Dr. Lam Akol on Akhbar El Youm platform.

These days the issue of separation or unity is the central concern inside and outside the Sudanese political arena. The post referendum arrangements and the un resolved issues which form contentious concern among the political forces and especially the two partners to the CPA on whom is the burden.

While this central issue is the denominator to the sectors of the whole nation, political forces and national media institutions, this accords Akhbar el youm news paper a national responsibility in this national revolutionary dynamism.

It is because of the sense of this national duty that obliges opening of this sensitive dossier in support of unity which never withstand neutrality, through conduction of profound intellectual discussion with all stake holders and concerned people in this case and input of all political forces without exception as academics, analysts, university lecturers, legal experts to enrich the dialogue and enhance unity. It is hoped that this platform is a spring board in the direction by having invited representative of the partners, political forces and law experts. Let's go to the dialogue:

In the name of God the compassionate and the merciful;

Firstly, we are honored to host Dr. Lam Akol among us for the third time in spite of his many responsibilities. Any of these responsibilities I refer to is in itself a point of discussion in his long experience as a former member of SPLM as far we remember the famous 1991 Nasir split the consequences and the developments. The people by then use to say that the movement was for the independence of south Sudan and that Dr. Lam was Godfather.

Here we ask about the past experiences and today's justifications and promoting role while he leads the Sudan People's Liberation Movement - Democratic Change, and participant of Naivasha negotiation. We should also put into consideration Fashoda agreement of 1997 and SPLM-UNITED faction that signed the agreement with the government. And of the important land marks is Dr. Lam Akol joining the NCP and quitting and rejoining the SPLM and quitting it.

We want him to talk about all these experiences in the view of unity and separation. As the title of this symposium suggests "How to preserve the unity of Sudan in the coming Five remaining months. Here when we talk about Fashoda, we are saying (Fashoda of Unity).The split of SPLM. SPLM for unity, and is the manifesto a uniting one, and is it true that Dr. John Garang was a unionist? From your knowledge of him can you say he was a unionist? Did he at one time become a separatist? And is true now that the SPLM had decided its position for separation? This what many people believe now. Now I say many people are saying Dr. Lam Akol is the making of NCP. Even during the April elections, there were those who repeatedly said that Dr. Lam Akol was put up by the NCP against Salva Kiir for GOSS candidacy.

This is intended to steer the discussion. The Summery of this introduction is the choice between separation and unity in the march of Dr. Lam Akol in the SPLM till today, and is SPLM-DC a party for unity? A direct question to Dr. Lam Akol is it possible to preserve unity of the country during the coming five months? And if we wanted to, what should we do? What is the role of Dr. Lam Akol and his party and as an intellectual in support of choice of unity as chairman of a party and former member of SPLM and as a political icon rallying behind him a whole tribe of weight and values in southern Sudan? We want to find out his vision on unity or separation.

In the connection, lot of fear and security warning had been expressed by many that there might be fighting. Some talk of Dr.Lam Akol of not being a politician, but a militia leader especially his political rivalries and opponents.The pertinent question to Dr. Lam Akol is: What is the position of Dr. Lam Akol should the south secede? The door is opened for you to respond;

Dr. Lam Akol Chairman of SPLM- DC;

Answer;

First I thank Ustaz Ahamed El Bilal for this invitation, and also thank the permanent members of the forum. First I will talk about the self-determination, why the southern people chose it and position of self-determination in Sudanese politics. How it came to be expressed in the peace agreement and governing progress during the interim period either in the south or at the central level, and how it contributed to the achievement of the goals of the agreement in this aspect.

Then I will talk about what is needed to make the practice fair and equitable so as to accept the results of the practice. Before starting, I must make some corrections to what Ustaz Ahamed El BIlal said, that after the 1991 SPLM split into Nasir and Torit factions, our movement was not named as south Sudan liberation movement, neither did I join south Sudan liberation movement. After split with Dr. Riak Machar, he named his movement as south Sudan liberation movement and mine as SPLM-UNITED.

The Nasir faction passed through different stages. Our SPLM- Nasir faction joined ranks with Karubino faction to form SPLM-United in 1993. This faction splinted up again, but we retained the name SPLM-United till the merger with the SPLM in 2003. While Dr. Riak retains his south Sudan Liberation Movement this record is for history.

Garangs position on Unity:

Dr. Lam in this aspect said "I will start my talk with what Fredrick Satalino the chairman of the Federal party said in 1958 and what Dr. John Garang said 50 years later. Satalino during parliamentary deliberations in 1958 said quote "The south of Sudan has no intention to separate from the north, and if wishes for independence, there is no power on earth that can prevent the south from demanding so. The south will separate from the north, only when the north decides so directly or indirectly through political, social and economic dealings that are not fair" unquote.

Satalino was talking about Federal system and some accused him of calling for separation. In the quotation, is the reply to those accusing us of being separatists? For that of Dr. John Garang that came in his speech in Rumbek 15/May /2005 when he said. Quote "For Me and those who joined me in the bush and fought for more than 20 years, a peace deal had been brought to you on a golden plate. Our task has ended. But those who never got the chance to practice the bush life, when the voting for referendum comes, it will be your golden chance to determine your fate: it will be your choice if you want to become second class citizens in your own land that's your decision" unquote. The statement was the most accused of being a separatist 50yrs. Before him.

Why southern people demand self-determination?

To answer this question, Dr. Lam said. There are two reasons for that; the first is the colonial policies, and the second, the practices by the central governments of the Sudan. The demands of southerners kept on developing. During the colonial period, the demand passed through three phases. The first period was the consolidation of governing through the chiefs who collaborated with colonial administration.

The second phase was separate administration of the south in the early twenties, till the Second World War. After that the colonial administration had a change of policy and decided to unite the two halves of the country, starting with the 1946 meetings and 1947 Juba conference. This had an impact and formed an understanding in southern citizen about his rights.

Concurrently, the national government practices had impact of negative development in the southern citizen and the relations with the Sudan generally, as the non representation of the south in administration and politics between 1953-55 AD. This period is marked by Sudanization of the administration and persistence of centralization of administration from 1955 to 1964 AD. Only after October 1964 was there recognition of the south problem for the first time, and government of Sir el Khatem issued a statement. I call this period (1958-1964) as that of pressure on southern intellectuals.

The period of 1965 as transition period was full of bitterness especially between 1965-1969 as it is the time during which southern intellectuals were targeted, massacres were committed in Wau and Juba this left negative bad feelings between south and the north. During Aboud's period there was imposition of Arabic language and Islam to unite the country. During this period, it was rumored that the southerners were targeting Arabs and Islam when in actual fact the war was neither racial nor religious.

Detected variation in the south;

There was yet another recognition as expressed in the statement of July 9th 1969 after may coup detat'. There was lack of clarity till 1971. Because the communist party wanted to create a democratic cadre in the south that will put hand in hand with democratic cadre in the north. I t was the communist termed democratic cadre. This was only revealed after the fall of the failed Hashim El Ata coup of 1971, after which a serious engagement in negotiation between Ananya and Sudan Government ensued in Addis Ababa that resulted self-rule in 1972 till 1983.

This period revealed a lot of things which took many by surprise in the south. As they talk in the south that we are one group and our culture is one that is why we are different from the north. But after their domination of the government for 11 years, many things had surfaced, followed by abrogation of the agreement. Then came the second war in 1983-85, from 1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 2005. Therefore all these experiences that occurred between the north and the south which caused injustice are responsible for the south demanding their rights.

Southern Demands;

The south started their demands which very trivial, in the form of unification of their salaries with their northern counterparts who were getting higher pay for the same job. This was during the colonial governments in the 1940s and 1950s. They also demanded equitable allocation of posts in 1955 during Sudanization of the civil administration; they demanded only 40 out 800 posts, but given only (6). After that the south demanded representation on political level so as not to fall victim from the unity, after all they were not educated.

The beginning of the 1950s witnessed the political consciousness and demand for federation. Self-Determination was tabled for the first time in 1965 after October revolution by southern front after the talks that the Anyanya are fighting for separation in 1963. The south saw that if there are people talking about unity, like Santino Deng, there are those who will talk about separation. Thus the Self-Determination was tabled among other choices and to be achieved through democratic means that every citizen to choose what like. The third phase arrived that was the unity phase from 1972-1983. That was the golden period for unity in Sudan.

The southerners during that time talked about unity more than others. That was during Addis Ababa agreement. And this has led to the presence of an organic relationship between that you are a participant and what you should be involve in doing, and your status as a non-participant and what you should do. The saying that the southerners needed representation and that the war was against the Arabs, were reactions rather than the principle like Satalino statement on separation.

Extreme policies;

The southern demands appeared effectively in the 1960s as inevitable results of hard-line policies taken by the central government on treatment of southerners. The period between 1972- 1983 was the zenith of conviction by southerners for unity. They remember unity on every occasion, roads, gardens, banks, and oil fields, were named as unity. Even the Anyanya soldiers were saying that Nimeri was the best leader that rule the Sudan and was a gift by God for them from heaven. The opposition by then (national front) was opposing the government of the day, but not to the unity. While the self-rule in the south was undergoing development, many things were disclosed.

The theory that the southern people were one block and the their culture and political aspiration is one, could not stand the test of time, proved by what happened in 1982(KOKORA) in which the Equatorians demanded the eviction of others from Equatoria. When that happened the northerners were spared, while other southerners faced forcible deportation. Some loss their lives because of rains and weather. So when we talk about problem as being between North and South, will be the short-sighted and shorten the breach and the risk because there is a problem also between the southerners.

As part of that referendum, too, must we talk about the relationship of north-south and south-south and the same main reason for the agreement is to end the war and Choice of options (unity or separation ) should lead to peace, it is known that if we go back to war again, this means that the agreement is defeated, not just talking about the end of the referendum and as if separated South will have the problem ended, or if the result was unity, the problem was finished.

The case is, we have to think well if the result that will be attained is going to bring us durable peace. Whether south-south or north - south peace. I want to say the problems that led KOKORA in 1982, are now occurring in the South under the auspices of the SPLM. And it should not be forgotten that during (KOKORA) they were talking about the dominance of a particular tribe over power and issued a booklet showing ministries given to a particular tribe and reached the conclusion that same booklet can be produced in an easier way than in 1982, so it's important when talking about self-determination for the south must know the conditions that it is going to.

Lessons learnt:

Dr. Lam continued; After that came the phase of determination on centralized governance between 1955 to 1964. There was also the phase of recognition, for the first time that the south had a problem. In the past, the southern problem was regarded and described as banditry or instigated by the colonial powers and so on. But in 1964, the government of prime minister Sir El was khitem Al khalifa announced in a statement admitting that the southern problem is justified with causes that needed to be addressed. The lesson people ought to learn is that the southerners must sit down, discuss their issue and decide on either unity or separation. To depend on the theory of a common enemy is theoretical and has no base. Infect people should not talk only about northern enemy.

All this time no one from the north interfered in the affairs of south Sudan in spite of accusations that surfaces every time, that every thing happening in the south, has its origin here--hinting the north, when the actual thing is not so. Therefore we have to be realistic and pragmatic in this aspect. In the famous story that the animals were happy when Mr. Jones was chased away from the farm and his absence was the basic reason for instability until the farm shattered.

Therefore unrealistic things will not bring progress. Consider Pakistan and India in 1947, Pakistan separated into west and East from India as Islamic country, in the end war broke out and Bangladesh became independent like wise Somalia. While in Somalia there are no differences, they are one race, have one language and dialectics and religion. But since 1990 up to now, it never tasted stability, this is as difference is concerned.

Self-Determination and Democracy;

Concerning self-determination, we think it is the democratic way to settle the case of unity or separation once and for all, and this means if you call for self-determination you should believe in democracy because these two walk hand in hand. Any person calling for self-determination got to be a strong believer in democracy, because it is not possible to practice self-determination in absence of democracy.

In the late 1980s SPLM was unionist as it is in the manifesto, this caused a positive reaction in the north because of unity posing. First time ever a southern movement would call for unity with the north. But at the same time, the movement did not exert any efforts to strengthen this position on the ground to have an impact on ideological change in the peasant advancing army, the concentration was with military and complete neglect of the political aspect(.01) only. The other is that the political institution had been put under the military institution.

We said earlier that the executive committee was working well, but there was a coup by the military institution. Since then, the military institution got in control of the situation. For the first time ever that a military institution directs a political institution, while the natural is that the political institution directs the military institutions.

The separatist Orientation inside the SPLM;

By that time the army had different language and the leadership had another one. The majority in the army were supporting separation while the leadership talks about unity. The army was talking about separation in the training grounds and on the SPLA/A Radio broadcasting every thing was pointing in the direction of separation and the leadership of the movement. The leadership here is referred to as the political and military high command of the movement. - i.e. leaders including myself, Dr. Riak Machar, Wani Iga, Daniel Awet and Yousif Kwoa. We were promoted on 7/1/2010 1986, and the split occurred in 1991 no meeting of politico-military high command convened, the other point is that southerners kept on saying that they are not ready to liberate the whole Sudan and we can not sacrifice our children to liberate the north like what happed in the wars of Kurmuk, Gasisan and others. And if the northerners did not join us in SPLM, this would mean that they are not for the project, this was being raised in the movement.

Until now the northerners who joined the movement are only fingers of one hand, and those who joined from the geographic north are mainly from Nuba mountains and southern blue Nile which is not proper representation of the north. These issues were not discussed in the movement seriously, and this is one of the reasons of Nasir split. We wanted to avail chances for all the members to express their opinions on these issues. Thus the only amicable way for the unionists and separatist was the self-determination as the only means for the people to express their opinions and desires. This led to the spilt and the separatist tried very hard to further their view point of separation and this where self-determination became the demand.

The first agreement on self determination;

In this respect, the first agreement on self-determination was in 1992 in Frankfurt between SPLM and Salvation government, this was followed by series of recognitions. In 1993 it was recognized in Abuja, this is the year which led to differences between William Nyuon and Dr. John Garang over the issue because William Nyuon accepted the self-determination while Garang viewed SPLM as being for unity. In 1994,the SPLM and Uma party signed an agreement at CHUKUDUM which embodied self-determination. In 1995, the opposition parties in the NDA signed the document for the national issues.

There fore all the political forces in Sudan had consented to self-determination, therefore no single party should disengage and negate by claiming not to being a party to self-determination, after all the self -determination is an acquired right for southern Sudanese and no party can reject practice of this right. It can not be denied if people respect covenants and agreements. It is well known that, of any liberation party, is the desire in a government that will address the desires of the of citizen. The basic reasons are that Khartoum government did answered desire of the people including the self-determination. But self-determination can not be practice except in presence of democracy.

If we recall the American revolution against the British in the Eighteen century did not take place because the Americans and British are one thing, and those staged the revolution are the inhabitance of the east cost(New England). They led the revolution against England, because they never wanted a government that is far from them because they are in America. The problem is the distance of the government. The American nationalism came much later in the middle of the demand for self-determination. The first objective being self expression and self reliance and second objective finding a government that can represent the whole people and can achieve the demands of all the groups.

Therefore the southern government should represent all the groups in south Sudan. And I think all the issues raised now because of differences between the north and south, will be the same issues that will arise in the south even after separation, because the independence is not going to stop these differences. If the group controlling the government attempts to prevent the other groups in participation, it will not progress as in the case of Germany. Nazis Aldof Hitler got the government by elections, but as soon as he was in power, he prevented others form practicing their rights and there was Nazism and his end is known.

Enlightenment about unity and separation;

We come after that to self-determination in peace agreement, what I want to say here is that self -determination is not just history, when the time comes on January nine 2011, the people will turn out to just vote, as if those who called for the self-determination had different understanding on this issue, and that is, the people should exactly know what is needed and what is self-determination. Thus it is pertinent to explain to the people the two options, and why the choice of unity or separation, to create a conducive atmosphere for conduction of referendum for either choice.

When the CPA talked about self-determination, it mentioned prerequisites that should be done before the referendum. First, the self-determination came in the CPA, to resolve the issue of state and religion, which gave the right of the north to apply Islamic sheria in the north, while the south gets self-determination .When you tell people about secular state as being the only condition for unity, this is against the agreement, because the two side had agreed that the north to be rule by sheria law, while south becomes secular.

The fall of the New Sudan Project;

I have written a lot about the SPLM New Sudan project building that had fallen out in Mashakos negotiations because is it based on secularism. And if you agree that two thirds of Sudan is to remain outside the new Sudan project, it means you have relinquished your project. Some may say it is only temporary, but this is the reality and not a temporal arrangement and what is put forward is the referendum for unity of Sudan and acceptance of the CPA. And if we accept the peace agreement which can not be amended except first by the two partners blessing it before the two thirds of national assembly approval. This means we are working for unity. And if we want to corporate secularism, this needs the amendment of CPA, which necessitates NCP's approval. But will this happen?

Fall of the Cultural Civilization Project:

By the same token, the cultural civilization project of the NCP had also fallen in Machakos because the cultural civilization project intended to apply Islamic sheria in the whole Sudan and beyond. And if we want to apply the Islamic (Sheria) in the south, would necessitate amendment of the agreement and this will need acceptance by SPLM and this what will not happen. Therefore the self-determination is an amicable agreement between the two partners for Islamic(sheria) in the north and secular system in southern Sudan. For the first time in history that self -determination without a side that demands separation. In every self-determination, there is separation or unity, and usually there is a side that champions each claim. But in this case who is claiming separation, when in this agreement both sides had pledged to work for unity of Sudan. Then to accord freedom to southern people to vote in the referendum. But now people are talking about unity they did not make attractive and are saying this and that.

The Conditions are no conducive for:

I believe that the condition is not conducive for the referendum, because the interim period was wasted without any achievement. If we refer to the CPA on the power distribution, there is mention of talk about reconciliation, that the two side should exert intensified efforts to achieve forgiveness and reconciliation all over the country as part of the peace building and as a tool for achieving unity for the country through the national government.

Till now the citizens have not seen the two partners to gather campaigning for the agreement to accomplish the hopes of the Sudanese and make the unity attractive. But this did not happen instead instigating against the NCP in the south considered as an enemy and not a partner, thus every one in the south is made to understand and consider that NCP a traitor in stead of the opposite. There is an important issue ignored by the two partners that is the commitment that all the organs and structures under their control must be Committed to the provisions of the Convention.

Now how many members of NCP or SPLM committed to peace agreement? This question is posed to both partners have done nothing to make unity attractive, but polarization occurred, and SPLM is complaining against NCP, and accusing it of not making the unity attractive The fact is the two partners never behaved as partners, as stipulated in the agreement. But SPLM which is ruling the south Sudan, never reinforced the ideas of New Sudan with any tangible work on the ground. If the SPLM had program or ideological project, this would have been the chance to apply that program and ideology. This had not happened in the last five years, the SPLM had not done any tangible work while the money is flowing to the south, 10 billion dollars from petrol, besides the funds coming from the national chest, funds from friendly and sister countries and money from peace funds.

The facts on the ground show that the south had not experienced any development in the last five years, only corruption and instability and perpetual interference in the affairs of states' governments, and the budget spent in Juba is 90% and only 10% left for the states from administrative point. From political point, the conditions had not been conducive for other parties to practice any political activities, thus you can not call for political ideas at this particular time.

Source: http://gsmconline.info/news-details.html?rsnpid=196

• Add New

Comments (2)

• 23-08-2010 08:51:22 |Unregistered| Aban Kur

  This analytic of Dr Lam Akol, kind of left me confuse and actually made me to doubt his intellectual understanding of politics and the history behind the struggle of the marginalize people of Sudan and South Sudan in particle. Unless this is some kind of Akhbar El Youm desperate propaganda toward unity. But if this is coming from Dr Lam Akol, then the man must be definitely suffering from mental disorder, because he has gone so low to the extend that you can not differentiate him from that mad man call Prof. De Chan. For God sake Dr Lam Akol you are better than that, don’t let those lunatic of Akhbar El Youm , mud you to the ground like this. And thanks, you were some time a hero, but what you have become is a disgrace to Shulluk and Sudan at large. Just forgive and cleans your heart from hatred, God will give you a chance to shine again

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

• 14-12-2011 06:38:29 |Unregistered| Ajak Deng Biar

  i thing so lam he was confuse what his toll to suothern sudan right now,the lam he was they one suport us
  

  • 0
  • 0

  ReplyQuote

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:          -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message: