Secession Is Not Given Independence: SPLM/A Championship Without Trophy!

QUOTE: "Nations need dreams, goals they seek in common, within which the smaller dreams of individuals can guide their personal lives."(Ford Foundation, 1991).

What is "Secession"? It is a formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance...

For example, the withdrawal from the Union of 11 Southern States in 1860 - 1861 that led to the formation of the Confederacy and the beginning of the Civil War in the USA until resolved by a federalist constitution that gave supreme power to the union of American people rather than to the state (See Encarta Dictionary).

And what is "Independence"? It is freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state. For example, after 30 years of Eritrean War of Independence (1 September 1961 - 24 May 1991) the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) defeated the Ethiopian forces and then declared their independence by referendum that took place thereafter in April 1993 (See Wikipedia).

I. How do these apply to the case of Southern Sudan in the context of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005? It applies trickily because of Machiavellianism played by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) commanders with their rival politicians of the Umma Party (UP), the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), and the National Congress Party (NCP) who changed guards at the Gordon Republican Palace in Khartoum during the eruption of civil war in the South and the resultant peace-talks.

Where is then the trick hereafter? It is in the confusion of the use of the terms "Secession" and "Independence" when mingled in both common and legal jargons. Legally "Independence" is a ‘closed-case' accompanied by national sovereignty and international diplomatic recognition, while "Secession" is an ‘open-case' susceptible to different manipulations of what can be interpreted and made out of it.

After declaration of any "Secession", the following practical question comes up: Now that you have decided to secede, what kind of rule do you want for your seceded territorial jurisdiction? This implies that "Secession" usually ends up in "Federation" or "Confederation" or new "War-of-Independence" that uses fresh tactics of military victory, accompanied with politico-diplomatic negotiations for a new strategic deal of full autonomy and sovereignty. World History is rich of such kind of options (e.g., the USA experience, etc.).

The option of "War-of-Independence" out of "Secession" is what Southern Sudan might end up with, comes 2011. Despite the deceptive and malicious or ignorant songs of ‘peace-and-freedom' chanted by both the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF leaders daily, weekly, monthly and yearly, the full revelation of truth will come up at the CPA ‘end-road'. That is, the "Secession" of Southern Sudan through a referendum might not end up with peaceful "Independence". Please remember this projectional hypothesis even if I might not live to see the light of the dignified South Sudan in near or far future!

Why am I tempted to predict this option and create an alertive tone for it? Because the law does not have mercy on fools or ignorant people who act outside or in defiance to what has been codified and stipulated in constitutions, acts, statutes and precedents for obligatory execution. Reading and reflecting critically on The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan (2005) - including CPA text), The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (2005) and The Southern Sudan Referendum Act (2009), I can sense the shock that shall be encountered at 11:59 hour when conformation comes up that the referendum for self-determination of the people of Southern Sudan has nothing to do with "Independence". It shall be confirmed that the (YES) or (NO) questionnaire circles in the referendum ballot papers should only have "Unity" and "Secession" terminologies as the offered options.

Thus the circumstance shall be different from the Eritrean case (I will detail this below). Even President Isaias Afewerki has called on Southerners to remain united with the North! (See his message when he attended the inauguration ceremony of President Al-Basir, 27/05/2010). But why did he do this? May be because of spree of corruption and injustice in the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) and in the SPLM/A, or perhaps he knows that the "Secession" mentioned in the CPA and other legal documents does not necessarily qualifies for "Independence" of South Sudan as a result of the 2011 referendum. You can also deduce some suspicion in the way Southern Sudan political parties were refused registration in the Sudan Political Parties Affairs Council (PPAC) and certification from the Sudan National Elections Commission (NEC), pending amendments of phrase "Independence of South Sudan" mentioned in their mission statements.

II. What am I trying to make out of this alert? I want to emphasize on the point that if the victory of the 2011 referendum ended up with confirmation of "Unity" of the Sudan, then there shall never be much tedious legal post-referendum battles. The unionists, at the top of which sits the Government of National Unity, shall say with utmost joy: Bravo and congratulations to Southerners for accepting "unity of government" with the Northerners!!!

Nevertheless, if the result became "Secession", there the separatists shall stand straight and worried, while rolling up their sleeves for demonstrating tough fists of anger from the last minutes shock from red-cards lifted up by the gentlemen who knew the hidden unity's tricks of the CPA in Machakos/Naivasha's negotiation halls. The ‘Square-One' that the CPA partners have been avoiding to jump in, might become the easiest short-cut to resort to. But under whose leadership shall the "War-of-Independence" takes place? Will it be Mr Salva Kiir, Dr Riek Machar, Mr Wani Igga, Mr Pagan Amum or Mrs Rebecca Nyandeng? A nightmarish to Southerners; indeed!

Already the chief law-maker of the Sudan, Mr. Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Tahir, on his re-election speech as the Speaker, vowed that his National Legislative Assembly (with about 75% of the NCP legislators) shall never be neutral on "Independence" of South Sudan because the country must remain united whether by thick or thin. Also President Omer Ahmed Hassan Al-Bashir pledged in his swearing-in ceremony that he shall ensure that the referendum for Southern Sudan takes place within the scheduled time (Inshallah- by God's Will?) but with unity of the Sudan as the only desirable outcome. Not only this, but also one of the think-tanks of the NCP/NIF and a national legislator, Dr. Ghutbi El-Mahdi, hinted in the Sudan-TV discussion forum that the referendum shall only be about "Secession" and "Unity" options but not "Independence" of Southern Sudan. What a revelation!

A critical question poses itself here: What is the utility of "Secession" if it is only for "Unity" of the Sudan in different colours (be it "Confederation" as proposed by SPLM Deputy Chairman and Mr. Governor, Malik Agar with his 100% stand with unity, or "Federation" as proposed by Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi in 1998 before he parted ways with President Al-Bashir and his NCP)? Are Southerners fit to secede so that they remain united with the North by proxy? This is very funny but it portrays how comical the CPA show is. No wonder! That is why you see the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF quarreling and re-negotiating the CPA from time to time, and creating sideline deals to pass time.

III. Let's state what the laws says exactly about the referendum for self-determination, but indicating the loopholes dug by the SPLM/A and NCP/NIF Machiavellians to let the separatists fell off the tipping cliff of CPA's pending troubles, especially when the force of time expose the duplicity.

1. Articles 219, 222 & 220 of the Interim National Constitution: The people of Southern Sudan have the right to self-determination through a referendum to determine their future status (Article 219). A Southern Sudan Referendum Act shall be promulgated by the National Legislature at the beginning of the third year of the Interim Period [Article (220)(1)]. The Presidency of the Republic of the Sudan shall, as soon as the Southern Sudan Referendum Act is issued, establish the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission [Article (220)(2)]. Six months before the end of the six-year interim period, there shall be an internationally monitored referendum, for the people of Southern Sudan organized by Southern Sudan Referendum Commission in cooperation with National Government and Government of Southern Sudan [Article (222)(1)]. The people of Southern Sudan shall either:- (a) confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to sustain the system of government established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and this Constitution, or (b) vote for secession [Article (222)(2)]. This is excellent but...!

Evaluation #1: The sub-articles No (2) and (b) above are vague and fit the general criterion that requires the constitutions to be written in a vague language so that the constitutional judges and lawyers can have a work to do; the interpretation and verdicts. But what work will the Sudanese constitutional judges do here? Shall it be a dirty work or a clean one in regard to interpretation and verdict on "Secession" of Southern Sudan, for example? Evaluate what those judges did regarding the objections raised during April 2010 elections process and you can tell which work they will do? Any way, don't worry about this! I will later tell you why you shouldn't.

The sub-articles No (a) says it in a legal slyness that the referendum vote shall only be about sustaining the system of government established by virtue of the CPA and the constitutional dictates, the consequence of which shall be unity of the Sudan. The sub-articles No (b) remains silent on what follows if the majority choice becomes "Secession". It is not even indicated that the "Secession" will be from what? We may just assume it as "Secession" from Northern Sudan but the law we have consulted does not say so decisively. Remember the cliché: Be Legal; Be Safe!

2. Article 9, 10 & 11 of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan: [Article (9)(1)] reads exactly like article (219) of the Interim National Constitution. Any Southern Sudanese who has attained the age of eighteen shall have the right to vote in the referendum [Article (9)(2)]. For purposes of the referendum in sub-Article (1) above, a Southern Sudanese is: (a) any person whose either parent or grandparent is or was a member of any of the indigenous communities existing in Southern Sudan before or on January 1, 1956; or whose ancestry can be traced through agnatic or male line to any one of the ethnic communities of Southern Sudan as in Schedule G herein; or (b) any person who has been permanently residing or whose mother and/or father or any grandparent have been permanently residing in Southern Sudan as of January 1, 1956 [Article (9)(3)]. Articles 10(1), (10)(2) & (11)(1) read exactly like articles (220)(1) & (220)(2) of the Interim National Constitution except for the term "issued" changed with the term "promulgated". The people of Southern Sudan, voting on a single ballot and by majority vote, shall either:- (a) confirm unity of the Sudan by voting to adopt the system of government established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement; or (b) vote for secession[Article (11)(2)].

Evaluation #2: At least the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan tried to break the criteria of vagueness by shipping in some specific details, especially on who shall be qualified to vote in the referendum and how. But it is still hooked-up by the trick of ambivalence of "Secession" terminology. The constitutional judges and lawyers might refer to some of the details mentioned in this sub-constitution but they may not be obliged to do so because they could argue, as well, that the National Interim Constitution should be the only supreme reference in case of clash of interpretations.

3. Articles (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) & (9) of The Southern Sudan Referendum Act: The people of Southern Sudan shall exercise their right to self-determination through the referendum to determine their future status in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Constitution and the present Act (Article 4). The referendum, provided for in Section 4 above, shall be conducted in Southern Sudan and any other locations on 9 January 2011 and shall be organized by the Commission, in cooperation with the Government of National Unity and the Government of Southern Sudan and under international observation (Article 5). While exercising the right to self-determination through voting in the referendum, the people of Southern Sudan shall cast vote for either: i- Confirmation of the unity of the Sudan by sustaining the form of government established by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Constitution, or ii- Secession (Article 6). To ensure the free will of the people of Southern Sudan to express their views, in accordance with Section 6 above, the different levels of governance shall commit to creating an environment favourable to conduct the referendum through the following:

1. Appropriate environment and security conditions in order to prepare and organize the free exercise of the right to self-determination.

2. Freedom of expression for all the people of Sudan in general and the people of Southern Sudan in particular to enable them to dispense their views on the referendum through mass media or any other means.

3. Freedom of assembly and movement to all people of Southern Sudan in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the present Act.

4. Ensuring the presence of IGAD member states and partners, representatives of the United Nations, the European Union, African Union and other international signatory bodies as witnesses to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to engage in the observation on the referendum.

5. Ensuring the presence of national, regional and international Civil Society Organizations to observe all the procedures pertinent to the referendum-related awareness campaign

6. Ensuring that, in accordance with the Political Parties Act 2007, the registered political parties, organizations and gatherings adhering to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement are given equal opportunities in voicing their views on the referendum options, if they are willing to do so.

7. Educating and registering the voters, safeguard and guarantee their right to secret voting without fear or intimidation (Article 7).

The Commission headquarters shall be based in Khartoum and shall have a Southern Sudan Referendum Bureau in Juba [Article (8)(2)]. The structure of the Commission comprises the following: a) Commission Headquarters, b) Southern Sudan Referendum Bureau, C) Secretariat General, d) Referendum High Committees in the States of Southern Sudan, e) Referendum Sub-Committees in the counties, and f) Referendum Centers [Article (8)(3)]. The Commission shall be financially, administratively and technically independent and shall perform all its duties and powers as provided for by this Act with the utmost degree of independence, impartiality, transparency and integrity, and no one shall interfere in its affairs, duties, competences or limit its powers (Article 9).

Evaluation #3: The Southern Sudan Referendum Act was drafted and billed late by two-years of the agreed schedule. The National Legislature, being controlled by ‘unionists', lacked the political will to do so, perhaps out of fear of NCP and other Northern political parties and even the unionists within the SPLM. However, at last, Mr. Speaker Al-Tahir signed the bill on 28/12/2009 after its ratification by National Legislature. Also President Al-Bashir signed it on 31/12/2009, making it to become a late-awaited law.

Notwithstanding, the question of who is going to head that commission and who will be the deputy, members and staff remains eye-brows' affair to Southern separatist, especially after what have been encountered with Mr. Abel Alier and his deputy in the National Elections Commission (NEC) who compromised the rigging and other irregularities in the April 2010 general elections.

Although it is spelt out clearly that the Commission shall be independent, yet this shall be impractical under NCP/SPLM control and influence. The security demand and the bill of rights mentioned in the Referendum Act shall never be respected by the rivaling sides of the process as we witnessed it in last elections.

Although the Referendum Act is an excellent document with written checks as you can see from its articles, still, the end result of all these shall never be a finished case if it was not confirmation of "Unity" of the Sudan. Even rigging this referendum in favour of "Secession" shall never be a decisive solution for dignity of Southerners. Thus, whether carried out freely and transparently or not, the only gainers of this referendum shall be the unionists because all the law has blocked the "Independence" of Southern Sudan de jure.

Hence, the Referendum Act shall remain helpless even if it managed to regulate the process in the best way possible: From formation of the commission, registration of eligible voters and issuance of IDs, preparation of ballots and polling centers, invitation of national and international observers, voter high turn-out, sorting and counting of votes, declaration of results, to appeals and final court verdict.

We might have exalted Dr. Riek Machar and others in the SPLM for being Champions of the success of the referendum process, but at the end of the whole show, we would realize that they were only champions of unfinished comedy of the CPA implementation. The SPLM shall have proven itself to Southerners and the world by then that it was a champion without trophy. Other tournament shall be required by then to get the trophy!

4. All the above-mentioned legal stipulates were extracted from the CPA original text in the section of Machakos Protocol of July 20, 2002: That the people of Southern Sudan have the right to self-determination, inter alia, through a referendum to determine their future status (Article 1.3). At the end of the six (6) year Interim Period there shall be an internationally monitored referendum, organized jointly by the GOS and the SPLM/A, for the people of Southern Sudan to: confirm the unity of the Sudan by voting to adopt the system of government established under the Peace Agreement; or to vote for secession (Article 2.5).

But prior to these CPA articles it is stated clearly in the beginning of the text: That the unity of the Sudan, based on the free will of its people democratic governance, accountability, equality, respect, and justice for all citizens of the Sudan is and shall be the priority of the parties and that it is possible to redress the grievances of the people of Southern Sudan and to meet their aspirations within such a framework (Article 1.1).

It is also clearly indicated at the end of the text that: The Parties shall refrain from any form of unilateral revocation or abrogation of the Peace Agreement (Article 2.6).

Evaluation #4: The loophole of using the term "Secession" instead of "Independence" of Southern Sudan originated from the CPA text. Not only this, but also the agreement strictly warns the signatory parties of any tendency of violation and dishonoring of its articles. This means, if the SPLM overwhelming majority legislators at the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) get tempted to declare the independence of South Sudan unilaterally from inside the parliament in Juba, this shall be considered immediately as abrogation of the CPA.

Nonetheless, it has never been agreed that the CPA shall continue to be in force or obligation after the end of the interim period (9^th July, 2011). May be by then the South could declare its "War-of-Independence" and convince the North to recognize it by force like the case of Eritrea with Ethiopia. But will the SPLM/A garner a military victory by might of the gun, comes that time? I doubt if there will not be external mercenaries to help the SPLM/A new separatists by then? Perhaps, it would be kind of President Obama's Administration to use The LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, passed by the USA Congress on 12^th May 2010, to assist Southern Sudan (under SPLM mess) to defend the circumstance of the "War-of-Independence". But again, will Obama be ready to anger the Arab and Muslim World by defending Christians in Southern Sudan? May be the USA pressure and lobby groups would influence him to act.

IV. What can we learn from Eritrea Referendum For Self-determination? The Eritrea method run as follows: capture your territory by military force first and then perform the referendum for self-determination later to baptize the de facto independence with democracy ritual for the sake of seeking regional and international diplomatic recognition. The smart thing with the Eritrean liberation leaders was their clarity on the status their people desired in determining their destiny with "Independence" not "Secession".

The Eritrean War of Independence was a conflict fought between the Ethiopian government and Eritrean separatists, both before and during the Ethiopian Civil War. The war went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea, took control of the territory. Given the power of victory, the EPLF held talks with the Ethiopian new transitional government regarding relationship between the two territories. The outcome of those talks was an agreement in which the Ethiopians recognized the right of the Eritreans to hold a referendum on independence of their ‘circumstantial country'. The EPLF was also granted an observer status in the United Nations headquarters in New York.

In April 1993, in a referendum supported by Ethiopia, the Eritrean people voted almost unanimously in favour of independence under verification by the United Nations (UNOVER). The question used in the referendum ballot cards was: Do you approve Eritrea to become an independent sovereign state? Under this question were two circles of choice between (Yes) or (No). The result of the counted (Yes) box was 99.79% and that of the (No) box was 0.17% and the spoiled votes was 0.04% out of 1,062,410 registered referendum voters inside and outside the country. On May 28, 1993, the United Nations formally admitted Eritrea to its membership (See Wikipedia).

Is there a similarity between this scenario and the SPLM/A case in Southern Sudan? No! The SPLM/A has been vague and ambivalent with what it wanted for Southern Sudan. The SPLM/A fought for the ‘war-of-marginalization' in the whole Sudan that it intended to transform into ‘New Sudan'. Nevertheless, during the peace negotiations under pressure and fatigue, the SPLM/A adopted the issue of the "right of self-determination" for the people of Southern Sudan through a referendum.

Will the SPLM/A manage to liberate the South so that it can become an independent new state in Africa like Eritrea? Yes, but only if it improves its leadership efficacy and work jointly, sincerely and selflessly with communities of Southern Sudan without discrimination or selfish preference.

"Without a governing vision people will lapse, as hey have in recent years, into a narrow selfishness" (Thomas E. Patternson, 1996).

V. Recommendations on What to Do:

1. Let Southerners prepare themselves to accept the referendum for the "Secession" of Southern Sudan (for the time being) by going out to register to get referendum identity cards once the Referendum Commission is formed and mandated to carry on with its agreed and legalized duties. Let them not worry about the outcome when they shall go to the poling stations to cast their votes, because the process shall only be a means for going for "War-of-Independence" after "Secession".

2. Let Southerners swallow the bitterness of the past elections and unite to make the referendum a success. But they should never be fooled that the "Secession" should end in confirmation of "Federation" or adaptation of "Confederation"; it should confirm declaration of "Independence" of sovereign ‘Republic of South Sudan'.

3. Let Southerners forget that the SPLM/A may bring them "Independence" of South Sudan on a golden plate like the CPA, because this movement, is marred by leadership crisis and internal conflicts of visions and directions between its unionist and separatists. Even if the SPLM/A rigged the referendum in favor of "Secession"; this shall still remain incomplete victory to qualify the region for "Independence".

4. Let Southerners not be hoodwinked that the SPLM/A shall ever be in control of Southern Sudan without support and cooperation from all Southern communities and their leaders. They need to recall that the SPLM/A did not capture the whole of Southern Sudan by force of gun, neither did the NCP/NIF crush the SPLM/A and other Southern rebel movements by military or any other force.

5. Let Southerners know it well that for the "Declaration of Independence" of the Republic of South Sudan to be successful like the Eritrean one, it shall need recognition of Khartoum (implicitly or explicitly) and the blessing of regional and international communities. Thus, intensive lobby for influence must be carried on to garner more international and regional support of South Sudan Independence, by thick or thin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. James Okuk is a concerned Southern Sudanese and PhD graduate of Political Philosophy at University of Nairobi-Kenya. You can reach him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

• Add New

Comments (12)

• 01-06-2010 16:51:03 |Unregistered| De War

  Ya Mr. Okuki, James! Don't waste your mind on the internet! You must take it to the parliament! Not every individual pay attention to most of the things that happen on the internet! Evacuate and take your mind out from the internet and let it works for your people in the parliament in South Sudan. Perhaps, you don't need to be a student again or I don't know if you dare to be again, you just need to re-arrange and organize your thoughts and ideas. The best you will get in the parliament! Thank you!

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 01-06-2010 17:16:15 |Unregistered| Dr.James Okuk

  01/06/2010 - Posted by Jacob AkolDear Dr Okuk,

  With due respect, I sometimes find it difficult to understand what it is that motivates a supposedly highly educated South Sudanese like yourself to indulge in dictionary and such high sounding academic definitions and quotes that are clearly aimed at dampening the spirit of one’s own people:

  Is it the urge to show off?

  Is it political inexperience or naivety?

  Is it self-hatred masked in inferiority complex or what?

  Why should you, a publicly declared separatist, want to argue a case for unionists in the name of parting knowledge to the public?

  Have you ever asked yourself if there can be situations in which one’s knowledge can be either distractive or useless?

  Is it political expediency aimed at winning short-term goals?

  Some definitions similar to yours were brought up by foreign academics/experts in a meeting I attended in Khartoum last year (a meeting I cannot mention or mention names of people in what I have to say below because it was under Charter House Rules). The net effect was this: Some Northern unionists applauded these definitions, delighting in the revelation that secession did not mean independence and the South would not be independent after all.

  However, they were soon silenced by both the NCP and SPLM representatives in the meeting, that no matter what definitions you give to secession, to both parties who signed the CPA and as it stands in the CPA, if Southerners vote for secession it means independence for the South. Period!

  The civil war for independence you are predicting to come have already been fought for 30 years and an estimated two million in the last war alone have died, with over 4 million displaced. This is the reality I believe is recognised by both the NCP and the SPLM; that any delays in South Sudan Independence - to satisfy academic definitions such as the ones you are advancing - will simply end up in more deaths and years of instability before coming back to the same thing: Independence of South Sudan.Hopefully that's not what you want to see.

  Wishing you the best in your political pursuits.
  Sincerely,

  Jacob.
  --------------------------------
  

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 01-06-2010 17:17:22 |Unregistered| Dr. James Okuk

  
  Dear Uncle Jacob Akol,

  With due respect to your journalistic experience and contributions, I would kindly like to inform you that the reason I indulge in dictionary and such high sounding academic definitions and quotes in this commentary is because these are necessary complements when discussing an issue pregnant with legal tricks and loopholes. The law is strictly about definitions and evidences before verdicts. May be journalism is not, and I understand your situation here.

  The aim of the commentary is not to dampen the spirit of Southerners, but to alert them with the challenges and pending troubles surrounding the unfinished case of "referendum for self-determination. It is not even the urge to show off, or political inexperience or naivety, or self-hatred masked in inferiority complex or any thing else as you may be preoccupied in your assumption and uneasiness with my free ideas. I am just telling Southerners humbly and without ulterior selfish goals to put their hopes beyond the referendum for "Secession" or "Unity" because these will not lead to "Independence" of the desired Republic of South Sudan.

  What I am arguing is not "the case of unionists" if you really read my article with better lenses of objectivity and keenness. The definitions I sited are not mine, nor of those Jellaba unionists you are trying to equalize me with. That is why I acknowledged the sources I got these definitions from; just for intellectual honesty.

  Notwithstanding, if my arguments happened to correspond with those of the Northern academicians you encountered, then you better give in a second thought that the truth might not be where you have stood now. Silencing such definitions and rigorous arguments is a clear sign that both the SPLM and the NCP are deeply involved in people's deception and feel irritated when exposed by the statements of truths. Such kind of dictatorial attitude is what easily leads to dishonouring and abrogation of agreements in the Sudan. It is shameful when those who think they are credible journalist try to encourage such bad sorts of attitudes.

  If the "Secession agreed in the CPA means "Independence" then why was it not legalized as so in the documents and the resultant constitutions? Why was it not written clearly that the referendum shall authorize the Southerners legitimately to choose between "Confirmation of unity" or "Declaration of Independence"? Why is it left clear by one side (confirmation of unity) but vague by the other side (secession)? This is where my argument sound valid that the Southern Sudan case of referendum for self-determination shall be different from the Eritrean one because the law has blocked the other side (Independence) by being silent on it. That why I am tempted to think that the clear separatists like myself and others needs another strategy to achieve the "Independence" they want. It is up to the vague separatist to decide whether to join the new battle (be it legal or military) that shall be led by sincere separatist patriots.

  You are laying uncle Jacob! The civil war fought under the SPLM/A was not for "Independence of South Sudan", otherwise those of Malik Agar, Dr. Monsour Khalid, Yassir Armand, Abdel Azziz Hilu, and others, would have ceased to be comrades long ago. It is now that the SPLM/A is trying adopt separatism spirit. That is why you see the comrades of the transitional areas feeling betrayed and dumped by Salva Kiir, Dr. Riek Machar, etc.

  Please Jacob Akol, if you think that what you interpreted as "Independence" of South Sudan from the "Secession" is what makes the truth, then I am starting to doubt your journalistic objectivity. Nothing has been agreed as such in the CPA, the constructions and the concerned Referendum Act. Instead, your assumption without referring exactly to what was legally written down as the partners obligation to impalement, is what will create more death when the people shall be shocked by the revelation of reality from the treachery.

  Don't rush to my neck with anger from what I write. Take it slowly and re-read my commentary for better rejoinder based on objective refute with counter references if you have.

  Stay well as the bitter truth reveals itself!

  Dr. James Okuk
  

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 01-06-2010 19:16:47 |Unregistered| w. o. kuachi

  hay! De wear, patient please,how would u want Dr Okuk to face acomplexed parlaiment of babylonians who even don't take a word from their own brothers party members? are you out argument?than get tired,rest and let the guy speak his mind.who knows, amiracle may possibly happend[an eye may suddenly open or hopefully some,in ss parlaiment,may regain his vission to retrack u to the south that u all hoped for. pardon me brother.

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 02-06-2010 02:50:03 |Unregistered| De War

  Okuki, James! You deserve appreciation! According to your theory, we believe nobody will prepared "independence" than "secession." Secession sometime may involve outsiders but independent has no link with any outsiders's agony idealogies of betraying any young nation's power. Though independence may mean another war, we favourite "it." Secession may mean easy and soft walking away with just little amount or 1/3 of power. But, independence is taking control of all your power with all you will without any aim of fear you foes. Choose independence than secession. Independence means may another war but it also means 100% being respected by you enemies. Let do it!

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 02-06-2010 03:21:12 |Unregistered| De War

  Okuki, James! You deserve appreciation! According to your theory, we believe everybody (Southerners, Southern Sudaneses) is prepared for "independence" than "secession."

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 02-06-2010 10:12:27 |Unregistered| Adam Saad

  Uncle Jacob Akol , actually you have turned out to be a good psychiatrist , by diagnosing what this young amateur call Dr James Okuk is suffering from. He is suffering from self hatred masked in inferiority complex. He was appointed to the ministry of foreign affair in the scheme of corruption which was committed by Dr Lam Akol , when he indulge in nepotism by appointing only his close relatives. This naïve young loose man had some delusion that Dr Lam Akol , will win election so he could get another lifted. Forgetting that if it was not this SPLA/M that he hate to dead he would have been a refugee the rise of his live in Kenya .It’s amazing a seminarian turned out to be traitor .This vermin deserved some action . You are worst then the enemy. I am sure you won’t live to see the new the country. By the away there was this journalist that got behead in Khartoum can someone tell me his name .It is a new phenomenal in Cholllo Kingdom these days that they have started this Islamic law of decapitation

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 02-06-2010 12:50:51 |Unregistered| Dr James Okuk

  
  Dr. Okuk,

  It is a great article though you got to rest assured that you got it all wrong: there is no secession without ultimate independence. Your failure to cite any particular countries that successfully secede and yet remain dependent is a strong testimony to the contradiction of your misinterpretation of the CPA. That the Southern States in the USA failed in their pursuit of secession did not mean that they would not have been independent had they successfully seceded.

  Similarly, you have misrepresented the Eritrean case as it is historically inaccurate to say that they defeated the Ethiopian army because the Mengistu regime was brought down by the combined forces of the current Ethiopian PM alongside that of Eritrean PM's. In both cases, the US civil war and Eritrean independence, it was the war that decide and determine the course of history, not the apparent legalities in the secession debate. There is no known political philosopher that indulged in that faculty unless you had wanted to contrast self determination vs independence which can, and has been, carried out without outright independence in some countries. The CPA was, however, explicit on the question of the referendum and there is no room for political guess work. Of course, the NCP and the Northern establishment, is resolved to abort the referendum by hook and crook, but that again can not reduce the CPA to your unwarranted exposition.

  For your information, the former USSR satellite state of Eastern Europe and Central Asia successfully seceded and became independent States from the current State of Russia. The same apply to East Timors from Indonesia; Republic of Ireland from England, Belgium from Holland; current Baltic states from Former state of Yugoslavia just to mention but just a few.

  You are right to postulate that there might be a war, but that won't be over the interpretation of whether or not secession mean outright independence; it would be over the disputation of the conduct and interpretations of the referendum outcomes.

  It is only those countries that fail in might but not in legality of the secession that never become independent states.

  Thanks,
  Makwei.
  

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 02-06-2010 12:51:56 |Unregistered| Dr James Okuk

  
  Come on brother Makwei!
  
  It cannot be logically sound for an article to be great and all wrong at the same time. Go and research carefully the method used by the countries you cited to have got their independence from self-determination, especially the questionnaires used during the polling. Was it a choice between "Unity" and "Independence" or "Unity" and "Secession"? After availing this with evaluation and comparison then your rejoinder can be considered. Please support your case with evidences. Objection denied!
  
  Yes, the Southern states of the USA seceded but they were not clear on what they wanted to do with that "Secession". That is why they ended up with "Federalism" after the tricky Northerners convinced them to re-confirm the State of Union of the country. If they were clear with what they wanted onset, they would have ended up with "Independence" before they were duped into unity. This scenario may be similar with the SPLM/A case under the CPA dictates.
  
  Also I don't think I misrepresented the Eritrea case, because both the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) and Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) were the joint (but not integrate) rebels who brought down Mengistu Haile Mariam's communist regime. Each of these rebels played a greater role to depose Mengistu because without their unity over the one enemy, each one on its own would have not gained a victory.
  
  Yes, without any qualm, the Southern USA case and the Eritrean case all determined the course of their history but in different directions; "Federation" and "Independence" respectively. Each of these outcomes depended on clarity of the status demanded by each of their liberators.
  
  Yes, the CPA is explicit about "self-determination" but not really on the direction of this "self-determination" when it comes to "Secession" option. The option is clear when it comes to "confirmation of unity" of the Sudan only. Nothing has been mentioned at all about "Independence". All that is said by politician and other amateur lawyers are just illegalized assumptions.
  
  Yes, if the SPLM/A wants the "Independence" of South Sudan by might of gun, then it is better to use the Eritrean method so that it is clear and straight forward. It is a waste of time then to get indulged in legally binding agreement like the CPA to achieve the "Independence" by might at the end. If the SPLM/A had might, why did it go for law if you think the law is not important for achieving the "Independence" desire? I arrest my case.
  
  Dr. James Okuk

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 03-06-2010 01:35:59 |Unregistered| w. o. kuachikuan

  we really don't know your journalist's name,Haj saad Adam,but hopefully you follow sooner to find out and please don't forget to dodge it back and let us know.by the way are from Dafur?you may make if you are from Zaghaawa!!!!!!?:o

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 03-06-2010 06:36:29 |Unregistered| Anok

  You have to think like human being! being independent doesnt require human right to judge you or nations whether you will be free or not.Being free in this world is not about the world to declared on your favor, one has to fight for it. So my massege to you is that, SESSION OF SOUTHERN SUDAN WILL PREVAIL. You dont desrve that Doctoral you have!. SHAME ON YOU! what kind of school did you went to. Let me tell you the meaning of education. Education isnt a perception, you have to be real, dont copy the ideas. second,be visualized, another word, transparence! education isnt about what you read in four to six years in school, but the most important is why, such an author wrote that book? lastly to be human is to think independently, dont be misled by your satanic Dr. Lam. IT IS A BIG MONKEY WITHOUT TAIL!

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 03-06-2010 14:50:39 |Unregistered| w. o. kuachikuan

  Mr Anok there is no point at denying facts that are already shaping themselves right under our very noses.perceptions varys,which is good if you take in as many of them from different angles.it enable a person to see things acouple of steps away before a seriouse stumble ocures.so foreget Dr Lam,Ukok and the rest.these guys don't need help.it is the Juba bunch that need a wake-up call.Anok go let them cleanse thier lenses stretch a bit and make them look a little taller.

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:          -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message: