Juba’s Regime, Unfocused or Misleading the People of South Sudan: Why Educated South Sudanese need to unearth the Truth about South Sudan’s government.

In 1983 when Sudan People Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) was launched, it has a multiple faceted ideology. The founding fathers had an ideology of a “New Sudan” which was both an ultimate goal as well as a strategy to achieve an independent South Sudan.  from the time of the SPLM/A  founding in 1983 to August of 1991, SPLM/A fought the war of liberation primarily on the “New Sudan “ ideology with the primary goal of overthrowing Arabized and Islamized government in Khartoum. The “New Sudan” vision or doctrine at the was to create secular, democratic Sudan bases on equality where everyone counts, each religion matters, and every diversity embraces. No Muslims first, No Christians first, NO Arabs first, NO Africans first, but all Sudanese first.

At least that was the Sudan I was promised when I became a soldier. No any marginalized person and other rational being at the time would dare to question the SPLM/A idea of “New Sudan” because it was a vision that fitted political narratives or reality of that era.  It was an absolute paradigm meant to radically transformed Sudan forever and was backed by majority of the marginalized people.  Thank  to our late Dr. Garang and his colleagues who have succinctly identified the fundamental method of liberation struggle and found it in the ideology of the New Sudan.

 Myself as a young boy living Ethiopia at time was lectured on numerous times by late Dr. John Garang himself and by many others. As a young citizen at a time, I was taught to believe the New Sudan vision and for a good reason…. So are other high ranking SPLM/A generals including Salva Kiir and Dr. Riek Machar among many others too believe the vision of New Sudan. These founding fathers along with many Southerners embraced the "New Sudan" vision. It was seen as an ultimate solution to Sudan identity crisis. 

From the Plains of Greater Upper Nile to plains of Greater Bahr el Ghazal, from the mountains of Greater Equatoria to Nuba Mountains’ enclaves to Blue Nile valleys and deep into the heart of National Democratic Alliance and Beja Congress, humanity in its creeds came together under the banner of a “New Sudan.” Thousands of men and women heard this summation to action and they came in thousands. They fought and died in millions believing that one day “New Sudan” vision will be achieved. That one day, the Greater Upper Nile, Greater Bahr el Ghazal, Greater Equatoria, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile and all peace loving people of Sudan will eventually establish a secular democratic government that respects Sudanese’ diversities.

However, political reality did change in 1991. The “New Sudan” vision that our founding fathers crafted and treasured was tested big time. Over time, political reality within the SPLM/A changed with some folks questioning the feasibility and sustainability of the “New Sudan” doctrine, some called for it re-examination. Others suggested that it should be abandoned as an ultimate end.  Others suggested that “New Sudan” doctrine be used as a mean to the end of achieving an independent South Sudan.

Before you criticize me for bringing up 1991 political realignment, let me mention why I think it is relevant to what is happening in respect to Heglig, Abyei, Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile and SPML/A North in general. In 1991, SPLM/A movement experienced a political upheaval of titanic proportion caused by incoherence in vision of which the “New Sudan” ideology was partially one element among other political differences within the SPLM/A rank and files. Unfortunately, we all know what happened. The SPLM/A movement’s clock turned back. I don’t want to regurgitate history here, but, sometimes it’s necessary to do so in order to refresh memories.  The point is, SPLM/A did changed gear.  The “New Sudan” vision in my understanding was changed from being an ultimate end and adopted as a strategy to achieve an independent South Sudan. Refer to this link for your own refreshments based on 2002 Nairobi Peace Agreement that brought SPLM/A and SPLM/A Nasir together.

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/john-garang-dr-john-garang-and-dr-riek-machar-video-part-1-video-iO6kE3NnSck-12153-3.html

During the 2002 Nairobi Peace Agreement between Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Garang in Nairobi, Dr. Garang and Dr. Riek Machar talked about confederate arrangement of cohabitation. By suggesting a confederation of the Sudan, they were affirming a political paradigm shift from that of a “New Sudan” vision as an ultimate end to one of a New Sudan vision as the mean to the end. At least that how I understood it and many people share this same understanding with me which makes me feel good that I am not a lone wolf.

When Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in 2005, it was clear from the Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile Protocols what the outcomes were going to be. One, Southern Sudan was going to become an independent country completely unattached from the rest of the Sudan pending popular referenda on Abyei, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan. Second, everyone knew that Khartoum was not going to allow these three regions to join an independent South Sudan primarily South Kordofan and Blue Nile. That’s common sense knowledge and people should not pretend that there has been a surprise to a CPA.

If South Sudan was unwilling to address these regions in the context of CPA, people should have raised and addressed them before signing the CPA in 2005.  I mean, it should have been a priority to see into it that referenda in Abyei, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan were held first as a part of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement before signing the CPA. Where was the SPLM/A then when the issue of Abyei and Heglig were arbitrated at The Hague in 2009? I remembered the SPLM welcomed and applauded the Abyei Arbitration. Several members within the Southern Ruling elites (SPLM) were contained with the ruling regarding Abyei and Heglig and some of them said the following:  “I think this is going to consolidate peace in Sudan. It is a victory for the Sudanese people and a victory for peace” Dr. Riek Mach 2009 at The Hague. “The ruling is a big achievement, adding that it had brought back to Dinka Ngok their territory which was claimed by the Meserriya tribe” Arop Madut, 2009. These voices and many others from the SPLM/A indicated that they did accepted the outcomes of Abyei Arbitration which put Heglig outside the  Abyei border which means, resolving Heglig issue falls in line with other post secession issues.

With respect to CPA aftermaths, at least the SPLM/A leadership knew what they were getting themselves into prior to signing the CPA. Third, SPLM leadership in particular should have understood that once South Sudan becomes an independent country, it will have to operate within the international laws which bring me to Abyei, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan issues.  As an independent country, the Republic of South Sudan is now caught up in a political titanic moment that no rational Southerner would want it government goes through. The event in Heglig and its aftermath was a political embarrassment as well as a political reality of what it means to be an independent country operating under international norms.  When African Union, UN and the rest of the international community called SPLA Forces to withdraw from Heglig, one thing became clear and perhaps should be a lesson learned for many policymakers in Juba and that is, South Sudan is an independent country and needs to play by the same international rules of which meddling in other country affairs is not one of them.

 This is important not only in the context Heglig alone, but, it is paramount in the context of above mentioned regions in general which bring me to this point. There are choices to be made here by South Sudanese. The choices are between sustainable everlasting peace based on “an absolute independent Republic of South Sudan” and “Republic of South Sudan pro-reunification of the Sudan” under the banner of the guise of a “New Sudan.” Under absolute independent Republic of South Sudan banner, South Sudan will negotiate and address the post secession issues in the context of the absolute Republics in which both the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan have to refrain from pro militancy.

 By this, I mean, South Sudan will have to make a painful decision to cut loose it supports to other SPLM/A North. I said painful decision become I too understand  why South Sudan would want to continue its supports to SPLM/A North if indeed South Sudan is still ties with the SPLM/A North and  so is the Republic of Sudan too  needs to cease its supports to militias operating in The Republic of South Sudan territories.  Within the absolute independent Republic frame, it is possible for both countries to resolve most of the pending post secession border demarcation issues within the framework of the CPA which provides a great chance to create a lasting peace between the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan.

The second choice as I said earlier is that of the Republic of South Sudan pro-unionization of Sudan under a resurrected “New Sudan” ideology. This option comes with some risks and consequences that nobody who has lived and experienced war in the two decades would want to relive. One, those who choose this option needs to explain to almost 99.0 % South Sudanese who voted to create an independent South Sudan.  The 99.0 % understood when they voted that their future rested on an absolute independent South Sudan of which pro unionization of Sudan under the resurrected “New Sudan” banner is not part of it.

 At least Juba needs to be clear and honest to the people of South Sudan. Let the people know what the way forward. Is the Republic of Sudan South a complete country? Or is independence of the Republic South Sudan another political re-examination and/or realignment of the resurrected “New Sudan” ideology?  Let the people know at least what the vision forward is. Second, if indeed the goal still the New Sudan, then, it does makes sense to providing continuous supports to the SPLM/A North in order to achieve it. If however, Juba settled for an independent South Sudan, then, the Republic of South Sudan leaderships need to re-assess its relationship with the SPLM/A North and if possible cuts loose it connections with them for the sake of creating an everlasting and sustainable peace between the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan.

I am aware that my reflection on this delicate political situation may not be share by others which is fine with me. However, we are each entitled to our informed opinions. At least I am not blindly following the Hawkish military hardliners in Juba which is why I called all enlightened South Sudanese to stand up and start questioning the incoherent Juba regime. There is nothing wrong with skepticism. By being skeptic, it does not make us unpatriotic. Instead, it helps us unearth facts and educate our people on what the facts are and how we can reshape our future as a people coming out of a long war.

  To all educated South Sudanese living inside South Sudan, wake up and start paying attention to your government. You elected them and they should only lead in a way that aligns with your views. I am also encouraging South Sudanese in diaspora  to take the higher road. Wake up and speak the trust. If current government in Juba is misleading our people, we need to point it out to our masses. Let Juba know we are not in support of what will take our people back to unnecessary war with the North. If war was the ultimate solution to Sudan’s problem, then, 22 years of war should have achieved that. However, from my personal experience and what many South Sudanese  know about the last war, It appeared that neither SPLM/A nor National Islamic Front (NIF) was going to win  the war militarily. Furthermore, let not forget an ugly face of the last war. Give peace a chance here and tell Juba to slow down its war machines and start working diligently to resolve the pending issues through CPA framework. 

 Let me take this opportunity to mention that I wish the issues of Abyei, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan were addressed by the both CPA parties before South Sudan became an independent country. Unfortunately, that was not the case. At this point, the choices for South Sudanese have to  be made clearer which it’s why I argue that Juba needs to formulate a new vision for the Republic of South which must align with the aspiration of 99.0% of the people of South Sudan who voted for an independence of South Sudan.