When comprehensive peace agreement was signed on 9th of January 2005, it was received with mix reactions in South Sudan. In older generation of South Sudanese it’s nothing more than temporary reprieve from violent encounters with Khartuom government which normally givesKhartuom government an advantage of using South Sudan resources (especially oil revenue) in military build – ups to purge an ever eminent rebellion in South Sudan and marginalised areas. This opens a window through which South Sudan and marginalised areas self - defence and political capacities wane and unfortunately diminish. This view is not a pessimistic one but a one deduced from the hindsight. This generation knows of what was in March 1972 Addis Ababa agreement and the consequences regarding its implementation.Also a few of them are conscious of 1947 Juba conference on unitary or federal status of state of Sudan in which British civil secretary had already ruled out the question of self-determination/secession of South Sudan acting under Egyptian influence. The anger and frustration South Sudanese had regarding the forced unitary status of Sudan – a country that lacks common identity in terms of culture, language, geography, and religion, is summarised in Chief Lolik Lado assertion in Juba conference of 1947 when he stood up and said,“The ancestors of the northern Sudanese were not peace-loving and domesticated like cows. The younger generations claim that they mean no harm but time will show what they will in fact do.”These nationalists, ideological generation of Chief Lolik Lado, whose numbers are diminishing are an invaluable resource to political struggle of South Sudanese. A generation either free of or immune to al-hokum (governance for self-enrichment, self-promotion, and self-preservation) introduced in 1821 by Ottoman – Egyptian colonisation of Northern Sudan which they brought to South Sudan after British handed over South governance to Northern administrators regardless of South Sudanese refusal of the unitary status of the Sudan.For Arab government in Khartoum, it’s a golden opportunity to wage war by proxy on South Sudanese and to purge South Sudan of any potential capacity to claim self-determination/secession or wage war. The serenity immediately after war is something the regimes in Khartoum use to give the international community a false impression of hope for long term peace in Sudan which rapidly wanes when nearing time for referendum. The government uses and will use the unpatriotic, egocentric South Sudanese politicians to abrogate the peace agreement – giving international community a false impression that South Sudanese are not ready for independent South Sudan and therefore have no consensus on what they are struggling for. The Arab elite in Khartoum will take the spectator position and propaganda what South Sudanese are doing to the world in pretext of having no linked to it.In younger generation of South Sudanese, it is like South Sudan being granted statehood – it is a ‘victory’. This belief emerged from the ignorance of what happened historically regarding struggle by South Sudanese against governments in Khartuom and the results of consequent agreements. Also a trust vested in late C-in-C’s political skills made CPA a favourable option but waned rapidly when the SPLM/A leader was tragically lost in helicopter crash on 30th of July 2005. This leaves this generation in ‘a wait and see’ political atmosphere which is daunting. However; this has created an interlude of tranquillity in which South Sudanese amateur politicians can mobilise a united South Sudan which would send a clear message to Khartuom government comes 2011. Whether this is being done or not the result of referendum will tell.Arab elites in Khartuom, like any other people that lived within multicultural setting, have imitated a bicultural stance but in a very negative sense from both Ottoman Empire and British colonisations. When British used South Sudan as a strategic area to keep an eye on her rivals – Abyssianians (Ethiopians) Belgians, and French, the introduction of divide and rule followed. South Sudanese were divided into chiefdoms each falsely made to perceived itself as sovereign states that doesn’t need cooperation whatsoever from neighbouring chiefdoms. This division made formation of overarching political organisation impossible; instead chiefdoms fought each other over territories. When Sudan gained her independence on first of January 1956, it was a celebration in Northern Sudan and a doom day in Southern Sudan. A handover from bad colonial power to worse of purely African Christians and animists to a totalitarian Middle Eastern Arab Muslims. The consequence ferocious encounters are evidence to the apprehension all South Sudanese had prior to the so-called independence. These two distinct cultures that were forced to live together in pretext of united Sudan don’t make any sense. Hukum has also been a part and parcel of governance in successive Sudanese regimes where governance is contended for purposely for self-enrichment, self-promotion, and self-preservation missing the core principles for which governance is sook – policy implementation and service delivery.Resources discovery adds fuel to Sudanese conflict fire by heightening the tension between the belligerent groups. Discovery of Bentiu oil by Chevron in 1979 which coincided with national reconciliation which led to released of all political prisoners including Dr Al- Turabi took Sudanese conflict to a different phase. Turabi was appointed an Attorney General and his objective was to abrogate the Addis Ababa agreement that made secession of South Sudan an imminent possibility. He redrew the map of Sudan which demarcated Bentiu as part of Northern Sudan. When the then South Sudan administration condemned this map, Nimeiri set up a committee to look into it but South Sudanese stood firm against it.In 1983, some South Sudanese including Joseph Lago thought it would be better for south Sudan to be divided up into regions to increase the administrative powers of Juba government to benefit from South Sudan resources. Whether there was political motivation behind this proposal or not, nobody knows. Nimeiri and Turabi took this proposal, though opposed by majority of South Sudanese, seriously because for it gave the regime a chance to weaken the massive political power that South Sudan exerted on Khartuom government. It also gave the regime an opportunity to proceed with removal of Bentiu oilfields from Juba jurisdiction without much argument. The area historically known as South Sudan was given four baptismal names: Bhar al gazel (Southwest area), Upper Nile (Southeast area), Equatoria (Southern part), and Unity state (Bentiu) in June 1983. It can be easily deduced from this redraw of South Sudan map that this division is either resource or political driven and it’s probable if oil is discovered in Nimule today, Nimule will be a unity town/state between Northern and South Sudan.Political division is also a survival tool for Arab government in Khartoum. After Nimeriy had declared a disregard of Addis Ababa agreement of 19972 as being neither a Bible nor a Quoran. The objective was and still is to reduce the massive political power these areas combined exerted on any Sudanese government. The irony is, instead of this idea being rejected; South Sudanese are obsessed to these given names and refer to themselves as being from Upper Nile, Equatoria, Bhar al Gazel or Unity state. These divisive names are used more than Christian names or surnames which serve the objective for which they were created – to divide South Sudanese politically and automatically give Khartuom government a political advantage over these areas- for when there’s a quarrel within a house, sentry duty is the least to consider. These divisions have made it very easy for Arab regimes to create and use political disparitiesContinuous reneging by successive Khartoum governments has created a mindset of distrust in South Sudanese and marginalised areas inhabitants of any Khartoum government in policy implementation, service delivery and most importantly reaching any comprehensive agreement through peace negotiation hence the scepticism. However; these areas are not unanimously opposed to the government due to government manipulative skills in bribery. Instead of fighting the common enemy (Khartoum governments), these areas have wasted a lot of resources in fighting one another/each other either as a government affiliated militiamen or core part of Sudanese army and most of the times later on realised they were being used to suppress the insurgence to which they would benefit. These manipulations have created two parallels beliefs. The Arabs believe South Sudanese uprisings can be easily suppress by using their own brothers as either mediators of peace or to recruit militia from the very catchment area as the rebels. This gives South Sudan a lion share of sustained casualties in engaging in battles and collateral damages. Northern Sudanese who are the main enemy lost nothing because resources use for armament of the militia come from south Sudan and the actual fights take place in South Sudan. They just hear of it.Unless South Sudanese are collectively conscious of what they’re struggling for and put aside the disparities in their political perspectives, the Khartoum government won’t give up the habit of reneging regarding South Sudan issues. To some, this is too hard a vision to come by but a harsh reality South Sudanese should endure coming to terms with to achieve the so longed for objective of a sovereign South Sudan. Previous agreements are foolproof Islamists government in Khartoum, like any previous governments, will never ever anticipate granting South Sudan statehood peacefully. The NIF will have reneged on the issue that brought it to power in 1989 –protest against secession of South Sudan as justification for its military seizure of power. Despite phantasmagorical political setting South Sudanese have struggled against for decades, this is right time for South Sudanese to concur politically and militarily.Abraham Mawut Mabior. Email: mawutmabior@yahoo.com.auSource:Dynamics and consequent dilemmas in Sudan Politicshttp://www.newsudanvision.com/opinion/dynamics-and-consequent-dilemmas-sudan-politics-1135+//+
You need to be a member of TheBlackList Pub to add comments!
https://theblacklist.net/
Replies