Dr. John Garang, the SPLM and the Question of Unity: A Rebuttal to Mr.
Elhag Paul
By: Deng Atem Dekuek, Geologist, AUSTRALIA
OCT. 13/2011, SSN; In the course of human affairs it is a rarity to
come across obtuse slanderous remarks from a seemingly learned man of
reason. I unequivocally, have no problems whatsoever with a person or
people expressing their opinion, however what is outrageous, absurd
and warrants universal condemnation is distortion and manufacturing of
facts to malign a particular person and or community or communities.
Even worse universally, speaking ill of the dead is an abhorrent and a
tasteless culture, which is unfortunately condoned, encouraged and has
taken root in South Sudan.
In a distasteful disregard for cultural etiquettes, journalistic
professionalism and standards, The Sudan Tribune on the 29th of
September 2011 published an opinion piece, which was, blatantly aimed
at assassinating the character of the late Dr. John Garang. In a
rumbling monologue of vengeful, distorted and sugar-coated facts and
unsubstantiated allegations, Mr. Elhag Paul accused the late Dr.
Garang, his widow Madam Nyandeng, his family, his people the Dinka,
the People’s Movement, the SPLM and by that extension a significant
proportion of South Sudanese of being hypocritical. Mr. Paul’s long
allegations can be summarised as follows:
“Dr. Garang does not deserve to be called the father of South Sudan
nation, because he always was an advocate for a united Sudan. I know
this because he said so in ‘John Garang Speakers’. Madame Nyandeng,
his family, his people, the SPLM/A and anyone else who claims
otherwise and mentions him as a hero and the champion of South
Sudanese independence is a liar because Dr. Garang always advocated
for a democratic united secular Sudan. I know this because he wrote
about it in John Garang Speaks. He was dead set on unity because he
killed all those who advocated for separation like Mr. Samuel Gai Tut
and Mr. Akot Atem Mayen because they were separatist. I know this
because Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba wrote about it. Living in Sudan as a
communist during Nimeiri’s terror was better than living in the
liberated areas because Claire Short spoke about it in the British
Parliament.”
He further insinuated that the President of the Republic, a Lieutenant
General and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army whom he reduced to a
rank of a “Sergeant Kiir” was a murderous dog at the disposal of the
late Dr. Garang - “Garang’s Rottweiler.” He went on to question
national fidelity of Dr. Benjamin the Minister of Information and
hinted that he was serving his tribe and not the nation. Such utter
disrespect for the office (I am not saying the individuals but the
office) of the President is astonishing. Having said that, I would
like to point out and correct some historical fabrications,
misconceptions and outright lies in Mr. Paul’s article. I am not going
to write in defence of the President or the Honourable Minister but in
that of the defenceless Dr. Garang and the People’s Movement, the
SPLM.
It appears that Mr. Paul either has selective amnesia or does not want
to acknowledge the fact that Dr. Garang was not a village idiot but a
cunning political and military tactician who was a master of political
games, trickery and theatre. I am wondering whether Mr. Paul knows or
has considered the possibility that perhaps Dr. Garang was employing
Machiavellian intelligence in his unwavering advocacy of a democratic
united secular Sudan to achieve unknown agenda, which has eventuated
and has become apparent to some who do not think and see things in
plain black and white.
Mr. Paul’s revisionism and negation of history is disturbing.
Distorting the writings of the esteemed Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba is
alarming. I do not dispute the facts following the death of Mr. Samuel
Gai Tut but I find it preposterous and completely reject in its
entirety the insinuation that his death was personally sanction by Dr.
Garang or SPLM/A because he was an advocate for South Sudan
separation. This is a manufactured perception of raved faculties.
It was and still is a common knowledge among the rank and file of the
People’s Army that in the early days of the People’s Movement in 80s,
Anyanya 2, of Commander Gordon Koang Chuol, Mr. Tut and Mr. Mayen was
hostile to SPLA/M and its leadership had ignored repeated warnings
from SPLA/M to cease attacks on their recruits. It is highly probable
and highly likely that as a consequent Mr. Tut was killed in one of
these confrontations with the SPLA as a result of SPLA/M feeling its
warnings were not being heeded.
Following Mr. Tut’s death nobody knows why Commander Kerubino Kuanyin
Bol did what he did notwithstanding the fact that he was a maverick
with occasionally deranged tendencies. Whether it was to punish Mr.
Tut or whether it was a form of psychological warfare to demoralise
Anyanya 2, nobody can answer that except Commander Kerubino but to
present mere speculations, fantasies and distortions as facts is
unscrupulous. This has been the fundamental foundation of Mr. Paul’s
argument that those Southerners who were killed were meted the fate of
death because they were separatist or that they were imprisoned
because they advocated such ideas.
In addition, a sensationalist claim that living in the Sudan as a
communist during Nimeiri’s tyranny was of an equal measure to living
in the liberated areas is a personal insult to any of the people who
lived in Nasir, Kapoeta, Boma and other liberated areas. Although I
was a young boy, I never heard then or know of anyone among all those
who were executed by firing squads, anyone and I repeat anyone who was
executed for being an exponent of an independent Southern Sudan.
Perhaps the most telling and remarkable were the slanderous claims
that self-determination was an alien concept to Dr. Garang and the
SPLM until 1991 when Nasir plotters forced it upon them. This clearly
shows that the author is lacking in capacity and his superficial and
crammed understanding of South Sudan’s history is illusionary. Thirty
years before the landmark Declaration of Principles of 1994, there
existed a political party called the Southern Front, which was formed
inside Sudan after what was known as the October Revolution of 1964
that toppled military rule of Abud. Late Uncle Clement Umboro led it
and the objective of that southern party was SELF DETERMINTION while
SANU the other southern party was aiming at FEDERAL SYSTEM in Sudan,
led by late William Deng Nhial and late Joseph Oduho. Southerners in
the Round Table Conference of March 1965 presented those two
positions, and referendum for Southerners for self-determination was
proposed in that Conference. Hence self-determination was never a new
notion to Dr. Garang or the SPLM/A to be said to have been invented by
Nasir splitters. This is a historical crime to distort facts known to
all.
The 1991 failed opportunists, chief among them Dr. Lam Akol who hasn’t
learned from history, can attest that the 24th of March 1986 Koka Dam
Declaration signed by then a Lt. Col Kerubino Kuanyin Bol were a
culmination of negotiations spanning 1985 to 1986 where SPLA/M was
represented by Commander Kerubino and Commander Arok Thon Arok. At the
conference self-determination was discussed and this desire for
self-determination was clearly demonstrate in the context of Article
2(d) which called for the “adoption of the 1956 Constitution as
amended in 1964 with incorporation of ‘Regional Government’ and all
other such matters on which a consensus opinion of all the political
forces shall be reached.” In addition the Koka Dam Declaration aimed
to (a) repeal September 1983 sharia laws and (b) dissolve the
government, and called for new general elections and formation of a
coalition government that would include SPLA/M. However, these agreed
points were never taken up because Sadiq al-Mahdi took power and was
never keen on resolving the war.
Mr. Paul also shamefully contradicts himself by partially and
correctly stating that self-determination was discussed at the Abuja 1
and 2 Peace Negotiations but then goes on to say that it was off the
agenda in early 2000s until the people in diaspora put pressure on
SPLM and the NCP. What a laughable joke! Abuja 1 and 2 Peace
Negotiations, where then Commanders, Elijah Malok Aleng and the late
Dr. Justine Yac Arop and late William Nyuon Bany were the SPLM
representatives certainly discussed self-determination however, it was
not forced upon the People’s Movement as insinuated. It was rather
because the Southerners felt a need to present a united front and they
had nothing in common except to see a free Southern Sudan. Mind you
there was still heavy fighting between the SPLM and the Nasir plotters
and the NIF at that time. Also the idea that self-determination was
off the agenda in early 2000s is a blatant lie. SPLM/A and NIF had
already committed themselves to the “Declaration of Principles” on the
20th of July 1994 where the most significant point was Article 2. It
said:
“the right of self-determination of the people of south Sudan to
determine their future status through a referendum must be affirmed.”
Dr. Garang is by no uncertain terms the father of South Sudan, the
champion of its independence and its greatest hero. His vision and the
fundamental pillars of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) were
formulated way back before the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement was
concluded on the 27th of March 1972. These were outlined in a
remarkable letter Dr. Garang to General Joseph Lagu on the 24th of
January 1972. The letter is presented here in its entirety to dispel
any doubts that I am quoting favourable parts to my argument.
Khartoum – Anyanya
Negotiation: Guidelines.
The General Headquarters
Anyanya National Armed Forces
South Sudan
January 24, 1972
The Commander in chief
Anyanya National Armed Forces
Leader of the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement
Members of the Anyanya SSLM Negotiation Committee
Dear compatriots:
That we are strong, growing in force and power to be reckoned with in
Sudanese politics. Status and future is evidenced by the fact that the
Khartoum administration is now interested in negotiating a peace
settlement directly with the Anyanya.
We must take a firm stand all the way in the coming talks. The Numeiry
regime is a sick administration ripe to collapse any time. We must not
be tricked into committing suicide to lay down our instruments of
liberation, arms, by a withering and dying regime just for the purpose
of lengthening its own days of breath or just that some opportunistic
Southerners find a means of employment in the blood of our people.
We are already at war and we are growing stronger everyday while
sooner or later the Numeiry regime will go, but nothing will ever
defeat us if we persist in the war. Let no one among you or among the
enemy have the mistaken and opportunist’s view that these talks are
the last chance of peace for Southern Sudanese people. Let no one have
incorrect view that if these talks collapse and fail war will break
out. We are already at war for the last nine to seventeen years. The
Anyanya and Southern Sudanese people are capable and ready to fight on
for another nine years or more if no correct and acceptable solution
is found.
Any solution within the context of a New United Sudan must first and
foremost recognize the Anyanya as the legitimate army of the Southern
Sudanese people. The implementation of whatever degree of merging
agreed by the negotiating armies and administrations to the United New
Sudan must take not less then ten years ; during this time the two
armies and administrations must maintain separate identities while
conditions for their gradual merging into United New Sudan are being
created by both sides. This is the only procedure that guarantees the
future and interests of the Southern Sudanese people in a United New
Sudan and the objective indication that both sides are sincere in
seeking the cessation of belligerency, peaceful settlement and life in
a United Sudan.
Following is a more comprehensive presentation of guidelines to the
spirit, objectives and strategy which should be adopted at the talks
and which, if followed, could possibly lead to a solution acceptable
to the rank-and-file of the Anyanya and the Southern Sudanese People.
(A) THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES:
i. The Central Problem in the Sudanese
war is the dominance of Arab Nationalism. It is historically a
universal law that in whatever multi-nationality country where one of
the nationalities is economically and politically (and therefore
socially and culturally) dominant over other nationalities, that
country is pregnant with instability, discontent and crisis eventually
erupting in warfare. Such has been the case in the Sudan.
ii. The Southern Sudanese people, in
conformity with historical necessity, took up arms against the glaring
oppression and neglect meted on them by the forces of Arab
Nationalism, an oppression and neglect which were as glaring as they
were cruel, reckless and raking as they were arrogant. It was only
after the virtual exhaustion of all peaceful constitutional
possibilities of multi-national coexistence with a United Progressive
Sudan that the disaffection and indignation of the Southern Sudanese
People reached their human boundaries and war broke out, war had to
break out.
iii. Constitutional guarantees against
exactions and barbarities of Arab Nationalism, accommodations and
adjustments to the mal-practices of Arab Chauvinism have all failed
the past to be respected and to meet the aspirations of the Southern
Sudanese People. This is why war had to break out in the first place.
iv. There is no reason, absolutely no
objective reason for clearheaded Southerners and Northerners alike to
believe after eight years and more of continuous warfare and the
repeated failures of some forms of constitutional guarantees that
paper constitutional guarantees are now going to solve the war in the
Sudan. Any Southerner who holds the mistaken view that Arab
Nationalism now sincere, now means good business, now gives the South
local autonomy in good faith and that this autonomy will be
guaranteed by a few phrases scribbled on some sheets of paper stapled
and bound together and christened “ The Constitution”, that Southerner
either suffers from acute historical myopia or else advocates the
treasonable stand of opportunism, national subjugation and continued
Arab Chauvinism and domination; in short, such Southerner calls for
surrender in a camouflaged form.
v. It is historically evident that unless
a correct consistent Social Democratic solution is found to the
Central Question, i.e., to the problem of economic and political
domination of Arab Nationalism over other nationalities, then, any
attempts at solving the war in Sudan, no matter how refined and
logical on paper, will always end in certain failure.
vi. There is no objective indication that
the Khartoum-based Arab nationalist administration are capable of
concluding a consistent social democratic solution to the National
Question in the Sudan. Arab Nationalism in the Sudan, consistent with
its predatory nature, proposes and declares solutions such as “local
autonomy” within the context of a United Arab Sudan. Such
muddle-headedness returns us back to 1963 and1955 and is an objective
indication that the necessary mutation which would enable ruling
Northerners to face up to the objective realities of the Sudan has not
yet taken root.
vii. There are only two possible ways for
resolving the Sudanese crises: The birth of two nation-states out of
the present (geographical) Sudan or political autonomy for both the
South and the North (and/or any other part that so demands) in a
federated United New Sudan. Political Autonomy in this usage means
that the autonomous regions have adequate political power, in terms of
armed forces, to protect the region against the encroachment by the
federation or by one of the regions in the federation, and,
furthermore, that a region retains the right to secede from the
federation if its interests are not adequately served by the
federation. (It must be clear to Southerners that the retention of the
right to secede from such a federation must be guaranteed by the
federal constitution and by the existence of a physical Southern Armed
Forces.)
viii. We can not dwell on the status of matters
regarding the super-structure such as judicial system, fundamental
rights and freedoms, personal liberty, freedom of religion and
conscience, freedom of minority to use their language and develop
their culture, education, tele-communications, census , etc, etc. (all
contained in Mading de Garang’s proposed constitution for the
democratic republic of Sudan). The status of these and others will
ultimately depend on either the solution is two nation-states or
political autonomy (as defined above) for the two regions (or more) in
a federated (NEW) Sudan. These peripheral issues must not be allowed
to detract the deliberations of the talks, nota bene para VII above.
(B) THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY FOR THE TALKS
It is imperative that the basis and necessary conditions be created
and for these basis and conditions to be developed and mature so as to
objectively arrive at a United (NEW) and lasting peace. This approach
is to start from the objective realities of the Sudan. It is
chauvinistic and naive to start with assumption of a United (ARAB)
Sudan and then turn around and try to force the contradictory
objective realities to conform to the subjective naïve assumption and
wishes of a United Arab Sudan. Hence it follows from the objective
facts in section (A) that for a United New Sudan the following
conditions must be met:
i. Arab Nationalism in the
Sudan must be categorically renounced. This concretely means that Arab
Nationalism must no longer be neither an internal (therefore) nor an
external policy and practice in the United New Sudan.
ii. There at present two
armies, the Anyany and the army of the Khartoum administration; these
armies are now at war in the Sudan. This point we hope is recognized
by all as an objective existence for that is precisely why there are
negotiations. Well, if the Sudan is to be a one United Country, if
this is the interests of both Northerners and Southerners, then, which
of these two warring armies will be the army of the New Sudan the
Anyanya, the army of the Khartoum administration or both and how
and/or why?
iii. The Anyanya thus must
firstly be accepted by the Khartoum administration as the arm of the
South Sudan. Failure to recognize the Anyanya the legitimate army of
the South would amount to denial or refusal to admit a physical
existence, and the result of such naïveté would be the inevitable
collapse of the negotiations and the continuation of the war whether
anybody likes it or not.
iv. The solution to the war and
for the United NEW Sudan must be viewed as a synthesis of two armies
(the Anyanya and the army of the Khartoum rulers) and the formation of
a new type of army consistent with the particularity of the NEW Sudan.
The solution must not be looked at or hoped to be (as is always the
case) the ABSORPTION of one army the Anyanya into other (the army of
the Khartoum Arab Administration), but rather as we said as a
SYNTHESIS of two warring armies. Whether such synthesis is possible
depends on whether the necessary mutation within the forces of the
Arab Nationalism and within the Anyanya exists. I am not aware that
there has been such an objective necessary mutation, but I am only
assuming its implied existence for otherwise there would be no
objective grounds for the negotiations! And the originators of these
negotiations could legitimately be charged with treasonable political
scheming and racketeering against the beloved people.
v. A minimum period of five
years must initially be allowed for the creation and maturation of
necessary conditions and mutations required by the merging of the two
belligerent armies and administrations into the New Sudan divorced of
belligerency and of the basic cause of belligerence, Arab Nationalism.
The armies and administrations of the Anyanya and of the Khartoum
dictatorship must maintain separate identities during these five years
of groundwork of conditions for Unity.
vi. After the first initial five
years of groundwork another minimum period of five years must be
allowed for the actualization of the agreed degree of merging by the
two armies and administrations. Merging and the actual objective
formation of the NEW Sudan will be rapid in the second five years
period, since the necessary conditions and mutations for a United NEW
Sudan will have been created in the first five years of groundwork.
vii. We have made the above
recommendations (guidelines) after a brief presentation of the
objective political realities of the Sudan, nota bene Section (A)
above. We have made these recommendations without fear of intimidation
and with sincerity, objectivity and to the best interests of the
Peoples of South Sudan, Africa and the world. We strongly believe that
a United NEW Sudan and lasting peace and progress can be arrived at
only through ACTION and not through PAPER declarations, resolutions
and mechanical scheming. If the solution is sought within the spirit
and logic of the above facts and recommendations, then, peace,
progress and a United (NEW) Sudan are possible objectives to realize.
But if, on the contrary hand, a solution is sought within the spirit
of Arab Nationalism and the context of a United Arab Sudan, then,
gentlemen of the negotiations, instability, crisis and continued
warfare are the only invited options and the Anyanya consistent with
its historical and historic task of African liberation will take these
options so mercilessly and mercifully placed upon its shoulders by
blood thirsty Arab Chauvinism.
This letter is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Garang was an
advocate of Southern Sudanese autonomy in whatever form and outlines
the critical structures of C.P.A which are (a) separate armies (b)
self-government during the interim period (c) referendum for
Southerners
Reflecting on Mr. Paul’s article there are few things that indicate
the following:
1. Writer’s lack of in-depth knowledge of the History of South
Sudan which he claims to be defending but is consciously and
maliciously distorting.
2. The author thought that by cleverly disguising his anti-SPLM
rhetoric and tribalist animosity towards the Dinka he would be taken
as a serious intellectual.
3. The author is lacking in critical thinking because of his
simplistic interpretation of Dr. Garang and SPLM’s political ideology.
If any lessons are to be drawn from this, they would be that Sudan
Tribune’s editorial and journalistic standards have descended lower
into the gutters to allow the publication of an article that insults
and calls the President of the Republic, a Rottweiler (that is a breed
of a butcher’s dog).
It is clear that Mr. Paul needs to read more since he does not
understand various tactics including the Machiavellian intelligence
employed by Dr. Garang and SPLM/A to achieve the independence of South
Sudan. Just because Dr. Garang, SPLM/A or any Southerner advocated for
a democratic united secular Sudan does not mean that their minds were
set in a perpetual immobile granite slab and deaf to the manifest
calls for separation. The notion that because Dr. Garang called for a
democratic united secular Sudan disqualifies him from his rightful
place in our nation is insulting. The man deserves his dignified place
as the father of our nation and deserves much more than the disrespect
we are showing his legacy for he went above and beyond the call of
duty for his people, the South Sudanese.
Deng A. Dekuek, BSc (Hons), MPhil (Geology)
Exploration Geologist, AUSTRALIA
E-Mail: [email protected]
COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the
author(s) and do not represent those of the website.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.
