Uganda says Sudan aware of Kony's presence in Darfur - US's Natsios says Turabi's loyalists seeking to undermine referendum

JOSEPH Kony, leader of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) terrorist organisation, is hiding in Sudan's Darfur region after fleeing a pursuit by the Uganda army in Central African Republic (CAR), the army said on Friday.

"Joseph Kony is no longer in Central African Republic. He crossed into Sudan a few days ago but some elements of LRA commanded by Dominic Ongwen are still in CAR," Felix Kulayigye, defence ministry spokesman told a news conference.

An International Criminal Court (ICC) indictee, Kony often escapes into Sudan whenever he's pursued in CAR because the Ugandan army lacks the mandate to operate there, the army said.

Andrew Natsios, former U.S. special envoy to Sudan, on Tuesday said that elements within the Sudanese government loyal to the Islamist opposition leader Hassan Al-Turabi are seeking to derail the January 2011 referendum in order to avert what appears to be the likely separation of the South.

Natsios [U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan in 2006-7] who just returned from a trip that took him to South Sudan said that while president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir and his 2nd Vice president Ali Osman Taha are "moderates", he pointed fingers at pro-Turabi figures within the regime who do not want the South to separate.

Full story below.

LRA's Kony now in Darfur-Ugandan army
Source: Reuters by Elias Biryabarema
Date: Friday, 29 October 2010 17:21:54 GMT

(KAMPALA) - Joseph Kony, leader of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels, is hiding in Sudan's Darfur region after fleeing a pursuit by the Uganda army in Central African Republic (CAR), the army said on Friday.

The rebel group, which has waged a brutal insurgency for nearly 20 years, was ejected from northern Uganda in 2005 and has since roamed remote jungle straddling the borders of Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

The LRA is known for chilling violence including hacking body parts off victims, the abduction of young boys to fight and young girls to be used as sex slaves.

"Joseph Kony is no longer in Central African Republic. He crossed into Sudan a few days ago but some elements of LRA commanded by Dominic Ongwen are still in CAR," Felix Kulayigye, defence ministry spokesman told a news conference.

An International Criminal Court (ICC) indictee, Kony often escapes into Sudan whenever he's pursued in CAR because the Ugandan army lacks the mandate to operate there, the army said.

"We cannot pronounce ourselves on whether Kony receives any support from the Sudanese authorities but what we can confirm is that (the Sudanese) are aware of his presence on their territory and they've not done anything to chase him," he said.

The Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) has a forward operating base in Obo, CAR, where it has been fighting the LRA with U.S. backing since September 2009.

According to rights groups, the LRA has abducted hundreds of people in central Africa over the past 18 months and killed many of them, often by crushing their skulls with clubs.

Separately, Kulaigye said the army, the UPDF was committed to remaining neutral in Uganda's forthcoming presidential poll.

President Yoweri Museveni, a former guerrilla, has in the past been accused of using the army to intimidate the populace to vote for him and soldiers to facilitate vote rigging.

The commander of armed forces, Lt. Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, was quoted earlier this year in the local media as saying the army would crush the opposition if they engaged in violence.

"The job of ensuring security in elections is for the Uganda Police and the UPDF recognises that Uganda is a multi-party democracy and respects all the political parties and their leaders. We take no sides at all," said Kulaigye. (Editing by David Clarke and Myra MacDonald)

- - -

The Lord's Resistance Army: The Hunt for Africa's Most Wanted



Photo: Mbonih Ndele Mari was abducted by the LRA outside Niangara and left for dead by them after they cut off her lips and her ears. She is now in a hospital in Niangara. Her children are being looked after by family close by. Source: pulitzercenter.org/Joe Bavier & Marcus Bleasdale



Photo: The Chief and elders of the village of Daqua perform local rituals to exorcise the spirits from former child soldiers. The children complain of aggressive dreams and nightmares involving fantasies and killing. They want to get any help possible to stop these thoughts. The local chief and witch doctors know there is stronger medicine and help available but as no NGO work in the area to help the children they do what they can to help. Image by Marcus Bleasdale. Democratic Republic of Congo, 2010.



Photo: South Sudanese children displaced by attacks by the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in the town of Mundri, Western Equatoria state, where some 8,000 Sudanese have gathered fleeing the guerrilla raids. Credit: Photo by Peter Martell/IRIN
- - -

INTERVIEW: Former U.S. special envoy says Turabi’s loyalists seeking to undermine referendum
Source: Sudan Tribune online
Date: Thursday, 28 October 2010 - excerpt:

October 27, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – The former U.S. special envoy to Sudan on Tuesday said that elements within the government loyal to the Islamist opposition leader Hassan Al-Turabi are seeking to derail the January 2011 referendum in order to avert what appears to be the likely separation of the South.

Andrew Natsios who just returned from a trip that took him to South Sudan said that while president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir and his 2nd Vice president Ali Osman Taha are "moderates", he pointed fingers at pro-Turabi figures within the regime who do not want the South to separate. [...]

He also warned that any move to delay the vote by more than two weeks "could bring violence" to the region. Furthermore, he said that the Obama administration should be prepared to use its air force should the North attempt to invade the South or take over the oilfields.

Click here to read full story.

- - -

ENOUGH'S POO-STIRRING

Without Sudan, it will be impossible to successfully confront the LRA
Source: CSMonitor.com by Ledio Cakaj, Guest blogger
Date: Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - excerpt:

Sudan has not been included in meetings to discuss ways to fight back against the Lord's Resistance Army. This is a missed opportunity, says Ledio Cakaj, a guest blogger from the Enough Project. ...

ON LRA, AFRICAN UNION OVERESTIMATES MILITARY MIGHT, LEAVES OUT KEY ACTOR
Source: Enough Project.org by Ledio Cakaj
Date: Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - excerpt:

CORRECTION: Enough learned that in fact the Sudanese embassy in Bangui sent representation to the meeting but that no high-ranking officials from Khartoum attended.

- - -

Copy of insightful comment by Ibrahim Adam posted at above:

Ledio: you're simply poo-stirring against the Sudanese government, vis-a-vis the LRA regional insecurity issue, aren't you not?
If not, care to explain this patently absurd and contradictory statement in your post below?
"simply to press for potential Sudanese support to the LRA to end."
Thought not.

- - -

Note from Sudan Watch Editor:
Heh. Poo-stirring. Well said, Mr Adams. I enjoy reading your comments.
- - -



Photo: Villagers who have formed a local self defense force move during a training session in the village of Bangadi in northeastern Congo February 18, 2009. In the face of attacks and massacres by Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels, who have slaughtered some 900 Congolese civilians since December, villagers in Bangadi have formed a self-defense force with locally made weapons and have twice repelled LRA attacks in recent months. (Credit: Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters/CSMonitor.com/Enough Project, 27 Oct 2010)

Sudan UN OHCHR: El-Geneina uninhabitable, infrastructure destroyed, aid continues to be blocked

Report at Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - ohchr.org
Published Saturday 24 June 2023 - here is a full copy:

Comment by UN Human Rights Spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani, raising alarm on killings of people fleeing El Geneina in West Darfur, Sudan

Interviews with people who have fled El-Geneina, West Darfur, into Adre in Chad have revealed horrifying accounts of armed “Arab” militia backed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) killing people fleeing El Geneina on foot. Our UN Human Rights officers have heard multiple, corroborating accounts that “Arab” militia are primarily targeting male adults from the Masalit community. All those interviewed also spoke of seeing dead bodies scattered along the road – and the stench of decomposition. Several people spoke off seeing dozens of  bodies in an area referred to as Shukri, around 10km from the border, where one or more of the Arab militias reportedly has a base.

We are gravely concerned that such wanton killings are ongoing and urge immediate action to halt them. People fleeing El-Geneina must be guaranteed safe passage and humanitarian agencies allowed to access to the area to collect the remains of those killed.

Out of 16 people we have so far been able to interview, 14 testified that they witnessed  summary executions and the targeting of groups of civilians on the road between El-Geneina and the border – either the shooting at close range of people ordered to lie on the ground or the opening of fire into crowds. The testimonies recounted killings that took place on 15 and 16 June, but also in the past week. We understand the killings and other violence are continuing and being accompanied by persistent hate speech against the Masalit community, including calls to kill and expel them from Sudan.

One 37-year-old man said that from his group of 30 people fleeing to the Chad border, only 17 made it across. Some were killed after coming under fire from vehicles belonging to the RSF and “Arab” militia near the Chad border, while others were summarily executed, he said. Those who survived had their phones and money looted from them by armed men shouting: “You are slaves, you are Nuba”.

A 22-year-old woman gave similar accounts of killings. She told how one badly wounded young man had to be left on the ground, as they had no way of carrying him to safety across the border. “We had to leave him because we had only one donkey with us,” she said. It is difficult to estimate how many injured people may have been left to die in such circumstances.

Two interviewees testified separately that they, along with a group of people, were ordered by the RSF to leave El-Geneina. One said she was hit with sticks while being told to “get up and go to Chad – this is not your country.”

The High Commissioner for Human Rights calls on the RSF leadership to immediately, unequivocally condemn and stop the killing of people fleeing El-Geneina, and other violence and hate speech against them on the basis of their ethnicity. Those responsible for the killings and other violence must be held accountable.

El-Geneina has become uninhabitable. Essential infrastructure has been destroyed and movement of humanitarian aid to El-Geneina continues to be blocked. We urge the immediate establishment of a humanitarian corridor between Chad and El-Geneina, and safe passage for civilians out of areas affected by the hostilities. ENDS

For more information and media requests, please contact:

In Geneva
Ravina Shamdasani - + 41 22 917 9169 / ravina.shamdasani@un.org or
Liz Throssell + 41 22 917 9296 / elizabeth.throssell@un.org or
Jeremy Laurence +  +41 22 917 9383 / jeremy.laurence@un.org or
Marta Hurtado - + 41 22 917 9466 / marta.hurtadogomez@un.org

In Nairobi
Seif Magango - +254 788 343 897 / seif.magango@un.org

Tag and share

Twitter @UNHumanRights
Facebook unitednationshumanrights
Instagram @unitednationshumanrights

View original: https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2023/06/comment-un-human-rights-spokesperson-ravina-shamdasani-raising

[Ends]

Save Darfur movement spends its annual budget of $15 million not on assisting victims but on spreading the message

From Boston.com
Politics and humanitarianism
By Anna Mundow, March 22, 2009

Mahmood Mamdani, a third-generation East African of Indian descent, grew up in Uganda, studied at Harvard, taught at various African and American universities, and is currently Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University. A political scientist and anthropologist, he is best known for "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" and "When Victims Become Killers." His latest book, "Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror" (Pantheon, $26.95), meticulously exposes the tangled roots of the current conflict and the global forces at play in Darfur. Mamdani spoke from his home in New York City.

Q. Is there a link between this book and your previous work?

A. There are several; the most obvious is an understanding of the way in which the Cold War almost seamlessly morphed into the war on terror. Another connection - with my work on the Rwanda genocide and on the effect of colonialism in Africa - is the way in which identities are imposed from above.

Q. Such as who is an Arab, a Muslim, an African?

A. Yes. Interestingly, [originally] "Africa" was a word the Romans used for their North African province. But after the trans-Atlantic slave trade, "Africa" referred to parts of the continent from which slaves were hunted and sold. In Sudan, where everybody was equally native, the British arbitrarily identified certain groups as African and others as Arab.

Q. Why do you concentrate on the Save Darfur campaign?

A. In a context where African tragedies seem never to be noticed, I wondered why Darfur was an obsession with the global media. The reason, I realized, was that Darfur had become a domestic issue here, thanks to the Save Darfur movement. So I thought it important to examine the movement's history, organization, and message. I learned that this self-confessedly political group whose level of organization is phenomenal spends its annual budget of $15 million not on assisting victims but on spreading the message.

Q. Why?

A. There are various motives. One part of the group emerged out of solidarity with the struggle in south Sudan and believes that Darfur is another version of south Sudan. Most have no idea of the difference between the two situations. Another wing is what I understand to be neoconservatives who want to incorporate Darfur into the war on terror. Both groups reinforce the racialization of the conflict and the demonization of the Arabs.

Q. For political reasons?

A. For political reasons. There are few sources that really analyze Save Darfur; the clearest I found was an article [see copy here below] by Gal Beckerman in the Jerusalem Post ["US Jews leading Darfur rally planning," April 27, 2006]. The facts there speak for themselves.

Q. Yet you say that this campaign depoliticizes Americans?

A. I'm struck by the contrast between the mobilization around Darfur and the lack of mobilization around Iraq. The explanation, I believe, lies in the fact that Save Darfur presented the conflict as a tragedy, stripped of politics and context. There were simply "African" victims and "Arab" perpetrators motivated by race-intoxicated hatred. Unlike Iraq, about which Americans felt guilty or impotent, Darfur presented an opportunity to feel good. It appealed to the philanthropic side of the American character. During the presidential election, Save Darfur's constituency became integrated into the Obama campaign, and I welcomed that opportunity to organize around real concerns. The downside now is the attempt by Save Darfur to pressure the Obama administration to intervene militarily in Darfur.

Q. Are you saying that humanitarianism is a form of colonialism?

A. I'm saying that historically it has been. The movement after which Save Darfur patterned itself is the antislavery movement of the 19th century. Remember that the elimination of slavery was the ostensible reason given by British officials for colonization of the African continent. The cataloging of brutalities - real ones, not exaggerated - was essential preparation for seizing chunks of real estate, again ostensibly to protect victims. Today, the humanitarian claim uses ethics to displace politics. Conflicts are typically presented as tribal or race wars between perpetrators and victims whose roles are unchanging.

Q. Does the problem lie in who uses the humanitarian label?

A. The language of human rights was once used primarily by the victims of repression. Now it has become the language of power and of interventionists who turn victims not into agents but into proxies. It has been subverted from a language that empowers victims to a language that serves the designs of an interventionist power on an international scale.

Q. Do you worry about the reaction to this book?

A. My experience is that it is better to defend what you have said than to explain why you left half the case unsaid. I worried about the extent to which the book is readable because the middle chapters are in-depth historical exploration. I worried about losing the general reader. But faced with a human-rights constituency determined to decontextualize this issue, I felt compelled to examine Darfur in both a regional and a historical context, focusing on its complexity. This morning I received figures from UNAMID [the United Nations Mission in Darfur] in Khartoum, on civilian deaths from conflict in Darfur during 2008. The figure was 1,520, with 600 dead as a result of the conflict in the south between different Arab groups over grazing land and 920 deaths attributable, I am told, more to rebel movements than to the government-organized counterinsurgency. This is the kind of complexity that has been totally simplified.

Anna Mundow, a freelance journalist living in Central Massachusetts, is a correspondent for the Irish Times. She can be reached via e-mail at ama1668@hotmail.com.

- - -

Aprril 27, 2006 - Updated Apr 28, 2006
US Jews leading Darfur rally planning
By GAL BECKERMAN

Photo: Anti-America rally in Darfur, Sudan (AP)

Thousands of people will be marching this Sunday in Washington, DC under a banner that carries a simple two-word demand: "Save Darfur."

This is the name of the coalition organizing the rally, the first public action of its size intended to focus attention to the past three years of mass killing and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudanese government against the ethnically black farmers living in the Western region of Darfur. By most accounts, over 200,000 people have been massacred and two million displaced in a campaign that the US government and the United Nations two years ago decided to term genocide.

The rally, and the coalition that is organizing it, is hoping to pierce the consciousness of Americans and pressure the Bush administration into taking a more active line to end the conflict and help the refugees of the violence - most of whom are living in degrading conditions in neighboring Chad.

For this effort, the coalition has recruited major celebrities like George Clooney and Elie Wiesel to speak to those assembled. Though recent reports have indicated that the turnout might be lower than expected, organizers, while refusing to give a concrete number, believe it will be in "the tens of thousands."

Little known, however, is that the coalition, which has presented itself as "an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organization" was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community.

And even now, days before the rally, that coalition is heavily weighted with a politically and religiously diverse collection of local and national Jewish groups.

A collection of local Jewish bodies, including the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, United Jewish Communities, UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, sponsored the largest and most expensive ad for the rally, a full-page in The New York Times on April 15.

Though there are other major religious organizations, like the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals, both of which have giant constituencies that number in the millions, these groups have not done the kind of extensive grassroots outreach that will produce numbers.

Instead, the Jewish Community Relations Council, a national organization with local branches that coordinate communal activity all over America, has put on a massive effort to bus people to Washington on Sunday. Dozens of buses will be coming from Philadelphia and Cleveland. Yeshiva University alone, in upper Manhattan, has chartered eight buses.

Besides the Jewish origins and character of the rally - a fact the organizers consistently played down in conversations with The Jerusalem Post - the other striking aspect of the coalition is the noted absence of major African-American groups like the NAACP or the larger Africa lobby groups like Africa Action. When asked to comment, representatives of both groups insisted they were publicizing the rally but had not become part of the coalition or signed the Unity Statement declaring Save Darfur's objectives.

The coalition's roots go back to the spring of 2004 following a genocide alert, the first ever of its kind, issued by the United States Holocaust Museum. An emergency meeting was coordinated by the American Jewish World Service, an organization that serves as a kind of Jewish Peace Corps as well as an advocacy group for a variety of humanitarian and human rights issues.

At the meeting, which was attended by numerous American Jewish organizations and a few other religious groups, it was decided that a coalition would be formed based on a statement of shared principles.

After a year of programming that involved raising awareness about the genocide, the coalition came up with the idea for a rally in Washington. Planning began in the fall of 2005.

David Rubenstein, the director or "coordinator," as he prefers it, of the coalition says that, given that the groups who started the coalition were Jewish, "it's not surprising that they had the numbers of more Jewish organizations in their rolodexes."

He says that the Jewish community has been "extraordinarily responsive and are really providing the building for this thing," and yet he insists that the coalition has worked "very, very hard to be inclusive, to make sure there are people beyond the usual suspects."

This is a sentiment echoed by Ruth Messinger, president of American Jewish World Service and one-time Manhattan borough president and Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City. The world service and Messinger personally have been at the forefront of planning for the rally. Much of the Jewish turnout has been a result of her lobbying efforts.

She thinks the strong Jewish response has to do with the memories of Rwanda. "The Jewish community has probably had a higher level of lingering guilt over Rwanda than the average person," Messinger says. "And now learning about another genocide, I think people are beginning to understand that we are close to making a mockery of the words 'Never Again.'"

Still, there are critics who say the heavy Jewish involvement might have deterred some other groups from joining.

The fact that the aggressors in Darfur are Arab Muslims - though it should be said that the victims are also mostly Muslim - and are supported by a regime in Khartoum that is backed by the Arab League has made some people question the true motives of some of the Jewish organizations involved in the rally.

Emmanuel Jal - Warchild. Child soldiers is a war crime

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: This song by Emmanuel Jal is from his 2008 album Warchild. Using a child as a soldier is a war crime. Read more.

Child Recruitment and Use

Recruiting and using children under the age of 15 as soldiers is prohibited under international humanitarian law - treaty and custom - and is defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. 

Furthermore, under the Rome Statue, conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into national armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities is considered a war crime.

There are many ways for children to become associated with armed forces and groups. Some children are abducted and beaten into submission, others join military groups to escape poverty, to defend their communities, out of a feeling of revenge or for other reasons.

Combat and support roles

In many conflicts children take direct part in combat. However, their role is not limited to fighting. Many girls and boys are also used in support functions that also entail great risk and hardship.

Their tasks can vary, from combatants to cooks, spies, messengers and even sex slaves. Moreover, the use of children for acts of terror, including as suicide bombers, has emerged as a phenomenon of modern warfare. Each year, the UN receives reports of children as young as 8 or 9 years old associated with armed groups.

No matter their role, child associated with parties to conflict are exposed to acute levels of violence – as witnesses, direct victims and as forced participants. Some are injured and have to live with disabilities for the rest of their lives.

Girls are also recruited and used by armed forces and groups. They have vulnerabilities unique to their gender and place in society and suffer specific consequences including, but not limited to, rape and sexual violence, pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications, stigma and rejection by families and communities.

Definition

“A child associated with an armed force or armed group” refers to any person below 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes. It does not only refer to a child who is taking or has taken a direct part in hostilities. (Source: Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007)

A long healing process

Regardless of how children are recruited and of their roles, child soldiers are victims, whose participation in conflict bears serious implications for their physical and emotional well-being. They are commonly subject to abuse and most of them witness death, killing, and sexual violence. Many are forced to commit violent acts and some suffer serious long-term psychological consequences. The reintegration of these children into civilian life is an essential part of the work to help child soldiers rebuild their lives.

(Source: https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/)

The effects of being a child soldier can last a lifetime

It’s almost impossible to know the exact figure but it’s estimated there are tens of thousands of children in armed groups around the world. 

(Source: https://www.warchild.org.uk/news/effects-being-child-soldier-can-last-lifetime)

View video at YouTube: https://youtu.be/ekigsvTDJXo

[Ends]

Abyei: Drawing a firm North-South border is one of the biggest challenges facing Sudan

Question: What happens if the North-South Sudan border issue isn't resolved? Answer: A very ugly, protracted and expensive border war.

Drawing a firm North-South border is one of the biggest challenges facing Sudan.

From Strategy Page, November 24, 2008 - Border Wars:

Drawing a firm North-South border is one of the biggest challenges facing Sudan. The Government of South Sudan knows that this is a divisive issue (literally and figuratively) in the south as well as the north. Several tribes have let it be known they are suspicious of the process, believing that "the line has already been drawn" (by someone in a back room). The border issue, however, has not been settled.

The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) called for a fair and open border demarcation process that would take into account "verbal information" from tribal leaders as well as "physical features of the landscape" (like, don't arbitrarily divide a range of hills).

One of the biggest factors in drawing a North-South border is traditional tribal settlement patterns, which the war wrecked when so many people became refugees.

The boundary is also supposed to take into account "historical materials" like old Sudanese maps and colonial era maps. But there are a lot of problems with the old maps.

Border demarcation is way behind schedule. It was supposed to be done before the 2009 elections.

In 2011 South Sudan is supposed to hold a referendum on independence. Abyei is also supposed to vote that year on whether or not that region will be part of North Sudan or become part of South Sudan if South Sudan opts for independence.

What happens if the border issue isn't resolved?

Diplomats will advocate arbitration, but if that doesn't work the conditions are set for a very ugly, protracted and expensive border war.

- - -

Fighting between northern and southern troops over the contested oil-rich town of Abyei in May raised fears that Sudan could be heading back to civil war, and there have been numerous reports that both sides are re-arming

Former southern Sudan rebels threaten budget block

November 18, 2008 (Reuters) report by Andrew Heavens, a British journalist based in Khartoum, Sudan:

Sudan's former southern rebels threatened on Monday to withhold support from the budget unless President Omar Hassan al-Bashir's party agreed to enact a list of measures promised in the 2005 north-south peace deal.

Relations between the coalition partners have frequently come under strain over accusations by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) that its former foe is dragging its feet on parts of the peace deal. Now the approach of elections scheduled for next year is adding to tensions.



Senior SPLM member Yasir Arman told Reuters the SPLM wanted Bashir's National Congress Party to pass a list of key laws in the current parliamentary session, which ends next month.

"If these laws are not included (in this session), the leadership of the SPLM is thinking of boycotting the endorsement of the budget for 2009," he said.

The measures cover national security, the media, criminal law, and a referendum on secession for South Sudan promised for 2012 under the peace deal.

The National Congress Party controls parliament, but any attempt to force through a budget without SPLM support would lack legitimacy under the peace agreement, and analysts say it is almost inconceivable.

Arman said a high-level SPLM committee was hoping to meet National Congress officials later on Monday to discuss the impasse.

He said all the pending legislation was essential to the democratic transformation of Sudan outlined in the peace deal.

No one was immediately available for comment from the National Congress Party.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

However, parliament did pass one other key part of the peace agreement on Monday by approving an electoral commission, a key step in organising Sudan's first free national election in 23 years.

"This is a relief," said Riek Machar, vice president of south Sudan's semi-autonomous government in Juba.

He said the make-up of the commission had been agreed between the National Congress Party and the SPLM for about two months but administrative issues had held up the process.

The commission will decide the election date and arrange how voting will work, but other obstacles to the poll remain.

"We still need the census results, demarcation of constituencies and the demarcation of the north-south border," said Wol Atak, a member of the southern parliament.

"Of course it's a step in the right direction, but there are other issues to be solved."

The SPLM fought Khartoum for more than two decades until the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement set up a national coalition government.

The SPLM temporarily pulled its ministers out of the coalition in October 2007, saying the north was blocking parts of the peace deal.

Fighting between northern and southern troops over the contested oil-rich town of Abyei in May raised fears that Sudan could be heading back to civil war, and there have been numerous reports that both sides are re-arming.

- - -

Formulation of an Independent National Electoral Commission (NEC) to oversee Sudan's first major elections in several decades due in 2009

AU chief lauds Sudan's preparations for post-war polls

November 20, 2008 (PANA) report from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:

The African Union (AU) said Thursday it was delighted at the formulation of an independent National Electoral Commission (NEC) to oversee Sudan's first major elections in several decades due in 2009.

AU Commission Chairperson Jean Ping said the Sudanese parliament's approval of the members of the electoral team was a major milestone in efforts to turn Sudan into a "truly democratic country" in line with the requirements of the comprehensive peace accord.

Sudan has not held elections in decades, as the country has been under military rule.

However, elections are anticipated in 2009, signaling the end of the war in the Southern Sudan region, which lasted for more than 21 years.

Southern Sudanese adults, especially those in the 50-plus age bracket, do not remember participating in any form of elections in their lifetime.

However, CPA signed in Nairobi on 9 January, 2005, set a time-frame for election s in the Sudan.

The elections might also be a referendum on the touchy issues that have consiste ntly divided the North and the South and would mark the official end of the war b etween the Northern and the Southern Sudan, which have been jostling for full co n trol.

Under the 2005 peace accord that ended the war, Southern Sudan has a semi-autono mous government with limited powers to engage directly with other foreign governments.

The Southern Sudan also has its own legislative body and a cabinet, with more th an 10 state governments, including the one in the disputed territory of Abyei, which had its own government formed just months ago after nearly three years of po l itical wrangling.

Ping said in a statement that he was pleased the Sudanese politicians agreed on the setting up and the appointment of the members of the electoral body.

He pledged the commission's support to the peace efforts in the Sudan and also u rged the new electoral team to ensure the polls due in 2009 are conducted in a more transparent, free and fair manner.

"The African Union stands ready to provide assistance to the NEC to ensure that the newly established commission carries out its mandate successfully," he assured.

- - -

Fighting talk from a South Sudan citizen

Here is an excerpt from an opinion piece authored by a Sudanese citizen, published at AnyuakMedia.com

Freedom Is Coming Soon

Written and Witnessed by: Ojwok Yorwin, South Sudan Citizen
Typed by: Stephanie J. Steward, Canadian Citizen
Sent by: Yuanes Kur Payit
November 21, 2008
Posted to the web on November 21, 2008

"My dear fellows, people of Darfur and as wide as South Sudan, "Freedom" remind you that if you do not fight, but stand weak still, your enemy will never give you the freedom you are yearning.  Because "Freedom" is on his way coming soon to you, you must come together and fight for your new and unborn children's futures.  For your land, you must fight; for your futures, you must fight.  Your leaders, government, economy, resources, lands, parents, brothers and sisters, and for love ones who have been used by your enemy, you must fight for. 

Fight!  Fight!  Fight!  For if you do not fight now, you shall have no freedom of any, and you are showing signs of ruined nations and weakness, lost of economy, lack of willing to have opportunities of good change.  If you do not fight, you shall always be slaved and slaves.  Second citizen classes you shall become in your own land, South Sudan or Darfur if you do not fight for your freedom."  Fight for your rights and Freedom.   "Freedom is coming soon."

Freedom will not come if you do not fight or if you show omens of limitations.  Therefore, fight; use any tool that you have in your hand now.  Unite and stand strong as one nation, South Sudan.  Darfur must do the same.  One dialogue, one heart, and one hand you must become to gain freedom.  Held "Freedom" the responsibilities of why you are fighting because He is coming soon, "Freedom" is coming soon."

For any comment, please feel free to contact Yuanes Kur at ykur29face@gmail.com

- - -

FULL TEXT: AU & AUHIP Chair Mbeki's Speech at Khartoum University - N. Sudan is no less “African” than S. Sudan

Quote of the Day

"Should Sudan divide, it will not divide into an “African” south and an “Arab” north, still less into two states divided by adherence to different faiths. In the case of secession, the multi-ethnic, multi-religious African country of Sudan will divide into two countries, north and south, both of which are equally African, and both of which will of necessity embrace diversity.

We hold firmly to the view that northern Sudan is no less “African” than southern Sudan, and that Islam is a religion of Africa, just as the Arabs of Sudan and the Mahgreb are people of Africa. As pan-Africans we are proud of the achievements of the Arab and Muslim civilisations on this continent, which we regard as an integral part of our heritage.

Contemporary African generations should not use religion and race to divide Africa. Rather, inspired by many examples from Africa’s past, they should work to ensure that our diversity unites our continent". -Thabo Mbeki, Chairman of African Union and African Union High Level Implementation Panel on Sudan (AUHIP), former President of South Africa, Wednesday, 05 January 2011, Khartoum University, Sudan. (Source: See report below)

- - -

Sudan in Africa: A Vision for the Future
Source: Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Sudan - www.blogs.ssrc.org
Date: Wednesday, 05 January 2011. Full copy:

LECTURE BY THABO MBEKI, CHAIRPERSON OF THE AUHIP,
FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF KHARTOUM: FRIENDSHIP HALL, KHARTOUM, JANUARY 5, 2011.

Director of Ceremonies,
President Pierre Buyoya,
Students and staff of the University of Khartoum,
Your Excellencies Ambassadors and members of the diplomatic corps,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen:

On behalf of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel for Sudan I would like to thank the University of Khartoum and its Peace Research Institute for giving us the opportunity to address this important gathering today.

When the Panel was constituted, at the conclusion of our work as the AU Panel on Darfur, the Peace and Security Council of the AU said our mandate was to work with the Government and people of Sudan (i) to pursue policies it had adopted focused on the resolution of the conflict in Darfur, (ii) to assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and (iii) to support the process of the democratisation of Sudan.

And as you can see, this mandate covers virtually all the important challenges currently facing Sudan. For this reason, to honour our present and earlier mandates, we have spent the greater part of the past 21 months here in Sudan, having had virtually to defer all our other engagements in our own countries.

You may ask why I have told you all of this.

I thought this might be important in order to communicate what I believe is an important message. That message is that your Continent, Africa, and its premier organisation, the African Union, are deeply concerned to do everything possible to assist the sister people of Sudan to address the challenges I have mentioned.

As a token of its seriousness in this regard, the AU did what it had never done before and appointed three former Heads of State to act as its Task Force to help resolve what the Union views as matters that are of critical importance to the future of our Continent.

As students or casual observers of African politics, especially as you celebrated your 55th anniversary of independence only four days ago, you will be aware of the fact that most commentators and African histories say that Ghana was the first sub-Saharan country to gain independence after the Second World War.

The historical reality however is that it was this country, Sudan, that gained its independence more than a year ahead of Ghana, which became independent in 1957.

The question therefore arises – why is the mistake made so repeatedly, that Ghana became independent ahead of Sudan, with many of even your fellow Africans even being unaware of when Sudan gained its independence!

The truth is that this mistake derives from this country’s unhappy history.

As all of us know, a year ahead of your independence, in 1955, a rebellion broke out in Southern Sudan. The essential reason for the rebellion was that your compatriots in the South saw the impending independence as a threat to them, which they elected to oppose by resorting to the weapons of war.

I would like to suggest that it was the 1955 rebellion, and the subsequent first civil war, which communicated the firm message to the overwhelming majority of your fellow Africans, throughout Africa, that Sudan’s independence was not complete as it still had to complete the process of decolonisation.

It is from this that the view emerged that Ghana was the first sub-Saharan African country post-Second World War to achieve independence.

I am certain that you will have understood from what I have said that I believe that it was inevitable that as long as the rest of the continent entertained the belief that Sudan had not yet addressed the important issue of the peaceful coexistence of its diverse communities, so long would it sustain an ambivalent attitude towards this country’s independence.

That ambivalence was further reinforced by the outbreak of the second civil war in 1983 which encompassed not only southern Sudan but also the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile, and finally ended 21 years later when the CPA was signed. As you would expect, it was also fed by the rebellions which broke out in Eastern Sudan and Darfur.

Before I proceed any further, I would like to say something else about our Panel.

We have come among you not as foreigners, but as fellow Africans who are convinced that we share a common destiny. Accordingly, it is not possible for us to distance ourselves from the problems that this sister country and people face, arguing that these are Sudanese problems. To us the problems of Sudan are our problems, its challenges and successes our challenges and successes.

Accordingly we cannot and will not stand on some high pedestal, as some from somewhere else in the world do, demanding that Sudan must do this or do the other. Rather we will say, let us, together, do this or do the other, while, at the same time, we respect the sovereign right of the people of Sudan to determine their destiny.

This also means that to solve our common problems, to respond together to our common challenges and to determine our shared destiny as one African people, we must speak to you and to one another about those problems, challenges and destiny, frankly and openly as fellow combatants for Africa’s renewal who share the same trenches.

It is in this spirit that we speak to you today, to respond to one another as the fellow combatants for Africa’s renewal, who share the same trenches I have mentioned.

The reality we face as we discuss Sudan’s contemporary challenges is that during the British colonial period, this city, Khartoum, and its wider environs came to serve as the focal point of the concentration of political and economic power, leaving the rest of the country as a marginalised, disempowered and underdeveloped periphery.

It was inevitable that sooner or later this periphery would rebel to contest its marginalisation, as was signalled by the South Sudan rebellion which broke out in 1955.

Part of our tragedy is that throughout the years of independence, until the conclusion of the CPA in 2005, the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006 and the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement again in 2006, ruling groups in this country failed successfully to resolve the problem posed by the polarisation of Sudan into one centre and many peripheral regions.

Rather, to maintain its position of dominance and privilege, the centre chose to rely on the use of force and the silencing of the voice of the periphery by doing its best to stifle democratic opinion and action, seeing such democratic expression as a threat to its continued survival.

The historic peace agreements signed in 2005 and 2006 represented a decisive break with this costly past, a great leap forward away from the heritage which independent Sudan inherited from the inherently unjust and unsustainable colonial construct imposed on Sudan by the British-dominated Anglo-Egyptian Condominium.

All three of us, members of the AU Panel for Sudan, have had direct experience of radical change in our own countries.

Accordingly, all three of us, both singly and collectively, are especially sensitive to the challenges and enormous burdens those charged by historical circumstance to exercise the function of leadership have to face and carry during periods requiring radical political and social change.

We are therefore very mindful of the sacrifices the political leaders of Sudan have to make, even in terms of their personal lives, to play their roles as change agents for the creation of a new reality which portends a future of hope, of happiness and a better life for all the people of Sudan.

In this regard, we would like to pay special tribute to their Excellencies, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and Vice President Ali Osman Taha.

All of us owe the outstanding Sudanese and African success of the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, to the courage of these eminent Sudanese and African patriots to break with a painful past, and their commitment to work for a life of peace, of happiness and prosperity for all Sudanese men, women and children.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank these respected leaders and their colleagues for the manner in which they have opened theirs and all other doors in Sudan to enable us to do what we have had to do to discharge our obligation to work with all Sudanese to help determine our shared destiny.

We will continue confidently to rely on them, as must the Sudanese people as a whole, to continue to work for the implementation of the Peace Agreement we have mentioned, since they are not only signatories to those Agreements, but also their most eminent Guarantors.

We are also confident that the search for peace in Darfur will be pursued to a successful conclusion and that the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement will also be implemented fully, to become another African success.

Yesterday, speaking in Juba, President Bashir displayed once again his commitment to the CPA and his qualities of national leadership. Indeed we would believe that there is no greater test of statesmanship than to accept, in a graceful, generous and humane manner, the decision of those of your people who have the opportunity to choose secession. President Bashir’s Juba speech demonstrated that he, and the Sudanese leadership, are indeed rising to the occasion, meeting the challenge of the exercise of self-determination by the southern Sudanese.

Similarly we would like to pay equal tribute to the late Dr John Garang de Mabior, so cruelly taken away from all of us by a most unfortunate accident, and His Excellency the First Vice President of the Republic and President of the Government of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit.

In particular, together, these two outstanding African patriots and their colleagues, overcame the constraints imposed on them and the people they led and lead by the pain and bitterness which are an unavoidable part of four decades of a deadly civil war.

Thus did they commit themselves to work to make the continued unity of the Sudanese people attractive, inspired by the noble vision to build a Sudan that would be characterised by forgiveness and reconciliation, informed by the imperative to achieve peace and friendship among all Africans, while fully respecting the right to self-determination of the people of Southern Sudan.

Again we would like to use this opportunity to thank H.E. President Salva Kiir Mayardit for everything he has done to facilitate the work of our Panel, being available at all times to receive us and listen to our views.

And again we will continue to rely on him, as must the Sudanese people as a whole, to continue to contribute to the reconstruction of Sudan, regardless of the outcome of the South Sudan Referendum, to help guarantee that all Sudanese live in conditions of peace, of democracy, prosperity and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Those with little knowledge of Africa might conclude that the remarks I made earlier concerning our Continent’s ambivalence about the meaning of Sudan’s independence in 1956 represent the only factor that defines the attitude of the rest of Africa towards the sister people of Sudan.

What might therefore come across as a paradox to these is that, to the contrary, Sudan is for us as Africans, a valuable geographic and human segment of our Continent which inspires both pride and hope.

For a millennium Europe accustomed itself to a particularly negative and dehumanising view of all of us as Africans. For instance in his Natural History, the Roman, Pliny the Elder, wrote:

“Then come regions (in Africa) that are purely imaginary: towards the west of the Ethiopian Kingdom of Merowe are… the Agriophagi (wild-beast eaters), who live chiefly on the flesh of panthers and lions; the Pamphagi (eat-alls), who devour everything; the Anthropophagi (man-eaters), whose diet is human flesh.”

In the end this presentation of the African as a wild wild-beast eater, an omnivore and a cannibal, cultivated a demeaning vision of ourselves as Africans, which created the ideology which made it possible for our neighbours north of the Mediterranean to see us as fit objects to serve them as slaves, and whose lands they could later seize and treat as their property, and us as their colonial subjects, whom the colonisers said had every reason to be happy to be colonised and therefore exposed to their civilising influence.

However, and fortunately, contrary to the view of ourselves propagated by those inspired by notions of white supremacy, we now know of Nubian Sudan and its seminal contribution to the evolution of human civilisation and can see this contribution for instance in the pyramids north of this city, which are older than those of Egypt, and the ancient artefacts and remains, including mummies, which are in the National Museum located in this city.

Five thousand years ago the capital city of Kerma was one of the wonders of the world, its artists creating monumental granite statues of the Nubian Pharoahs of the era. Even today, archaeologists are making new finds, uncovering the true extent of the ancient civilisations of Sudan, which confirm that the first cities in the world were established along the banks of the Nile in Sudan.

I would like to believe that many among us here will be familiar with the comments made by the outstanding Senegalese scholar, Cheik Anta Diop, in his famous book, Civilisation or Barbarism.

Among other things Diop writes of “proof (being) now established that Nubian monarchy is the oldest in the history of humanity” and that the “Nubian royalty, which appears to us with the future essential attributes of the Egyptian monarchy, had preceded it by at least three generations.”

I refer to this ancient history because of its critical importance in the struggle we have to continue to wage as Africans, to reclaim our place as equals with other human beings, and not the sub-humans others claimed we were, thus to justify our transportation out of Africa as slaves and our subjugation as colonial subjects.

As I have indicated, much of that ancient history originates from this country, and serves to confirm Africa’s critical contribution to human civilisation. This cannot but position Sudan in our consciousness as Africans as a source of pride, a place from which we should draw inspiration as we work to achieve the renaissance of our Continent.

Further to this, Sudan gives us pride because it is a crossroads of Africa. Among the Sudanese, we find individuals and whole communities that originate from different corners of Africa. Every border, whether north, south, east or west, is straddled by communities that live both in Sudan and in the neighbouring countries.

Thus do we have Nubians here and in Egypt, the Beja in Sudan, Egypt and Eritrea, the Nuer and the Anuak here and in Ethiopia, the Toposa shared with Kenya, the Acholi and Madi here and in Uganda, and the Zande here and the Congo.

The Fertit people are also in the Central African Republic and the Masalit, Zaghawa, Salamat and Rizeigat also in Chad.

The Zaghawa, the Zayadiya and the Meidob are also in Libya, as the Rashaida are on both sides of the Red Sea.

Immigration from West Africa, over many generations, has also enriched Sudan. Literally millions of people of West African origin are to be found in Sudan, fully integrated and accepted as Sudanese citizens.

We also find the very African identity of Sudan in the manner in which Islam and Arabic were introduced to this country. As the eminent Sudanese historian Yusuf Fadl Hasan has shown, Islam came to Sudan peacefully, not through invasion. The rulers of Sennar and later of Darfur embraced Islam, and adopted the use of the Arabic language for jurisprudence and for religious teaching, without compulsion.

Reflecting modern scholarship on the Funj kingdom, Professor Mahmood Mamdani writes:

“This historical narrative clarifies one noteworthy fact: ‘Arab’ signified the cultural self-identity of the new middle class. To be sure, there were immigrant ‘Arabs’, many of whom intermarried and became Sudanese over generations. As a group, however, the Arabs of the Nile Valley in northern Sudan are native Arabs. Using today’s political vocabulary, they are African Arabs.”
The Sudanese nation is a true melting pot of African peoples. Sudan’s Pan-Africanism has been of the most practical kind, welcoming and integrating people from across the continent. It has provided the Sudanese people with an exceptionally rich cultural heritage, and an unparalleled tradition of accepting and absorbing people.

To emphasise our pride in this country as Africans, we can also speak of the historic struggles waged by many Sudanese patriots to resist the colonisation of our Continent. In this context we would speak of resistance leaders whom you know, such as Mohamed Ahmed al Mahdi, the Masalit Sultan Taj el Din Ismail, the Zande King, Gbudwe Basingbe, the Nuer Prophet, Ngundeng and his son, Wek, and Ali Abdel Latif who called for the self-determination for the peoples of the Nile Valley in 1922, which was followed by the formation of the White Flag League two years later.

I have said everything I have said about the ancient history of Sudan, its character as an African crossroads and welcoming home for all Africans and its historic and heroic engagement in the struggle against the colonisation of our Continent both to indicate our pride in this country and to emphasise its responsibilities to the rest of Africa.

In this context I said that Sudan also serves as a place of hope for the rest of our Continent, which I will explain shortly.

We have gathered here a mere four days before the people of Southern Sudan vote in the historic referendum which will determine whether this remains one country or separates into two independent states.

In this context we would like to emphasise that should Sudan divide, it will not divide into an “African” south and an “Arab” north, still less into two states divided by adherence to different faiths. In the case of secession, the multi-ethnic, multi-religious African country of Sudan will divide into two countries, north and south, both of which are equally African, and both of which will of necessity embrace diversity.

We hold firmly to the view that northern Sudan is no less “African” than southern Sudan, and that Islam is a religion of Africa, just as the Arabs of Sudan and the Mahgreb are people of Africa. As pan-Africans we are proud of the achievements of the Arab and Muslim civilisations on this continent, which we regard as an integral part of our heritage.

Contemporary African generations should not use religion and race to divide Africa. Rather, inspired by many examples from Africa’s past, they should work to ensure that our diversity unites our continent.

We proceed from this understanding in our consideration of the challenges which Sudan faces today and how the country is responding to these challenges.

Few countries in the world have had a more troubled legacy, dating back to an exceptionally bloody and bitter experience of imperial conquest, and including extreme divergence in methods of imperial rule and levels of social and economic development. In its post-colonial history, Sudan has struggled with unusually acute versions of the same challenges as other African nations, namely how to construct a polity informed by the principle and practice of forging unity in diversity.

It is natural that as we approach the South Sudan referendum, you in this hall, the Sudanese people as a whole and the rest of our Continent are keenly interested to know the answer to the question – whither Sudan?

What we would like to say to you in this regard is that we are convinced that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, you and all of us should use it as a decisive moment which gives Sudan the historic possibility to make a new beginning, a new start towards a future of hope, of peace and a better life for all the people of Sudan.

It is also a decisive moment for Sudan in the context of its role and place in Africa. As it makes its new start, Sudan has the possibility to convey important lessons to the rest of our Continent, for the benefit of the peoples of Africa, about how to establish genuine and lasting peace after a period of war and how to construct successful societies and states based on true respect for the rich diversity characteristic of many African countries and so clearly exemplified by this country.

A former leader of this country, the late President Jaafar el-Nimiery, presented this challenge to make a new beginning to his fellow Sudanese in 1975 when he said:

“Unity based on diversity has become the essence and the raison d’etre of the political and national entity of many an emerging African country today. We take pride in that the Sudan of the Revolution has become the exemplary essence of this new hope. The Sudan is the biggest country in Africa. It lies in its heart and at its crossroads. Its extensive territory borders nine African countries. Common frontiers mean common ethnical origins, common cultures and shared ways of life and environmental conditions. Trouble in the Sudan would, by necessity, spill over its frontiers, and vice versa. A turbulent and unstable Sudan would not therefore be a catalyst of peace and stability in Africa, and vice versa.”

President Nimeiry was not, of course, able to fulfil this vision during his long rule which degenerated into dictatorship. His immediate successors, General Abdel Rahman Suwar al Dahab and Prime Minister Sadiq el-Mahdi, focused their energies on another proud strand of the Sudanese political tradition, namely nurturing democracy. Today, Sudan needs both the embrace of diversity and the promotion of democracy.

During the years of independence struggle, Sudan possessed one of the strongest progressive movements in Africa and the Middle East. The trade unions, the Communist Party and the University of Khartoum, were all beacons of progressive thought and action. And indeed, Sudan’s Islamist movement, though inspired by thinkers in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere, was and remains an authentically Sudanese, and hence African, movement.

We are arguing that the peace and transformation processes represented by the CPA, the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement and the Peace Agreement for Darfur currently under discussion present Sudan with the opportunity of which Jaafar el-Nimeiry spoke 35 years ago, to position itself as “the exemplary essence of the new hope in Africa” which would be expressed by the success of Sudan, whether as one or two countries, to achieve social and national cohesion through meaningful respect for the diversity of its population.

Relying on our experience in this country during the last 21 months, we would make bold to say that the overwhelming majority of the broad Sudanese leadership and the people as a whole are determined to respond to the challenge of making the new beginning, the new start of which I have spoken.

In this context, let me deal with a few of the tasks which have to be carried out as part of that new beginning.

As you know, some in the rest of the world have persisted in communicating the false and negative messages that the Government of Sudan would do everything possible to ensure that the South Sudan referendum does not take place and that if it does, resulting in the secession of the South, this would lead to the resumption of the war between the North and the South.

The truth these naysayers, driven by a superior sense of themselves, do not want to accept is that the Sudanese people and the Sudanese leaders are perfectly rational human beings, who are deeply committed to peace and well being for all the people of Sudan. The Sudanese leaders committed themselves to the CPA because it was the right thing to do for the Sudanese people, not because they were so dictated to or pressured by the international community.

The referendum will take place, to fulfil the commitment made in the CPA. If the people of South Sudan vote for separation there will be no war, since the peace brought about by the CPA will be sustained.

And yet, the more the people of Sudan have communicated these messages in unequivocal terms, those who do not wish Sudan well, have grown ever more strident in their propagation of their scenarios of gloom and doom.

We are very happy that their ill-advised expectations will be disappointed as the leaders and people of Sudan honour their solemn undertakings and do what is right for them and the rest of Africa.

We are equally very happy to inform this important gathering that both the Government of Sudan and the SPLM have made the solemn and vitally important commitment that should the people of South Sudan vote for secession, they will work to ensure the emergence and peaceful coexistence of two viable states, informed by the objectives of renewed friendship and cooperation between the people of the North and the South.

Among other things, the concept of the construction of two viable states means that the two governments will work together to ensure that each of the states they lead will achieve such viability in all areas of human activity, including the economy, security and stability, national unity and territorial integrity.

It also means that the two governments will take all necessary measures to ensure that the southerners resident in the North and the northerners in the South are not adversely affected by the separation in terms of their socio-economic rights. Among other things this means that nobody will be rendered stateless.

Similarly, it means that the two states will maintain a ‘soft border’, to allow the people in both states to continue to interact with one another with no negative impact in terms of their economic and social relations and in terms of respect for the rights of the nomadic pastoralists.

At the same time, other outstanding commitments will be met, including the conduct of the Popular Consultations in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, the resolution of the issue of Abyei and the demarcation of the North-South border.

What all this means is that if Sudan becomes two states six months hence, on 9th July, the necessary decisions will have been taken which will make it possible for Sudan to make the new start I have mentioned, which will be a new beginning informed by a shared determination to ensure that all of the citizens of present day Sudan live a better life of equality, a shared peace, a shared friendship and a shared prosperity.

Even if the people of South Sudan vote for unity, this will also mean that Sudan will again be obliged to make a new beginning, basing itself on the objectives contained in the CPA, again to ensure that the people of Sudan enjoy a better life of equality, of that shared peace, and shared friendship and shared prosperity.

It is within this context that the work will continue finally to resolve the conflict in Darfur. In this regard we would like to express our appreciation for the enormous amount of work that has been done by the AU/UN Joint Chief Mediator for Darfur and the Government of the State of Qatar to facilitate the conclusion of a comprehensive peace and political agreement for Darfur through the Doha negotiations.

This agreement will require the support of the people of Darfur as a whole. Accordingly it has been agreed that the outcome of the Doha negotiations will, as soon as possible, be submitted to an inclusive process which will take place in Darfur, to give the people in this region the opportunity to help to determine their future within the Republic of Sudan.

We are happy that the Government of Sudan has agreed to all of this, which would give effect to a decision taken by the African Union in October 2009, and which was later endorsed by the United Nations.

Consistent with the new beginning we have mentioned, the agreement which will emerge through the inclusive Darfur process will address all the necessary issues, such as power and wealth sharing, compensation and development, justice and reconciliation, and the place of Darfur within the larger Sudanese polity.

Thus should this agreement lay the basis to end what in our October 2009 Report we described as the crisis of Sudan in Darfur.
We are hopeful that this outcome will be achieved well ahead of the end of the CPA interim period on 9th July, and can see no reason why this objective cannot be realised.

We must also mention that we were greatly inspired by the resolve to honour the commitments contained in the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement as represented by the highly successful pledging conference which was held recently in Kuwait and promises to provide considerable resources to develop Eastern Sudan to end its marginalisation.

We are convinced that regardless of the outcome of the South Sudan referendum, you, the Sudanese people face an exciting period which history has given you to make something new of this ancient African country.

I am very pleased that the University of Khartoum, an eminent African centre of learning, has given us the opportunity to speak to the youth of Sudan at this critical moment in the history of this country.

There are a few things we would like you, the youth, to know by the time you leave this Hall at the end of this interaction.
One of these is that current developments in your country, including the South Sudan referendum, present you with the challenge and opportunity to reconstruct Sudan so that it lives up to its historic obligations contained in its ancient history, its traditional role as a welcoming home for all Africans, and its eminent contribution to the struggle to maintain Africa’s independence.

That challenge of reconstruction will fall particularly on your shoulders, because as the youth you represent the future of Sudan.

Secondly, we would like you to know that the future ahead of you is one of hope rather than despair. This country, in both its northern and southern parts, contains enormous agricultural and natural resources which can and must be exploited to provide the Sudanese people the better life which is their due.

It has the possibility relatively quickly to address some of its essential social and economic infrastructure needs, sufficient to accelerate its process of development.

In the context of the development challenge, we are happy to say that Sudan disposes of considerable human capital, the trained and qualified men and women, including yourselves, both here and outside the country, who must serve as the drivers of Sudan’s socio-economic development. Liberated at last from the curse of war and violent conflicts, there is absolutely no reason why Sudan, whether as one country or two, does not advance to take its place as one of the leading economic powers on our Continent.

And thirdly, Sudan, whether as one or two countries, will continue to serve as an African crossroads. Accordingly, willy-nilly, what happens in this part of Africa will continue to have an important impact on the rest of our Continent. The new beginning of which we have spoken means that this area of Africa has the continuing possibility to act as one of the principal drivers of the process of the renaissance of Africa.

You, the Sudanese people have the accumulated experience, the wealth and depth of intellectual prowess, and the invaluable African patriotism, to empower and enable you to live up to this obligation to yourselves and the rest of your fellow Africans.
As Africans we know that the future of Sudan is our future. And as Sudanese, you must know that Africa stands and will stand with you regardless of the political season, and that our solidarity and friendship are unconditional.

As Africans we know that whatever the challenges of the moment, Sudan will achieve peace within itself and friendship among all its people, which peace and friendship will draw the Sudanese people, their neighbours and all Africa, ever closer together.

We, who represent an older generation, which has made its own mistakes and its own contribution to a better Africa, count on you, the youth of Africa, to discover and carry out your own mission, which would surely contain the objective to achieve the renaissance both of Sudan and your mother Continent, Africa.

I thank you very much.

[Text as delivered]

Copy of 3 Responses (so far) to “Sudan in Africa: A Vision for the Future”

Ibrahim Adam:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Wow!

A poignant, potent and very moving speech.

The Right Honorable Thabo Mbeki: an African, nay global, colossus.

May God bless you for all of your tireless work thus far to usher in peace, stability, and prosperity for all Sudanese.

A true friend indeed; thanks Thabo.

He truly deserves Sudan’s highest award: President Al-Bashir, I do hope you’re listening!!

Charles:
January 6th, 2011 at 3:31 am
Thabo Mbeki is brilliant!

Khalid AlMubarak:
January 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Wise words from a distinguished African leader. Some footnotes :
!- To say that the Arabs of Sudan and Africa are people of Africa takes the wind off the sails of those who who insist that diversity DOES not include Arabs or Islam.In his most recent book Francis Deng claims any reunification of Sudan(if the South chooses secession)will require the Northern Sudanese to to strip themselves of any Arab adjective.

2-To say that Khartoum and its wider environs control and deny development elsewhere can be misleading. Those in Khartoum and the Centre came from Darfur ,Kordofan,the East and the South. London controls and the cities of the North are decaying. Is this a uniquely Sudanese problem? Is South Africa different?

3- How could the central government develop anything while there is fighting?The two rebellions in the South destroyed a great deal and distorted the economy. I am puzzled by Mr Mbeki’s soft handling of the 1955 relellion and blaming the North for it.How come? Sudan was not independent when the rebellion erupted.

4-”Some in the rest of the world have persisted in communicating false and negative messages” How true;but that is also applicable to anti-sudanese campaigns which were orchestrated to deny that Sudan won independence before Ghana.Many references document Israeli support for the two southern rebellions and the present Darfur crisis.Our problems have local roots ;but there is an unspoken foreign finger.

There is no contradiction between Sudan’s interests and those of the West. But the interests of the West are not identical to those of Israel and its lobbies(witness the West’s position on settlements and a Palestinian state and Lieberman’s position)

5-The Darfur rebellion was instigated by John Garang while he was negotiating with the government for peace in the South.

6- If the South voted for secession ;conditions for reunification a la European Union can be created by strengthening regional groups(Nile Valley- Horn of Africa) leading to African unity in the next stage.Borders and citizenship will evolve in complementary manner.

7- the shortcomings of the Centre are spotlighted. What about the effect of the rebels and what about corruption and mismanagement in the semi-autonomous South?

- - -

Photo of the Day



Sudan’s President Omar Al-Bashir (centre) is escorted by Vice-President Salva Kiir (left) as he arrives at the airport in the southern Sudanese capital of Juba on Tuesday, 04 January 2011. Image Credit: AP.

Image above courtesy of Gulf News.com report by Abdul Nabi Shaheen, Wednesday, 05 January 2011 entitled "South rules out war after separation". Full copy:

(Juba, southern Sudan) - Dr Barnaba Marial Benjamin, minister of information and Broadcasting in the Government of southern Sudan (GoSS), who is also the GoSS spokesman, talked to Gulf News in an exclusive interview. Regarding Darfur, Benjamin said that an independent South Sudan would never allow Darfur rebels to launch attacks on the north from their soil.
Full text of the interview:

In case of the Southern separation, how would you deal with the Darfur dossier?

We in GoSS, whether now or after separation, will never allow Darfur movements to launch any military operations against the North from the South as we believe that the CPA, which we have signed with the NCP in Naivasha is an agreement that can be applied to solve Sudan's political problems, including Darfur's.

What was reported in the media about Darfur's leaders in the South and their intention of launching attacks against the North is incorrect. Khalil Ebrahim and Abdul Wahid Noor, both senior leaders of Darfur's armed movements never visit Southern Sudan. The former is living in Libya and the latter in France. As for the third leader Minni Arcu Minnawi he is in Juba temporarily and not for political purposes.

How do you estimate the volume of aid so far extended to you by the American government?

I think it is significant support through the United States Agency for International Development (Usaid) which is working on basic infrastructure, education and health services as well as a paved road from Juba to borders with Uganda with a cost of $200 million (Dh735 million).

I expect America's aid to reach $1 billion according to the projects they are working on.

What about military assistance?

We received no military assistance from the American government but we receive such assistance from Western countries in areas like developing human capabilities of our armed forces to turn it into a regular, professional army. We have started this since 2005.

Some fear a re-escalation of armed conflict between the North and the South if certain issues are not settled before the referendum. How do you see that?

The two partners have agreed on the "no to war and yes to peace," principle. This is the commitment of President Bashir and President Salva Kiir.

There is an agreement and it stipulates that people of Southern Sudan have the right to self-determination and the choice of either unity or separation. This makes it impossible to resort to war.

What we have been agreed upon is not something made in the presence of delegations from the North and South only, but there have been international organisations involved in this agreement and have significant role in restoring peace; to mention for instance, the UN and its Security Council, the African Union, the Arab League, the US, Britain and neighbouring countries including Egypt and Libya.

It was decided that 12,000 UN peacekeeping forces were to be deployed to maintain peace between the two parties and monitor the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).

But there is a mobilisation of Northern and Southern forces on the border between the North and the South which reflect a tense situation?

It is natural to have problems between the two sides. In any area where there are international forces, there would be scrimmages. In case of any problem we consult the agreement. Recently the Sudanese Defence Minister met the leader of liberation army of the South and they have agreed to have police forces to protect oil fields.

How do you evaluate the progress for referendum and relevant arrangements between the two partners so far in this context?
Matters are moving reasonably. Registration of voters, for instance, has been very successful as there is a keenness from the people of the South to take part in the referendum. The number of those registered in the South amounted to 3.5 million.

What about the ratio of this figure from the total population of the South?

The ratio is reasonable putting into account that as those have the right to register should be over 18.

The total population of the South is around 8.5 million, 60 per cent of those registered should vote to make it valid.

This was stipulated by the Referendum Law and we should abide by it to make results valid.

In Khartoum, the number of those registered was not as anticipated due to the fact that Southerners left for Juba to register to guarantee an opportunity to express their opinions Some Southerners in the North said they can't register as they could not come back for voting and as a result many Southerners in the North did not register their names. Others have returned to the South to register and stay.

They returned back because they left as a result of the war and after peace was realised, they returned back to build their society.

Following the 2005 peace agreement, the government in the North and GoSS as well as international organisations should help this group to voluntarily return to their homes in the South as some of them are employees in the central government and are still holding their posts.

There is controversy over dual nationality for Southerners living in the North and Northerners living in the South. What would be your stance in case the government in the North declined to grant Southerners in the North its nationality?

In all cases, we will grant Northerners living in the South the nationality of the new Southern state if they want. (Laughs) Even if President Omar Al Bashir wants the nationality of the new state we will grant it to him.

- - -

Related Reports

President Bashir Visits Juba 4 days Ahead Of The Referendum
Report from SRS - Sudan Radio Service - www.sudanradio.org. Excerpt:

Tuesday, 04 January 2011 – (Juba, southern Sudan) - The president of the republic Omar Al-Bashir officially visited Juba on Tuesday, only four days before the people of southern Sudan could vote in the referendum.

Addressing the Government of Southern Sudan ministers and political leaders, president Al-Bashir said that it is now clear that the south is going to secede during the referendum.

He said this is an indication that the two partners to the CPA, the SPLM and the NCP have been able to implement the CPA to the latter.

[Omar al-Bashir]: “Yes we will be sad the Sudan is going to be divided, however we will be happy by conducting the southern Sudan referendum, and establishing two new countries, which means we have achieved the real and final peace in Sudan, in it’s two parts, so that any citizen in Sudan, in the north and in the south, can enjoy and benefit, and it will be a new stage and breakthrough towards development in the two parts.”

Al-Bashir reiterated that his government will accept and support the south whatever the outcome of the referendum.

[Omar al-Bashir]: “Whatever the results, the painful process and the deep pain will be, we can pass this stage by patience, tolerance and by highly welcoming the referendum result with a good sprit. We see that if the new southern Sudan state emerges, it will be in need of technical support, logistics and number of different supports, no one will be having the priority of doing these except us. So we want all these process to be achieved smoothly.” [...]

- - -

GOSS Welcomes Bashir's Visit To Juba
Report from SRS - Sudan Radio Service - www.sudanradio.org. Full copy:

Tuesday, 04 January 2011 – (Juba, southern Sudan) - The Government of South Sudan on Tuesday welcomed the visit of President Al- Bashir adding that it is a positive gesture towards a peaceful Sudan before and after the referendum.

The president of the Government of Southern Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit was addressing the government of southern Sudan ministers and political leaders upon the arrival of President Omar Al-Bashir in Juba.

[Salva Kiir]: “We are very pleased by this visit, people were saying that the president of the republic should not come at this time where southerners are heading towards the referendum after 4 days, but our answer to these people was simple, that even if only one day to go for the referendum, the president of the republic has the right to come to south Sudan, and has the right also to go anywhere in Sudan. Even after the referendum he has the right to go any where in Sudan. So your Excellency you are most welcome.”

The referendum for self determination in the south is due in 4 days.

- - -

Sudan leader Bashir reassures south ahead of referendum
Report from BBC News Africa - www.bbc.co.uk
Tuesday, 04 January 2011. Full copy: [Click here to view video report by the BBC's Will Ross in Juba: "The flags are out on the streets of southern Sudan"]:

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has reassured Southern Sudan he will help it even if it chooses to secede in a referendum on Sunday.

After arriving in the south's capital, Juba, Mr Bashir said that although he would be "sad" if Sudan split, "I am going to celebrate your decision, even if your decision is secession."

Mr Bashir then headed into talks with the south's leader, Salva Kiir.

The referendum is part of a 2005 deal that ended a two-decades-long war.

Mr Bashir and Mr Kiir were on opposing sides.

Officials say almost four million people have registered to vote, more than 95% of them in semi-autonomous Southern Sudan. Others have signed up in northern Sudan and eight countries abroad.

'Anything you need'

BBC East Africa correspondent Will Ross, in Juba, says Mr Bashir's message on Tuesday will go a long way to reassure people that the north of Sudan is finally accepting that Africa's largest country is about to split in two.

Mr Bashir said: "I personally will be sad if Sudan splits. But at the same time I will be happy if we have peace in Sudan between the two sides."

Saying that imposing unity did not work, he added: "Anything you need in terms of technical, logistical or professional support from Khartoum, you will find us ready to give it. The benefit we get from unity, we can also get it from two separate states."

Our correspondent says that for years Mr Bashir was seen as an enemy in the south but his message on Tuesday, a message of peace, may help to improve his tarnished image.

Mr Bashir, wearing a traditional southern robe over his suit, was met by about 500 people at the airport in Juba demonstrating in favour of secession, but in a festive atmosphere.

He and Mr Kiir then went into talks that were to focus on weighty issues such as border delineation, citizenship and division of oil wealth.

Sudan is the third-largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa.

'100% prepared'

Southern Sudan has been marginalised by a succession of governments in Khartoum, from colonial times onwards.

The north and south are also divided by culture, religion, ethnicity and a history of conflict, correspondents say.

On Monday, a spokesman for the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC), Chan Reec Madut, said it was "100% prepared" for the vote.

Some training still needed to be carried out and there were still problems with access to polling stations in remote areas, he said. But he insisted that those would not affect the vote.

There had been concerns that Sudan's poor infrastructure and political instability might delay the referendum, risking an outbreak of violence.

For the vote to be considered valid, 60% of voters must take part.

A spokesman for the US state department, PJ Crowley, said it was optimistic about Sunday's referendum, and that both sides appeared to agree that it should be an open and credible process.

Analysis
Peter Martell
BBC News, Juba, sourthern Sudan

President Bashir often dances a jig in front of crowds, waving his trademark stick. Not this time, here in the southern capital. He appeared sad, without hand waving or smiles, and did not turn up to the rally many southerners had been expecting.

Clearly aware of the likelihood of a split between north and south, he instead repeated his promise that he would be the first to recognise an independent south. The hundreds of southerners who lined the road to welcome him did so cheerfully, but made extremely clear their choice in the referendum - separation.

One sign at the airport even greeted him with the pre-emptive message: "Welcome to the 193rd state". Standing alongside southern president Salva Kiir, the message was of peace, whatever the people decide. The people on the streets took that message warmly, saying only they wanted to make sure he will be kept to his word.

- - -

In pictures: Bashir visits south



Ahead of the poll, the Sudanese president made a rare visit to the southern capital, Juba. Though his government favours unity, Omar al-Bashir (r) said he would "celebrate" whatever decision the Southerners voted for, even if they decide to secede. Photo and caption courtesy of BBC News Africa - www.bbc.co.uk - Tuesday, 04 January 2011: In pictures: Bashir visits south.
- - -

Further Reading

Sudan: Arab or African? (The Debate Continues)
Sudan Watch - http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com
Sunday, 05 December 2010
See copy of 181 comments.
- - -

Postscript from Sudan Watch Editor
As noted here at Sudan Watch on Friday, 31 December 2010, Yahoo's Flickr deleted all photos documented at Sudan Watch August 2004 - November 2010. Thankfully, in June of last year, the British Library started digitally archiving Sudan Watch and my personal blog, ME and Ophelia. Here are the links to the great British Library's web archive where the missing photos can be found.
http://www.webarchive.org.uk - sudanwatch.blogspot.com
http://www.webarchive.org.uk - meandophelia.blogspot.com

Also, note that The New York Times Blogrunner is up and running again:

Headlines Around the Web

What's This?

TAPPED

JANUARY 6, 2011

Stopping a Genocide Before it Starts.

DAILY NEWS FROM EKKLESIA

JANUARY 6, 2011

Christians pray for just peace ahead of Sudan's referendum

THE DAILY CALLER

JANUARY 6, 2011

1 hand or 2? S. Sudan to vote on unity, split

THE AMERICAN PROSPECT

JANUARY 6, 2011

Stopping a Genocide Before It Starts

A BLOG FOR ALL

JANUARY 6, 2011

Sudan Prepares For Split Referendum

More at Blogrunner »