cannot be isolated from Estimor and other areas.

4. Power sharing: Is not the problem off South Sudan. The problem is for the South to be a state. Such a state will have its own organic political and economic powers and prequisite state organs. Concretely that means the IGAD needs to establish.

a) A South Sudan Democratic State.

b) A North Sudan Arab Islamic state and in the middle on Afro- Arab Union government during the interim period. And in the Union Government the question of power and wealth sharing, security arrangements, foreign representation, legislation can now be discussed. In other words, the question of the Sudan being a united question and South Sudan being an autonomous region does not arise.

5.Wealth sharing: It will not be the case of wealth sharing but question of contribution to the union Government by both states can be the issue of discussion. Then the oil wealth cannot be the national wealth during the interim period.

6. The issue of constitution should not be idealized, as said earlier on, should be produced and owned by the whole people (masses). Any document produced within six months should be a chatter.