| UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER |
Sudan Newsletter Vol. III No. 3
Sudan Newsletter Vol. III No. 3
S U D A N
A NEWSLETTER COMMITTED TO THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
OF AFRICAN SUDANESE PEOPLE
- The Sudan Newsletter
- P.O. Box 24233
- Lansing, MI. 48909-4233 U.S.A.
The Sudan Newsletter is published quarterly by Pax Sudani Network, a
charitable organization committed to the rights and liberties of African
Sudanese people. If you want to be a regular columnist, please let us
know. Contributions in a form of articles or letters to the editor are
also welcomed from the public. However, the Newsletter reserves the
right to edit, publish or reject any written material.
Note that: Articles printed here do not necessarily represent the goals
of the organization.
Staff
Editor and Publisher Mr. David Nailo N. Mayo
President Augustine A. Lado, PhD
Secretary Mr. Bakindi Leno Unvu
Treasurer Mr. James P. Morgan
INSIDE THIS ISSUE...
Renewed Fighting .......................... p. 3
Minister Killed in Action ................. p. 4
South Sudanese Demonstrations .. .......... p. 4
Symposium ................................. p. 5
Islam in Black Africa ..................... p. 6
Lam Akol in Fashoda ....................... p. 7
Sudan Joins Terrorist Club ................ p. 8
Congressmen Speak Out ..................... p. 9
Gore Creates Patriotic Front ............. p. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Gifts or Donations
Individuals $12 per year
Organizations $20 per year
(Please, use the form provided below for your subscriptions to the
Sudan Newsletter or donations to Pax Sudani Network).
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIPTION FORM
Please, I/we wish to subscribe to the SUDAN Newsletter. Find attached
a check for:
__Individuals: $12 per year ___Organizations: $20 per year
I/we would like to support the activities of Pax Sudani Newtork.
Here is a donation of: $25___, $50___, $100___, $200___, Other___
Name:
Address:
Checks [cheques] or Money Orders should be made out and mailed to:
Pax Sudani Network - P.O. Box 15188 - Cleveland, Ohio 44115-0118
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BY-GONE PEOPLE WHO LEFT A HISTORY OF STRIFE
Writing about the plight and immense suffering of our own people in
Sudan is no novelty. Relatives, good friends we grew with or went to
school with are dead. Hope for meeting relatives or knowing their
welfare is too remote, and it is sad that the Islamic fundamentalist
government in Khartoum is determined to do more harm than already
inflicted. We are committed, therefore, to speak to the world community
about the suffering in the Sudanese conflict, in the hope that
international intercession could be mobilized for political solution.
We hope that, one day, the Sudanese will make decisions through a ballot
instead of hurling grenades.
The history of the Sudanese conflict is a long one, and the
successive governments in Khartoum have been unwilling to resolve it
peacefully even though there have been many opportunities to do so.
Unfortunately, Sudanese leaders often elect war and shun peace.
Today, the Islamic fundamentalist government in Khartoum is
shouldering all the propounded blame from decades of outrageous human
rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, and forceful Islamization and
Arabization in the Sudan. The fundamentalist regime deserves to be
blamed for perpetuating atrocities. However, it is only doing or
implementing what many northern Sudanese would do against the South. But
in the West, the press makes readers believe that the Islamic
fundamentalists are the bad guys and the previous successive regimes
were the good guys. Although in actuality, the Islamic fundamentalist
regime is just the worst of the worst, yet a farce of giving too much
credit to the previous successive regimes in Khartoum must be promptly
corrected. This is because it could engender decisions that topple the
Islamic fundamentalists but leave the real culprits unpunished. There
has been conflict since 1983 -- six years before the Islamic
fundamentalist seized power, and there has been conflict since 1955. Who
perpetrated these conflicts?
The real enemies of the Sudanese people are the military, sectarian
Umma and Democratic Unionists parties. These groups ruled the country
since the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (colonial rulers) left the Sudan in
1955. They have taken turns in mal-governing the nation and maintaining
the war in the South for 27 out of 37 years of independence. The
National Islamic Front (NIF) is a new-comer joining mal-government -- a
scheme that has become a norm -- and it simply wants to get its share.
When one wishes to settle the Sudanese conflict, the sound political
solution is to provide for guarantees that any takeover of power in
Khartoum, either by the military or Islamists, will not affect the
South. This could only come under a confederal arrangement, by which the
South would have its own army, secular constitution, and independent
economic and foreign policy decisions.
Independence for the South is not ruled out, because hope for
living together with those who claim Arab descent is so remote at the
moment. We have hurt each other so much, that living together in the
future could only perpetuate memories of the current misery going on in
the country. The manner in which the successive Arab-Islamic
governments in Khartoum treat the non-Arabic majority in the South --
with great contempt, intolerance, neglect, and during war times the
outright clearing and pillaging of Southern Sudanese villages and
property -- should not be underestimated when making decisions about
Sudan.
The South has been a "security zone" since the 1960s except for a
brief ten years of peace between 1972 and 1982. Mr. Ismail al-Azhari,
the first Sudanese Prime Minister, is to blame. He laid the groundwork
for hostilities between the majority of the African ethnic groups and
the Arabic groups. The latter, through their sectarian policies, have
perpetuated al-Azhari's mistakes into a common strategy of colonizing
the vast peripheral regions in the country, including the South. Al-
Azhari began his rule, as soon as the Anglo-Egyptian Condomini ended, by
excluding the South and other regions inhabited by non-Arabic peoples,
from national participation and by not allocating socio-economic
resources as early as the Sudanization policy was submitted in 1954. He
further designed an Islamic constitution with Arabic as a national
language even though the Arab population was only 38 percent. The
beliefs system, Christianity, Judaism, and various African traditions
and cultures were totally ignored, and in fact were targeted for
eradication.
Subsequent opposition by the African ethnic groups, especially from
the Southern based Liberal Party was just considered unwanted nuisance.
But August 1955 al-Azhari had plunged the new nation into a bitter civil
war. Instead of looking at the grievances, al-Azhari's government opted
to use force to quell the turbulence. The regime was blurred by
political myopia or social naivety and therefore did not comprehend the
real issues that needed to be addressed.
Al-Azhari's successor, Abdalla Khalil, was no different. Khalil
utilized his term in office to implement the Islamic constitution that
had already been introduced by his predecessor. The Liberal Party
Members of Parliament continued to protest against the Islamic
constitution in favor of a secular one, but they were simply ignored.
The MPs, therefore, decided to demand for federalism in the country in
which the South would be a secular federal state. Mr. Khalil, fearing
the loud voices of the MPs, decided to hand over power to the military.
In 1958, General Ibrahim Abboud took power and indeed silenced the
demands for secularism or federalism. The MPs from the South were either
imprisoned, killed, or fled the country. General Abboud also used an
iron-fist to impose strict Islamic sharia law, Arabized and Islamized
the educational curriculum, expelled all foreign Christian missionaries,
and closed all of the churches in the South. South Sudan became a
closed military zone, no foreigners were allowed to go to the South as
Khartoum wanted to keep the war as "secret" as possible. The reign of
terror prevailed everywhere in the South, and thousands of South
Sudanese people fled to neighboring countries to seek refuge. The
government forces became nothing but the army of occupation and
conquest, which they still are today.
In exile, William Deng and Joseph Oduho (former MPs), created the
Sudan African National Union (SANU), to spearhead the rights and
liberties of the African Sudanese people. As hope for living together
with the Arabs became as remote as it is today, Oduho and his
contemporaries advocated for a separate and independent South Sudan --
demands that are still nagging in the 1990s. Although Oduho died early
this year under precarious circumstances, his legacy is a living witness
in the struggle for freedom in the South.
Meanwhile, the reign of terror [in South Sudan] in the 1960s did
not go unpunished. The Anya-Nya guerilla force, though armed with
primitive weapons, grew steadily and became a formidable army capable of
resisting the evil from the north. The freedom fighters took revenge
against the occupation army and the civil war intensified day by day.
Governments kept changing in Khartoum, but none was interested in
resolving the conflict until Colonel Jaafar Mohammed Nimeiri seized
power in May 1969. He became the first northern Sudanese to recognize
the grievances of the South and was determined to settle them. He was
realistic about the fact that the Islamic constitution was inherently
racist, and segregated non-Arabic and non-Islamic majority of the
Sudanese people. Moreover, Nimeiri resolved the problem by military
decree, not by a popular mandate. Through the ballot, Nimeiri would not
have been given the opportunity to rule the Sudan -- as he was not from
the traditional sectarian parties (Umma and DUP). And even if he were,
he would not have been permitted to make such a radical and historic
decision. Nevertheless, a secular constitution was installed and peace
ensued. The 1973 Constitution became the first Sudanese Bill of Rights.
Ten years later, Nimeiri was forced to dismantle the 1973 Secular
Constitution he had created and impose a strict Islamic legal system and
Sharia Penal Codes. Surprisingly, the Umma Party and DUP did not want
to tamper with the Sharia law nor resolve the war when they ruled the
country in the 1980s. This spurred the old questions as to whether the
northern Sudanese elites are sincere interested in putting aside the
Islamic legal system and integrate with the South Sudanese counterparts
as equals. This legal system remains to be an obstacle to peace in the
country.
Meanwhile, one stark difference that distinguishes the current
Islamic fundamentalist government led by Lt. General Omer Hassan al-
Beshir, and the previous ones, is that the Islamic fundamentalists are
truly honest. This honesty is something that the African ethnic groups
must appreciate because, the Islamic fundamentalists have made our
claims and grievances much more clearer than if the onus was left for us
alone to explain. Since they seized power in June 1989, the Islamic
fundamentalists made it clear that their purpose in coming into power
was to implement the Islamic sharia law, norms, and customs of Allah,
regardless of the multi-religious and multi-cultural composition of the
Sudanese society. They promised to remove anyone that attempted to
oppose them, and according to General Beshir, anyone who opposed that
policy "does not deserve the honor to live."
This is the dilemma that the Sudan faces since independence. The
northern Sudanese elites do not take responsibility for their actions
nor do they admit the failure of their policies. The Sudanese state has
failed to make its citizens happy, secure, and productive. The time
has come for us to appreciate change in order to restore our claims and
pride for nationhood. At the moment, the viable political alternative
is the division of the country along ethnic lines: the African ethnic
groups should have their own state, and those who claim Arab descent
should have their own ARAB ISLAMIC REPUBLIC. Great powers, in history,
have changed -- as have small static societies. We cannot be an
exception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 1-2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEWED FIGHTING IN THE SOUTH FORCES 100,000 CIVILIANS TO FLEE
At least 100,000 Southern Sudanese were forced to flee their homes
and take refuge in Uganda, the neighboring country to the South, due to
renewed fighting in the 11 year-old Sudanese conflict. The Sudanese
government embarked on heavy air-strikes which terrorized and
destabilized the civilian population in their efforts to tender crops
during the rainy season in South Sudan. The farmers abandoned their
maize (corn) plantations, other agricultural produce, and all their
belongings which they couldn't carry along. This raises yet more
threats of severe food shortages next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a war that no one will win in the battlefield
-- UN officials said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the relief workers, many civilians were killed by the
air-strikes and at least two truck-loads of the wounded were taken to
Koboko, a Ugandan border town, with the seriously wounded being flown to
Lokichokio in Kenya. Another 50,000 displaced civilians were moving to
other nearby refugee camps near the Nile. Others trekked for days to
Bahr el-Ghazal. Their plight is virtually unknown.
Life had returned to normal among the rural populations living in
the areas that witnessed intense fighting recently. Rehabilitation,
provided by the New Sudan Council of Churches and other humanitarian
organizations, has been going on smoothly. But all what has been done is
now destroyed by the government troops.
The refugees inside Uganda are reported to be in deplorable
conditions: sheltered under trees, or compact in churches, schools, or
shacks built from tree branches and wet grass. Although some food was
able to get to them in time, yet their conditions in heavy tropical
rains remains unbearable. Thousands others who hesitated to cross the
border -- due to experiences they had encountered in Ethiopia two years
ago -- are trapped inside the Sudan without any emergency foodstuffs.
The Sudanese conflict has been continuing since 1983 when the
Southern based military garrison at Bor town mutinied against the
policies of the Arab-Islamic dominated governments in Khartoum, and went
to the bush to create the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) now
fighting in Sudan. We believe the SPLA wages a genuine struggle
against persistent Arab-Islamic persecution of the African ethnic
groups, who are mostly Christians or adherence of African traditional
beliefs.
Meanwhile, the renewed fighting broke the cease-fire that has been
in place since early this year. Both sides had agreed to halt
hostilities so that they could prepare for "peace talks" in the Nigerian
capital city of Abuja. Despite good intentions of the Nigerian
government to mediate the peace talks, the negotiations ended miserably
without any joint communique being issued. These were signs of total
failure in efforts to resolve the 11 years' old Sudanese conflict
between the successive [Arab-Islamic dominated] governments in Khartoum
and the South Sudan's freedom fighters (SPLA).
This didn't surprised many keen observers of the precarious
situation in the Sudanese conflict because, the negotiations were
interrupted by deadlocks over central issues that brought the war in the
first place, such as: the question of Islamic sharia law and the
separation of [Islamic] religion from state affairs; the equitable
distribution of power and socio-economic resources, etc. These issues
were not tackled in good faith by the Sudanese government. As has often
been the case, the government instead opted to face the freedom fighters
in battle. The SPLA was prepared to resist that evil too.
THE BATTLE OF SINDRU HILLS
Meanwhile, both sides blamed each other for the violations of the
cease-fire; but clear evidence exists to indicate that the government
was the aggressor, moving military convoys in what it calls "routine
administrative measures" in attempts to recapture SPLA strong-holds. In
late June, a huge government convoy -- code-named "Saif Kharif al-
Salaam" (the rainy season of peace) -- left Juba, the capital of South
Sudan, in an attempt to recapture the border town of Nimule, on the
Sudan-Uganda border. That convoy was bitten back by the SPLA forces at
Kit, less than 40 kilometers outside Juba, with serious casualties on
the government's side. On July 16, 1993, after serious clashes at
Sindru Hills, the SPLA's Chief of Operations, Commander Salva Kir, said
at least 256 government troops were killed and 602 wounded. The
government's military commander in the area, Major General Mohammed
Jubara, admitted the loss.
THE BATTLE OF MOROBO
Although "Saif Kharif al-Salaam" was bitten miserably, the
government sent yet another huge force, code-named "The Mother of all
Offenses" destined for Kaya town. The convoy was supported by aerial
bombardment -- with Antonov and MIGS fighter crafts -- which attacked
SPLA positions and civilian villages between August 5 and 9, 1993. In
the air the government prevailed over the SPLA. On the ground the SPLA
was dominant. Through ambushes, the freedom fighters engaged the
government's forces at Morobo, a village between Yei and Kaya. However,
huge military support enabled the government's forces to enter the
village, but denied their advance towards Kaya town by continuous SPLA
fire. Both sides claimed victory!
The government also launch several military offensives in Bahr el-
Ghazal province. A government convoy leaving Wau town for Western
Equatoria province via Tombura was besieged by the SPLA some few
kilometers outside Wau. Another convoy, also destined for Western
Equatoria via Rumbek, succeeded to get to Rumbek, but [was exhausted
after several battles with the SPLA] that it couldn't advance to Mundri
town where it was destined.
Overall, by starting the offensives much earlier in the rainy
season than usual, the government had in fact underestimated the SPLA
force. Col. Garang and the loyal freedom fighters are a disciplined
force, vital, and lethal. By challenging the Khartoum Islamic
fundamentalist regime, Dr. Garang has emerged as a de facto leader of
the African people in the country. The UN relief officials who visited
Kaya soon after the battle of Morobo were overwhelmed with the SPLA
strength. They concluded that "This is a war that no one will win in the
battlefield." Signs of foul debris of war was not just an imagination
but tough realities that depicts determination to resist occupation.
However, we hope that comment made by the UN officials will further our
call for the UN to enter into a direct peace mediation in the Sudanese
conflict in order to bring an end to this bitter conflict. Without
international intervention, there is no doubt that the war will continue
and the misery will propound geometrically.
MINISTER AND GOVERNOR MISSING IN ACTION
Despite the Government's claims of victory against the freedom
fighters (SPLA) at Morobo village, the truth of the matter is yet to be
determined. For the first time, the Sudanese government admitted that
the Minister of Industry, Mr. Mohammed Ahmad Omar, was found missing in
action in the South Sudanese village of Morobo. The former Minister was
one of the die-hard fundamentalists, who volunteered to serve Allah by
martyrdom in accompanying a well-mobilized force in what was perceived
[in Khartoum] to be the final contest against the SPLA in the South.
In the Minister's funeral [in Khartoum], the Sudanese President Lt.
General Beshir, praised the late Minister as the martyr of the
Revolution, and that others should follow his example. According to
reliable reports, Mr. Omar's mission was twofold: to establish a
fundamentalist organ in the border posts upon the defeat of the SPLA,
and to train ex-Amin's soldiers to invade Uganda and overthrow President
Museveni's government in Kampala.
However, it seems the SPLA forces were not aware that they had
killed the Minister. This is likely if the late Omar was blown away by
rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) so that his identity could not be
established, or his body could have been retrieved by his own men.
In a separate development, the Governor of Upper Nile State Police
Commissioner Colonel Paul Bol Reth Kuany and other senior military
officers were killed on Sunday September 5, 1993, when their Cessna
plane was hit by an SPLA rocket at Rubkona near Bentiu Oil-fields. The
others were Chairman of the Peace Committee Mr. Ahmad al-Radi Jabir,
Director General of Peace and Development Foundation Mr. Fadil Abu-
Gushaysa -- who was also responsible for rehabilitating areas recaptured
from the SPLA, Deputy Chief of Security Lt. Colonel Kamal Ali Mokhtar,
and Captain Musa Ali Suleiman of the Sudanese Embassy security section
in Nairobi, Kenya, Cameraman Hadi Mansur, and flight crew Captains
Muhammed Ahmed Khayr and Abdal-Salaam Mahjoub.
However, Khartoum's account of the story was that the plane was not
shot but crashed due to technical problems. The SPLA renown for its
accurate accounts, and generally do not exaggerate its military
successes in the war, is worth believing. In spite of the
contradictions, the incident occurred in a very dangerous "War Zone,"
where the SPLA recently reinforced its troops when it heard that the
government's militia was moving towards the area.
The Governor was believed to have been scheduled to meet the
dissident SPLA officers of the Nasir faction, now fighting side by side
with the government's troops against the SPLA mainstream led by its
founding father Col. John Garang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH SUDANESE DEMONSTRATIONS IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON MARKS A NEW
ACTIVIST STRATEGY
Southern Sudanese in the United States, like those living in
Europe, have become much more active in publicizing the plight facing
their people and nation.
On July 31, 1993, Southern Sudanese converged at the United Nations
headquarters in New York to protest against the UN's pervasive silence
and inaction in the Sudanese conflict.
___________________________________________________________________
Southern Sudanese are asking the UN to become directly involved in
peace negotiation between the SPLA and the Sudanese Government.
___________________________________________________________________
"Why act in Bosnia, Somalia, the Middle East, and not in Sudan" was the
question the demonstrators asked. The procession -- which attracted
sympathies from the African American and Jewish communities in New York
city -- shouted slogans deploring the Sudanese Islamic fundamentalist
government for engaging in ethnic cleansing in Nuba region and the
South, and the UN for acquiescence and inaction in the Sudanese
conflict. The protestors demanded that the UN become directly involved
in peace negotiations between the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA)
-- who represent the African ethnic groups -- and the Arab-Islamic
dominated government in the North.
Pressed by continuous tragedy at home, the Southern Sudanese could
no longer wait for official response from the international community.
They felt it necessary to demonstrate and protest against the seemingly
endless destruction of lives in Sudan. The activist mode emerged from
writing letters of appeal to churches, Non-Governmental organizations,
the United Nations, and the United States Government. And now it's time
to take to the streets. This approach marks a new activist strategy.
Eighteen days later (August 17, 1993), Mr. Manute Bol, the tallest
basketball player in the NBA history, led another picket demonstration
in Washington, D.C. This time the demonstrators urge the U.S. State
Department to use its influence to bear on the United Nations Security
Council to debate necessary measures to end the conflict in the Sudan.
In the letter handed to Mr. George Moose, the Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs, the demonstrators asked the State Department
to: strongly protest against the Sudanese government's recent air-
strikes in the South; impose economic sanctions and arms embargo;
station peace observers in South Sudanese cities of Juba, Wau, and
Malakal; establish and monitor demilitarized zones; pressure the SPLA to
re-unite; facilitate the flow of relief to the hungry; and, to include
the Sudan in the list of countries harboring international terrorism.
All the above, except the last one, hasn't been tried in the Sudan.
Meanwhile, the scenario has dramatically changed from the past mode
of acquiescence or resignation by many South Sudanese in exposing the
crisis at home, to that of confronting the problem. This is good news,
for no one could speak better than the victims. Although very few and
relatively young, the Southern Sudanese in the United States have often
been vocal in making their problems known.
The Sudanese conflict unfortunately is obscure and points of
conflict reached the outside world quite distorted by the successive
Arab-Islamic dominated regimes in Khartoum. All the foreign missions are
represented by the Arabs or their stooges, who often manipulate the root
causes of the conflict(s) in the Sudan. The international community has
been swayed to dismiss the Sudanese conflict as internal (political)
matter that do not need international intercession. In this way,
Khartoum has almost succeeded in winning over potential sympathizers of
the victims and in keeping the international support for conflict
resolution at bay.
In Washington, D.C. for instance, it is not uncommon to find
skeptics or the "do-nothing" individuals, who strongly hold the view
that the solution to the conflict in Sudan will be from God's
deliverance rather than pressing prominent people [hear on earth] to
act. We want prominent (powerful) people to act. Act by pushing the
truck to make the engine run. Once it starts running, then they could
praise God's deliverance through their hard push in settling the
Sudanese conflict.
The other alternative, which should not be underestimated though
seemingly undesirable, is to balance the power of the warring parties by
supporting the freedom fighters (SPLA) to achieve these objectives
through continuous struggle. It may be diametrically opposed to one's
own morality, but you could also understand the predicament we are in.
Khartoum receives powerful weapons from Iran, Iraq, Libya, and China to
perpetuate the atrocities. Is that not morally evil enough than what we
ask just to achieve the end, which is peace? This has been the obvious
means attempted all along but in insufficient power proportion compared
to that of Khartoum. Also, balancing of power is cheaper than foreign
intervention. There would be no Pakistani or American troops killed in
South Sudan thus avoiding the international outcry experienced in
Somalia today. Hence, giving the South the muscle it needs to push the
truck by itself should not be discounted as the viable solution to peace
in that country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYMPOSIUM HIGHLIGHTED SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE IN SUDAN
by Augustine A. Lado, PhD.,
Sudan Newsletter Staff Writer
Pax Sudani Network, a charitable organization committed to the
rights and liberties of the African Sudanese people, conducted its first
annual Symposium on Slavery and Genocide in Sudan on August 28, 1993
with the auspices of the African American Cultural Center, at Cleveland
State University, Cleveland, Ohio.
The aim of the Symposium was to sensitize the American people so
that they become aware of the Sudanese situation and involve in urging
their Churches, organizations, the U.S. Government, the U.N. and other
international organizations to get involved directly in peace process in
the Sudanese conflict. The Symposium highlighted important issues, whom
the panelists and the key-note speaker articulated clearly the
horrendous human rights violations in Sudan, conditions that maintain or
breed genocide and slavery, and so forth.
Our key-note speaker was Mr. George Lister, Senior Policy Advisor
on Human Rights in the U.S. States Department. The panelists were: Dr.
Victor Wells of the Afri'Caribbean Society in Denver, Colorado; Dr.
George B.N. Ayittey of American University in Washington, D.C.; Ms.
Betty A. Hinds of Pax Sudani Network; Mr. Abannik Hino of Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Mrs. Jane M. Muni of
Patterson, New Jersey; Mr. Elias Nyamlell Wakoson from Dallas, Texas,
and Dr. B. Yongo-Bure of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
"Frankly, I am abhorred to stand here in 1993 proclaiming myself to be
an abolitionist. I am horrified; I thought . . . that my great
grandparents had to deal with that," said the indignant Dr. Victor
Wells, who's the President/founder of Afri'Caribbean Society, a Colorado
based non-profit organization committed to building cultural bridges
among Africans in the diaspora. "Until all men (sic) are free, nobody is
free," he said. Dr. Wells was one of the panelists who was grateful to
participate in a symposium on slavery and genocide perpetrated against
the indigenous African peoples in South Sudan and the Nuba Mountains by
the successive Arab-Islamic governments in Sudan.
--------------------------
More people have died in Sudan alone than in Somalia, Ethiopia, and
Bosnia combined, and thousands more have been enslaved -- Betty Hinds.
------------------------
Betty Hinds addressed the scale and intensity of slavery and
genocide in Sudan. She pointed out that slavery and genocide have often
gone together; slavery implies genocide although genocide does not
always imply slavery. She argued that the statistics which indicates
that for every one person enslaved over ten are murdered in the process
is conservative in the context of the Sudan. She expressed outrage at
the U.S. government and the media for being oblivious to the enslavement
and genocide of Africans in Sudan. Africans are being used as economic
merchandise; women are subjected to gang rapes and sexual mutilation;
boys (ages 10-13) are being used as a human shield, and are forced to
mount attacks on their people, she said. All these and many other
atrocities and genocidal program of extermination are being waged by the
Arab Islamic fundamentalist government of Sudan, and the U.S. populace,
especially the African American populace, watches on in dead silence.
Citing various international organizations, books, journals and
magazines, she noted that "more people have died in Sudan alone than in
Somalia, Ethiopia and Bosnia combined and thousands have been enslaved."
Yet the United Nations, the U.S. government, the media, and the African
American community remain unmoved. She dispelled several myths
surrounding the enslavement of Africans (such as the myth that Africans
enslaved Africans, and that Arab slavery of Africans was benevolent),
propagated by Afro-Arab scholars, like Professor Ali Mazrui. She
appealed to the African American community in particular and the
American public in general to speak out zealously and resurrect the
anti-slavery movement that was spearheaded by Frederick Douglas in order
to stamp out this cancerous and abominable system.
Mrs. Jane M. Muni, a South Sudanese herself, gave a gripping
testimony on the impact of Arab slavery on the African Woman and Child.
She recounted how several Arab soldiers stormed into her neighbor's
compound, set the village ablaze, gruesomely shot her neighbor,
Tokosang, in cold blood and kidnapped her (neighbor's) children. She
reported the case of Ms. Bothaina Doka, a southern Sudanese nurse at
Khartoum Civil Hospital and a part-time employee of the Chevron Oil
Company who, having been accused of being a supporter of the Sudan
People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), was tortured by Arab women who
gagged her with brassiere, strung her hands and feet with her arms
pulled behind her back, and continuously abused and beat her all day.
Mrs Muni also testified about African children who escaped to a police
station at Muglad, South Sudan; their limbs were disfigured by their
owners to prevent them from fleeing.
Mrs. Muni's testimony underlined the vulnerability of African women
and children to enslavement by the Arabs in Sudan. "Because women are
not [often] armed, they have been left in the villages, powerless and
vulnerable to rape, murder and capture by northern [Sudanese] soldiers
who load them into army vehicles and transport them to the north where
they are bought and sold into slavery," she said.
Abannik Hino presented a historical background to the enslavement
of Africans in Sudan. He said, Southern Sudan is one of the regions in
Africa in which the institution of slavery did not exist prior to Arab
invasion of the Sudan. He cited estimates of between 20,000 and 30,000
African Sudanese a year shipped across the Red Sea (to the Arab World)
and sold into slavery. Additionally, within the borders of Sudan, up to
a quarter of the population in the Arab north was comprised of slaves
from the African South, he said. As a result, many African societies
were severely depopulated and some were even threatened with extinction.
Under the Arab and British colonial rule in Sudan, trade in slaves and
ivory was a state monopoly; prominent officers were heavily involved in
the trafficking of slaves from the south to the north. The Mahdist
government imposed state monopoly of trade partly to discourage the
emergence of an Arab merchant class (which would pose a threat to the
Mahdi's power base) and partly to obtain large numbers of slave armies.
During the [Anglo-Egyptian] Condominium rule, colonial administration in
Sudan (1899 - 1955), the British camouflaged slavery under the pretext
that abolishing slavery would undermine the existing economy.
Dr. B. Yongo-Bure argued that the British colonial administration
created an economic structure which supported the continued enslavement
of African Sudanese. Economic development schemes were concentrated
within the central region of the country which led to the building of
particular groups of people (mainly of Arab ethnicities). An elite class
emerged from these enslaving groups who considered themselves to be
socially and culturally superior to those from the peripheral regions
who were laborers. Education was virtually non-existent in South Sudan.
As late as 1958, for instance, there was no secondary education in the
region. Thus, far from ending slavery in Sudan, the British government
contributed to the ongoing enslavement of the African Sudanese by
creating a system of economic dependence of the African south on the
Arab north. Since independence, the economic and social inequalities
between the north and south have widened tremendously. The successive
Arab governments in the north have extended the British colonial
policies of underdevelopment of the south. Moreover, they have committed
to a program of de-Africanization through forced Arabization and
Islamization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and
southern Blue Nile regions.
Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and
Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed in the Sudan, said
Elias N. Wakoson. In 1955, a group of Southern Sudanese revolted
against the system. This gave rise to a protracted liberation movement
for African Sudanese, which was punctuated by a brief period (1972-1982)
of truce. Mr. Wakoson pointed out that the ongoing genocide and
enslavement of the African Sudanese reflects the drive by the regime of
Omer Hassan el Bashir to Islamize and Arabize the entire country.
Dr. George Ayittey castigated African leaders for flagrant
violation of fundamental human rights. He noted that while slavery
rages in Sudan and Mauritania, the Organization of African Unity has
remained mute on the issue. "We, in Africa are angry," he stressed. "We
feel betrayed, not only by our leaders in Africa, but also by our fellow
Africans in the diaspora. While African American leaders have played an
important role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa, they have
maintained a passive stance on the Arab apartheid and enslavement of
black Africans." Dr. Ayitteh demanded that the Congressional Black
Caucus should undertake a fact finding mission in Sudan and render a
comprehensive report on the slavery and human rights violations and
present findings to the U.S. Congress. So that perpetrators of these
heinous atrocities must be brought to justice.
Mr. George Lister discussed the United States policy on Human
Rights. He recognized that human rights for the civilian population are
far more important than U.S. relationship with a foreign government,
dictatorship or democratic. He acknowledged that there is relatively
very little interest in Black Africa in the international media. This
is compounded by the reluctance by some people to criticize oppression
of black people by African governments. "You must apply the same human
rights standards to everyone," he said.
The symposium generated intense discussions among the audience and
has created an awareness on the issue of slavery and genocide in Sudan.
Pax Sudani Network is currently planning for another forum at Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio before the end of this year. For more
information, please contact the Pax Sudani Network Head Office at (216)
687-4731; or write to: P. O. Box 15118, Cleveland, Ohio (U.S.A.) 44115-
0118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C O M M E N T A R Y
by David Nailo N. Mayo
A grey-haired man, about five feet eight inches, heavy set, and
seemingly in his late fifties was descending the stairs of the huge
University Center building at Cleveland State University. He was
accompanied by more than half a dozen young men, most of them dressed
like the Mullahs of Iran. This was Sheikh Al-Haj Daud Abdul Malik, a
black American who leads the Universal Islamic Brotherhood (UIB)
organization in Cleveland, Ohio. This organization has closed links
with the Sudanese National Islamic Front (NIF), the ruling party in the
Sudan. Sheikh Malik had apparently learned of a well publicized
Symposium about "Slavery and Genocide" in Sudan, and brough his
followers to come and protest against the Symposium. He publicly denied
the existence of slavery and genocide in Sudan.
Sheikh Malik and his group frequently travel to Khartoum. In the
recent past, the UIB sheikhs and Imams had been invited by the NIF. They
were accommodated for weeks in a lavish Hilton Hotel in Khartoum at the
government's expense. They were taken for tours everywhere the Islamic
fundamentalists wanted them to go and saw what they wanted them to see,
and told what they wanted them to hear. They were specifically told
that the rebellion in the South was anti-Islam. One of the sheikhs,
however, admitted seeing desperate situations in the camps of the
displaced people around Khartoum, but they were also told [by Islamic
fundamentalists] that the government had benevolently saved those people
[in the camps] from being butchered by John Garang, the leader of the
freedom fighters [Sudan People's Liberation Movement] in the South.
The UIB leaders came back to Cleveland apparently convinced that
the Islamic fundamentalist system in the Sudan was working perfectly,
and it was the Sudanese rebellion that obstructed the attainment of its
"pure" Islamic state. Meanwhile, the Universal Islamic Brotherhood
granted many scholarships to African-American youths in Cleveland, Ohio,
to go and study in Khartoum -- surprisingly the new international center
of Islamic fundamentalist jurisprudence.
The African Americans had embrace Islam in 1960s because many saw
Islam as a liberating theology, as opposed to the Christian faith which
has been associated with white domination and racism. But now radical
[political] Islam from Sudan, which many black Muslims in 1960s didn't
know, may counter the very tenets of liberation so far achieved
hitherto. The young African Americans trained in Khartoum come back
with diametrically hostile attitudes generally opposed to the American
ways and modalities of separation of church and state. Consequently,
these could lead to frustrating lifestyles and anguish for radical
Islamic militancy. This was already demonstrated in the Symposium.
When time for questions was allowed, the UIB sheikhs and imams
castigated panelists, accusing them of being agents of the imperialist
West. They distributed their literature which overwhelmingly blamed
what they called "United States Imperialism" against Sudan. Many
behaved in disorderly ways and their behavior, fortunately, helped many
in the audience to understand clearly the Sudanese situation.
The UIB members rejected the avalanche of literature compiled
either by the U.S. State Department or by Non-Governmental relief
organizations (NGOs) working in the Sudan. They also refused to listen
to the explanations by Sudanese themselves who are victims of the system
in Khartoum. Instead, the UIB members accused the Sudanese for
propagating "erroneous information, contrived/fabricated facts ... to
gain sympathy to unjust cause" (sentence as received). The UIB had the
guts to prescribe for us, the Sudanese, how we should live in our own
country, what laws and religions we should obey and adhere to, and what
to say. It was also shocking to hear Malik's group charging us of being
agents of imperialism. Imperialize whom? Our native land that has been
imperialized by Arab-Islamic and European incursions against the wishes
of our ancestral spirits?
Their blunt rhetoric supporting the outrageous human rights
violations committed by their coterie in Khartoum is reflected in their
literature. They claimed that the Sudanese Islamic fundamentalist
regime, led by Lt. General Omer Hassan al-Beshir, has a clean human
rights record, except of Western imperialists who have branded it the
worst violator of human rights. "Do you believe the CIA's and State
Department's reports?" questioned one of the fanatics. "Don't you know
that those are tools of imperialist operations?", another questioned a
panelist. However, we don't need these institutions to tell us about our
suffering; we know it so well.
Most Africans in Diaspora are bitter about slavery because of the
nature of dehumanization that generations had to undergo. Unfortunately,
the UIB members are blurred by Islamic faith to think otherwise. They
seemed unaware of the Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence nor are they
aware of the Sudanese history and politics. They therefore wandered in
limbo of sheer rhetoric and confusion. Generally, when one has a point
to make, the point should be backed up by honest and clear evidence,
rather than totally denying the existence of terrible situation in
Sudan.
Furthermore, the Sudanese rebellion is not about the conflict of
religions -- Islamic faith vs Christianity and African traditional
beliefs -- though religion has been utilized as a justification. Rather
it is a combination of factors: the racial factor, the need for fair
distribution of power and socio-economic resources, the need to separate
[Islamic] religion from the state, and the need to have a secular
constitution with sources of legislation derived from secular norms.
Here, Islam, as a religion, is an irrelevant factor. Instead,
"Islamism", the use of Islamic faith as an "ideology" to maintain
economic and social privileges, is a new but critical phenomenon
emerging during the devolution of power from colonialists to the local
elites. And certainly we contend against the use of religion to
legitimate injustices in society.
____________________________________
In the Sudan today, the Muslims are equally intimidated, tortured,
killed, and forced to flee the country like any non-Muslim.
____________________________________
The racial element between the Arab and the African ethnic groups
should not be discounted either. Becoming a Muslim in Sudan does not
automatically entitle one to socio-economic privileges. One has got to
be an Arab too! For instance, almost all the tribes in Darfur, the
Hadendawa of the Red Sea Coast, the Beja, the Nuba and Ingessena of
Central Sudan profess the Islamic faith. But they are much more
marginalized and abandoned than the peoples of Christian South simply
because they are non-Arabic. In the Sudan today, the Muslims are
equally intimidated, tortured, killed or forced to flee the country as
are other non-Muslims. The Nuba people, for instance, suffer what Hugo
D'Auburry, a French film maker, called "ethnic clearing" even though the
majority profess Islam. Again Islamic religion is irrelevant as Muslims
are not spared from persecution. Is Sheikh Malik aware of these facts?
Sheikh Malik seems unable to discern between the true values of
Islamic faith and piety from militant Islamic politics.. His occasional
visits to Khartoum have not helped him to distinguish the difference.
Certainly, he must not be aware that those people who hosted him in the
Hilton were in fact the grandsons of the slave owning lords who
plundered the Upper Nile tribes to seize slaves during the previous
century. The term "abid" (slave) is common in Sudan to refer to a
person of African origin (non-Arab). If Sheikh Malik can be used for
the "let a slave fight a slave" tactic, that certainly works well for
the master, whom he came to protect at the Symposium.
Nevertheless, there were many other African Americans who cautioned
the UIB not to underestimate the Sudanese leaders who, in appearance are
brown and similar with African Americans but strongly identify
themselves as "Arabs." For instance, Dr. Wells of the Africaribbean
organization in Denver, Colorado, told the audience that "there's no
doubt that Mauritania and Sudan have poor record of racial relation, nor
can we question the existence of slavery. But the question is whether
we have the interest to become a part of the solution instead of denying
it." "We are from Africa" began Dr. Ayitteh, a Ghanaian professor at
Washington University, in Washington, D.C. "and we tell you (Americans)
about what's happening in Africa and you don't believe us?" he asked
furiously. "If you don't believe us," he continued amids applause from
the crowd, "I want this Conference today to request the Congressional
Black Caucus to send a fact finding mission to Sudan, and bring the
facts."
However, the UIB should distance itself from militant Islamic
organizations such as the NIF in Sudan, and find [true] Islamic
organizations -- that preaches spiritual piety, humbleness, and respect
for lives and properties -- that it could co-operate with. In this way
it could enhance and promote long term support from other Muslims and
non-Muslim alike. I pity sheikh Malik's blind faith of the Sudanese
political system and those who wield [political] power there. And
personally, I grieve when our own brothers and sisters (African
Americans), whom slavery had deprived us of, stripping them of African
traditional beliefs and names now become our adversaries in favor of
Arab ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAM AKOL IN FASHODA;
_What was a guerilla commander doing in government controlled town?_
by James P. Morgan,
Sudan Newsletter Staff Writer
On August 4, 1993, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, was in Fashoda -- a few
kilometers outside Malakal town -- ostensibly to attend the coronation
of a Shilluk Reth (tribal king). Akol, the number two man in the
breakaway faction of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), was
supposedly invited by the Shilluk leader. The latter had also extended
the same invitation to the Governor of the Upper Nile State, Police
Commissioner Colonel Kuany.
That meeting left a shock lingering in the minds of many: How could
a rebel officer be invited and sit together with a governor at the same
table [inside the country] without being arrested or possibly executed
for high treason? How could the sovereign shirk responsibility of
punishing those who rebelled against it?
Although the international community was not aware of the existence
of a demilitarized zone in Upper Nile, sources closer to Lam Akol's
Nasir groupings confirmed that this region had been "secretly"
demilitarized since early this year when the Khartoum government and the
Nasir faction agreed not to attack each other. That seems to explain
why the Nasir groupings haven't engaged the government troops since the
Malakal incident last year. But what was the deal in the Fashoda
meeting, and who paid the price? The split in the SPLA ranks in 1991 was
good news to the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Khartoum. Hitherto,
it worked hard to maintain the cleavages between the SPLA main wing, led
by its founder, Col. John Garang, and the breakaway groups, now
regrouped as the SPLA-United. But witnessed by the actions of its
senior members, the goals remain those of the Nasir faction and Khartoum
government. It is no longer a hidden connection that the SPLA-United
receives official aid from Khartoum in terms of military hardware,
money, and relief food, despite preponderant reluctance by many members
in that organization to associate with Khartoum. But those who are of
this view, although the majority, are powerless and may not be the
architects of the splits.
Sources in the inner circles of the SPLA-United are disappointed in
that they did not anticipate receiving aid from Khartoum when they
formed this group last Spring. The original plan of the SPLA-United was
to utilized the former commanders --Kerubino Kwanyin Bol, Arok Thon
Arok, and William Nyuon Bany -- to pull out the fighting men under Col.
Garang, to come to their side. As many officers would defect, the
argument goes, Col. Garang would eventually be left without a fighting
force and that will be his end and the SPLA-United will prevail. This
was supposed to be done peacefully. Unfortunately, split is never
peaceful. Many Dinka and Nuer villages had to be raised to the ground.
The old and the young had to suffer in cold blood; and all these were a
consequence of politically incorrect thinking by some renegade officers
who wanted things their own way.
Moreover, the SPLA-United either by miscalculation or bounded
rationality, did not anticipate that the fighting men under Col. Garang,
were not susceptible to cheap manipulations. Riak Machar/Lam Akol
leadership was viewed from outside as the Nasir faction now
metamorphosing into SPLA-United without changing its spots. And at the
same time, Khartoum didn't want to lose the opportunity of promoting the
SPLA split. Al-Hajj Mohammed, the government's peace negotiator,
carries a briefcase laden with dollars which he can dish lavishly to the
Southern Sudanese leaders whenever he meets them. Therefore, it was not
a coincidence that Lam Akol went to Fashoda to meet the State Governor
and get his paycheck (cheque).
Lam Akol was leading a high level delegation to a conference that
gave birth to what became the "Fashoda Peace Agreement." The treaty
also created a committee of 20 to oversee this peace pact. Since then,
this committee met regularly in Fashoda until September 5, 1993, when
the distabilizers met their fate at Rubkona. The Fashoda Peace
Agreement was well covered by the Sudanese media which totally omitted
the 100,000 people fleeing to Uganda that same week as the result of
government's air-strikes in Kaya district. Was this really the scenario
of peace Khartoum talks about? At least the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) was honest enough to mention both sides of the
equation: peace in Malakal and death in Kaya.
Col. John Garang, like many South Sudanese who are
unadulterated by the politics of subversion, strongly opposed the
Fashoda meeting as a "sell-out" of the wishes of our Southern Sudanese
people. The secret deals were seen as a loss of leverage to bargain for
greater autonomy for the South. Whereas Lam Akol humbly receives what
he could be given, he probably doesn't care what history is recording.
The Fashoda treaty is an epithet of "divide and conquer"; appease Lam
Akol and destroy Col. Garang. Later when the major foe is eliminated,
the minor one will be rid of too, after all both had rebelled initially.
Akol, described by one relief worker as "vicious" and
"unpredictable", plays a delicate game. Since he broke the Movement in
1991, he has been accused of ill intentions and for collaboration with
Khartoum Islamic fundamentalists. His former colleagues who pulled out
from SPLA-United last Spring, also accused him of destructive and anti-
pluralistic policies. What sort of kingdom could such a vindictive and
ambitious person build?
In defence of the Fashoda Peace Agreement, Akol was quoted as
arguing that "...peace does not have to come from Abuja, we can create
peace from inside the Sudan." That's good logic, but ridiculous common
sense! Khartoum's program is broad. It includes the destruction of the
African ethnic peoples and their cultures, religions, and so forth. The
Fashoda agreement -- which was reached through Khartoum's usual
administrative procedures and not witnessed by any foreign or neutral
body -- was a facade and mockery of the peoples struggle. It did not
protect the African ethnic groups in any way nor does it guarantees that
the Islamic fundamentalist government will honor its promises the next
day.
In spite of abundant evidence to the contrary, members of the
Nasir group seek legitimacy as the guerilla force which still fights the
Khartoum government, ostensibly, using arms the government airdrops in
Upper Nile districts. Moreover, the government recently announced the
absorption of the SPLA-United into its militia and no rebuttal was given
by the Nasir faction. How would the group refute that? According to the
philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, "some circumstantial evidence is very
strong, such as when you find a trout (fish) in your milk." Similarly,
without internationally acknowledged and announced amnesty to
combatants, a rebel commander could not meet with a government official
inside the country without serious repercussions. There is very strong
evidence for political mischief and treachery in which disguise of any
kind won't blur ordinary observers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUDAN LAMENTS INCLUSION IN THE TERRORIST CLUB
The Sudanese Islamic fundamentalist government, led by Lt. General
Omer Hassan al-Beshir, has lamented its inclusion in the list of nations
sponsoring international terrorism. It believes the U.S. State
Department made an error in its decision.
On August 15, 1993, the U.S. Secretary of State, Warren
Christopher, signed a document classifying the Sudanese military
government as harboring renown terrorist groups, which were believed to
be given offices and training ground inside the Sudan, as well as
travelling documents. The State Department had warned the Sudanese
military government, which had seized power in a June 1989 coup, about
its association with states that harbor terrorists. Last year the State
Department threatened to include Sudan in the list of nations harboring
terrorism if it did not close the offices of the suspected groups in
Khartoum. Washington believed that its warnings and threats went
unheeded by Khartoum, which maintain strong ties with Iraq and Iran.
The Iranian presence in the Red Sea Coast complicated matters even
in the Sudanese civil war. Iran provides military aid and other
necessary support to the Sudanese government so that it could fight the
rebellion in the country as well as to promote Iranian interests in the
region. Meanwhile, Egypt and Saudi Arabia believe Iran has crossed over
its turf, and charge the Mullahs for seeking trouble in the region. The
Egyptians and the Saudis fear that the Mullahs could train extremists in
Sudan which then could be sent to destabilize their governments.
The Khartoum government has denied that it harbors terrorists nor
has been involved in such activity. However, the bombing of the World
Trade Center, and the FBI arrests of eight men, five of which were
Sudanese extremists, suspected of plotting to blow up strategic sites in
New York city, certainly was a prima facie evidence that the State
Department wanted to back up its suspicion about the Sudanese government
involvement.
The Sudanese government reaction, when it was told about its
inclusion in the list of nations harboring international terrorism, was
that of lamentations, pleas, fear, and sometimes threats to the United
States government officials. The fear in Khartoum is that the U.S.
might take hostile action similar to that taken against Libya in 1986.
Sudanese officials tell [rallies] and the government's sympathizers,
that the main reason the Sudan has been included in the terrorist camp
was because of its "Islamic orientation." "The United States is anti-
Islam" Dr. Abu-Salih, the Sudanese foreign minister told the press in
London recently. "The U.S. has no evidence to substantiate its claims,
and we believe the State Department made an error" in including the
Sudan in the list of nations sponsoring terrorism.
Whereas it is plausible to hide under the umbrella of religion,
Sudan realized that would not salvage it in any way. Now the focus has
been shifted to aggressive diplomacy. Since the middle of August,
Sudanese government officials made several international trips, press
releases, and mobilized people to demonstrate in Khartoum against the
United State's action. In September, the Sudanese foreign minister, Dr.
Salih, made a trip to Egypt to meet President Hosni Mubarak. Salih asked
Mr. Mubarak to use Egypt's amicable relations with the United States to
have Sudan scrapped out of the list of terrorist nations. Khartoum also
believes that Mubarak's recent trip to Washington to request the U.S.
for help to fight the Egyptian Islamic militants, has direct connection
with the State Department decision to include Sudan in the terrorist
camp. Nevertheless, Egypt's response was to reiterate its charges that
the Sudan trains the Islamic militants now besieging its cities.
Dr. Salih's visit, although fruitless, nonetheless, suggested that
Sudan regretted being included in the terrorist camp which makes us
wonder what action, if any, the Sudan has taken. If the suspected
terrorist groups were in fact present in Sudan, has the Sudan taken any
action against the suspects? Are the alleged offices and training camps
closed? For it cannot engage in aggressive diplomacy nor laments about
the U.S. decision when the suspected individuals are still in the
country. That would be counter productive diplomacy.
Meanwhile, Khartoum has told the United Nations and other world
leaders that the United States made an error in including the Sudan in
the terrorist camp. This point, unfortunately, was echoed by the former
American President Mr. Jimmy Carter, who suggested that the U.S. should
not have acted so quickly to include the Sudan in the terrorist list.
Carter's remark almost debacled the State Department decision because,
it raised doubts as to whether the decision was premature or not. But
his remark could also circumvent his own initiatives in attempts to
bring peace in the Horn of Africa. For instance, he had personally
mediated between the current Sudanese government and the freedom
fighters (SPLA) from the South by the end of 1989. But, like other
respectable leaders who had volunteered to mediate, he too failed to
bring peace in Sudan. Carter's remark was not well received by the
Sudanese -- northerners and southerners alike -- living in the United
States. Many thought it was just one instance of American double
standards.
The majority of Sudanese living in exile want the Islamists out,
they want peace to come to their country so that they can go home.
Unfortunately, they do not agree on how change could come in Sudan.
South Sudanese, because they are the most affected group in the eleven
years of civil war, are unanimously calling for international
intervention. They believe that any action that is directed against
Khartoum military junta, as specified in the U.S. House Resolution 131,
would result in peaceful settlement of the conflict. Northern Sudanese
disagree. They think international intervention will change the rules
of governance permanently, which in their opinion is bad, for they could
lose their grip of dominating power in the Sudan. But they are equally
threatened by the Islamic fundamentalists and therefore their chances of
going back are remote, as are the possibilities of resuscitating the
traditional sectarian parties (Umma and DUP), which are now banned in
Sudan.
Meanwhile, enforcing the crime of terrorism has been rather slow
and may be complicated on the side of the United States government. One
such complexity is the decision to reduce the American Embassy staff in
Khartoum. To the Sudanese government, that's good news, for fewer
Americans in Sudan means a more free-breathing atmosphere. The Sudan has
been suspicious of the U.S. role in the region, and recently the
American forces stopped and searched a Sudanese ship destined for
Somalia -- which was believed to be carrying arms for the Somali
warlord, General Farrah Aidid. That search sent different messages to
Khartoum.
Similarly, if many Western Embassies in Khartoum were to withdraw
their staff in order to isolate the Sudan, the Iranians would take over
and the extremist ideology of the Iranian Revolution could be implanted
among the Sudanese youths and it could be difficult to re-socialize them
in future. So, isolation would be in Sudan's interest, but if the
United Nations, the U.S., and other Western nations want to bring about
change in Sudan, other forms of diplomacy must be pursued, including
support of South Sudan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E D I T O R I A L
GORE CREATES PATRIOTIC FRONT
Quite attractive ideas, but can he sell them?
In early October 1993, a veteran SPLA commander, Alfred Lado Gore,
created another front the Patriotic Resistance Movement of South Sudan
(PRMSS). Commander Gore was one of Col. Garang's trusted commanders
before he fell out with him last year 1992, and joined Riak Machar's
Nasir faction (SPLA-United). Gore fell out with Machar too, when he
pulled out six other senior SPLA officers -- including his deputy now,
Professor Wanji -- last Spring 1993. In his press statement, Gore told
the BBC that the unity of the South was so elusive, and strongly accused
Machar and Akol for being so divisive and tribalistic.
Observers wondered what commander Gore was going to do next. Now he
has created a new Front with the objectives that the PRMSS will: fight
for the independence of south Sudan; stop inter-tribal fighting within
the SPLA; and to seek for peace within the laid plan of action already
made known to the African leaders.
Gore's goals are commendable, compelling, and very appealing.
Unfortunately he has waited too long to sell his ideas to the South
Sudanese people. Had he acted in 1992, for instance, he would have
pulled to his side the late uncle Oduho, which would have been his
pivot, and other commanders like Kerubino Kwanyin Bol, Arok Thon Arok,
William Nyuon, Dhol Acuil, and the late Galerio Modi Hurunyang. Assuming
these commanders were going to respect Gore's leadership, both Col.
Garang and Riak Machar power bases would have been reduced drastically,
in which attempts to reunify the Movement would have been easier to
achieve than when two people are players.
At the moment when the world is pressing for SPLA REUNION, it is
rather vexing for Gore and the PRMSS to try to lobby for new drastic
changes. Another major problem is, he is in Nairobi not in South Sudan,
he has no army to command nor possess territory. He may be capitalizing
on the pledges of fluid politics in Nairobi, but is it feasible in the
field? He may think of bargaining with Col. Garang for a turf in
Equatoria province in order to reach the fighting men under Garang, is
that a possibility? If he doesn't get what he wants peacefully, would
he use an AK47 as a lobbying tool?. As no political change is ever
peaceful, it would not be pleasant for the South to see more factional
fighting. The people want peace; the sons and daughters of the South
must unite to obtain it. Our unity is our power that could enable us to
achieve our liberation, and good ideas such as advocated by PRMSS could
be tested in future by a ballot when we have already liberated our
motherland from the major evil. It seems commander Gore would be much
better off joining his old friend, Col. John Garang, put more new blood
into the Movement, and mobilize the people. In fact, it is unhealthy
politicking whenever there is a dispute, people end up trying to create
new front(s). The society starts to get divided, as people take sides,
and we argue endlessly. Here we start to vilify others, torture some,
kill some, and everything becomes brutish and nasty. Southlanders this
mode of thinking is very destructive, we will never achieve what we want
no matter the length of a protracted struggle. United We Stand, Divided
We Fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: _Sudan_: a newsletter committed to the rights and liberties
of African Sudanese people, III(3): 11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar