National Salvation Front (NAS): The Eighth Anniversary - Happy 8th Birthday NAS

General Thomas Cirillo Swaka (File)

 

On the 6th day of March 2017 General Thomas Cirillo Swaka sowed the seed for the total liberation of South Sudan in every sense of the word, by declaring the founding of the National Salvation Front (NAS). NAS is now the vehicle for the political, social and economic liberation of the South Sudanese people, to free themselves from tribal hegemonic power exercised by the Juba regime. This noble decision must have come from a deep place.

As an educated career soldier, General Swaka understands very well that his obligation is to defend the land and its people. Not to plunder it, pillage it, rob it, sell it and kill the citizens as the SSPDF does in support of a tribal system. So, General Swaka’s experience in the SPLA which is now renamed SSPDF from 1992 to March 2017, has convinced him beyond doubt that South Sudan is facing an existential crisis that threatens the South Sudan we all know and love, and this threat affects and endangers us, its people too.

As the soldier that General Swaka is, whose beliefs, moral integrity and values oblige him to do the right thing, he rose to the challenge to resist the tribal system in order to rescue South Sudan at its hour of dire need. Without any hesitation, he made his intention clear to the South Sudanese people and the world. He proceeded to correctly identify the problem of South Sudan in his mission statement as, “The regime has created a highly selfish class that ensures its continued existence for the singular purpose of illicitly amassing personal and family wealth and imposing tribal hegemony on the country.” This is similar to the pronouncement of our forefathers notably, Emilio Tafeng, Paul Ali Gbatala, Marco Rume, and many others who ignited the resistance to the Khartoum government in 1955 Torit mutiny.

Like now, in 1954, the colonial powers empowered the northern Sudanese via the Sudanization programme where out of 800 positions given to the Sudanese, the Arabs took 794 positions leaving only 6 for the entire Southern Sudan. That was the colonial powers and the Arabs practising racism. Our forefathers responded to this abuse decisively in 1955 which led to the formation of Anyanya calling for separation of the Sudan. The hard work of our forefathers laid the foundation for the struggle for our independence.

Unfortunately, today, a single tribe hijacked the state of South Sudan on Independence Day on 09/07/2011, and installed themselves as the new colonial power in their quest to shape the state in the image of their tribe. They wore the garment of oppressors shamelessly plunging the country into total chaos.

To them the independence of South Sudan was not freedom, but the beginning of their struggle to shape and create a tribal state using state tools such as the security and economic sectors. Please see the speech of President Salva Kiir delivered during the SPLM retreat in Lobonok in December 2018, especially phase 3. (https://paanluelwel.com/2018/12/06/president-kiirs-speech-at-the-splm-retreat-at-lobonok-south-sudan/) and Carol Berger’s, “South Sudan: the Dinka plan to use ‘ethnocide’ to create their own state.” (https://martinplaut.com/2019/04/10/south-sudan-the-dinka-plan-to-use-ethnocide-to-create-their-own-state/)

 So, it is the ruling tribe in South Sudan like the Arabs in the Sudan who do not believe in a multi-tribal, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural state. They believe in a mono-ethnic state, run by tribal ideology where the tribe members enjoy the spoils of the state with the rest of the citizens completely cut out from its services. Anyone who comes to South Sudan cannot miss tribalism in full play. It is against these tribal policies of the regime in Juba that General Swaka rose up to oppose it in the name of all South Sudanese, just as our forefathers did in 1955. In a sense, he is carrying forward the torch of true liberation, left to us by our forefathers. We cannot accept a mono-ethnic state, after fighting the Arabs for 56 years. This tribal system is a total distortion of the freedom and development of the people of South Sudan. Thus, General Swaka is continuing the true liberation of South Sudan. Back then on 6^th March 2017 General Swaka gallantly responded to the challenge of our time for us to realise our dignity as free people.

Today, the National Salvation Front is celebrating its 8^th anniversary. This is a time to reflect and evaluate our achievement. From the day of its inception, the focus was on protecting and nurturing this newly born movement. Early in the journey, it was obviously vulnerable, and it needed protection from the Juba regime and others. It needed nurturing by recruiting true believers in its ideology of South Sudanism and building its institutions, and policies.

NAS comfortably managed to protect and develop itself by repelling attacks from the regime forces in numerous ways. In the last 8 years, the leadership spent considerable time for the organisation to be where it is. It can be argued with confidence that the movement is in a stable place, with great potential to grow both in reach and influence.

The detractors of NAS for the last 8 years have been dismissive of NAS’ achievements based on dual lines of arguments which are that:

1) NAS has not captured a single administrative post in the country, and;

2) NAS should abandon its national agenda of liberating the whole country, and become a regional movement.

These criticisms are baseless and without any solid evidence in our history. So, it is time to debunk these misleading myths and arguments.

Firstly, since the inception of NAS, it has prioritised the survival of the movement, and its development. As expected, the first attack came from SPLM-IO of Riek Machar in 2018 with the intention to remove it from the South Sudanese political space. SPLM-IO saw NAS as a threat to its relevance as the sole opposition to the Juba regime. However, NAS prevailed. Then the Juba regime motivated by defending the tribal system began to attack NAS regularly. Again, NAS continued to repel the enemy while working hard to defend itself, nurture its growth and build itself politically, diplomatically and organically, without any support from the region and internationally.

The question then follows: Does NAS need to capture any place?

The answer is simple, no. As capturing any territory requires huge resources to manage, therefore, strategically, capturing a territory is unnecessary. This is not a conventional war. It is a war of resistance with the sole objective to weaken the government and remove it from power. So, the idea that NAS should be capturing territories at this moment in time, is a misplaced and unreasoned assumption.

Secondly, the argument that NAS should become a regional movement is short-sighted, and frankly speaking, it is reductionist and again, unreasoned. Our forefathers, correctly fought for South Sudan, and we paid dearly with our blood, in the name of the liberation of South Sudan. Literature elsewhere puts the number of people killed in the first war of Anyanya at just under three quarters of a million. Of these half a million people were lost in Equatoria. In the second war of 1983, Southern Sudan lost over three million people with a considerable number coming from Equatoria. With this huge loss of life in Equatoria’s history, and especially given the fact that the very idea of South Sudan as a country was pioneered by our Equatorian forefathers; why would any rational person want to erase himself/herself from South Sudan? Have all these Equatorians died in vain? Must we cut and run? I leave that to the reader to work it out for themselves.

In all the wars mentioned, southern Sudanese were fighting the state of Sudan which consisted of all the people of north Sudan, and we prevailed. So, our unity delivered South Sudan. Thinking of the situation right now, it makes no sense to think regionally. The tribal system of one ethnic group comprising around one and a quarter million people cannot defeat the twelve million inhabitants of South Sudan. Importantly, this ethnic group has abused the other South Sudanese. Just like our unity defeated the Arabs, our unity now can quickly end this tribal system. What is needed in South Sudan is a proper government exercising the rule of law. NAS has a Blueprint for the problems of South Sudan. So please visit its website: https://www.nassouthsudan.com/

Having responded to the criticism levelled against NAS, let us look at all the movements that fought in the liberation of South Sudan, and those now fighting in South Sudan against the ethnic regime. The point here is to briefly compare and evaluate their performance, so as to give context to the remarkable feat NAS has achieved by the 8^th anniversary of the establishment of the National Salvation Front.

Let us first consider Anyanya 1, from 1963 to 1972. Anyanya was formed at a time when all the neighbouring countries strongly believed in the Organisation of African Unity clause of inviolability of borders. This made it difficult for Anyanya to get any support. It had no support regionally and internationally. Anyanya survived by attacking government posts to gather weapons. The troubles in the Congo around its independence in 1960 provided an opportunity for Anyanya to buy guns in small insignificant numbers from Congolese fleeing into the Sudan.

So, from its inception in 1963 until 1972, Anyanya by its 9^th anniversary had only achieved the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972, which granted the southern region Regional Autonomy. One year on from where NAS is now, Anyanya did not capture any place because capturing territories would place a heavy burden on the movement. The small amount of support that came from Israel, latterly, can be said to be tokenistic. Anyanya failed to articulate the problem of South Sudan, and everything was based on the expectation that the churches would provide support. Anyanya also did not have a Blueprint of how South Sudan would be governed.

Second, as a result of the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972, Mr Abel Alier, the first President of the High Executive Council, clandestinely represented his own political interests, although in name he was supposed to represent the Sudanese Socialist Union. On gaining power, Mr Alier was the first Southern Sudanese who began to introduce tribalism in Southern Sudan. He connived with the Arabs and played a big role in dividing southern Sudanese. He had no policies for developing southern Sudan except promoting tribalism. Alier relied heavily on the Arabs for his political survival. On the 8^th anniversary of the Regional Government (1980), Alier had plunged Southern Sudan with his tribalism into political turmoil, leading to the redivision of southern Sudan into the three regions of Equatoria, Bahre El Ghazal and Upper Nile. Please see, ‘The decline of Equatoria and emergence of Jieng tribal power in South Sudan’ (https://pachodo.org/pachodo-english-articles/43679-the-decline-of-equatoria-and-emergence-of-jieng-tribal-power-in-south-sudan)

Third, SPLM/A emerged in 1983 mainly due to corruption in the Sudanese Armed Forces and Jieng anger of the division of southern Sudan into three regions. The commander of the Southern Commend Major General Sadiq Al Bana had business dealings with his junior Lieutenant Colonel Keribino Kuanyin, the commander of Bor garrison. This relationship developed into mistrust and when Major General Al Bana wanted to act against Keribino, the latter rebelled and sparked a southern rebellion in the Sudanese armed forces.

The redivision of southern Sudan into three regions by President Jaafar Mohamed Nimeiri, angered the Jieng people. Dr John Garang, a Jieng expressed his anger in his book, ‘The call for Democracy in Sudan.’ He wrote, “Again, at a personal level, if there was one thing that made me go the additional mile in my opposition to Nimeiri, it was his dismantling of the Addis Ababa [agreement,] and [the] abortion of the process of national integration.”

These two events mark the accidental birth of SPLM/A in 1983. It immediately received military, political and diplomatic support from Ethiopia, and Libya due to the dynamics of the cold war between the West and the Soviet Union in the region. As a result, SPLM/A started from a good place. However, in the first 8 years, the movement was riddled with abuse of human rights and tribalism. It only managed to capture Nasir, a small post in Upper Nile after fighting for two years. With all the armaments supplied by Ethiopia and Libya, the movement’s performance was disappointing. They squandered opportunities after opportunities because of tribal tyranny. So eventually on their 8^th anniversary they achieved a divided movement, with Dr Lam Akol and Dr Riek Machar breaking away forming SPLM/A United in 1991, with the objective of achieving the right to self-determination. The SPLM/A did not produce any documents to show how they would govern the ‘New Sudan.’

Fourth, SPLM/A United which broke away from the main movement did not survive to reach its 8^th anniversary. Dr Lam broke away leaving Dr Machar. The latter then allied with President Omer Hassan Al Bashir of the Sudan signing the Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997. Even with support of Khartoum, Dr Machar achieved nothing. Equally, SPLM/A-United did not produce any document to show how they would govern the country after secession.

Fifth, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) 2005. This agreement handed power to SPLM/A in South Sudan and the National Islamic Front in the Sudan. The people of the Sudan in south and north were not consulted or included in this deal. In South Sudan, the Jieng hijacked the autonomous government and begin to build a tribal system. Exactly on its 8^th anniversary, SPLM/A tribal policies resulted into genocide of the Nuer people. Like the other political/military groups mentioned above, the rulers in South Sudan failed flat to govern due to absence of policies that unite the people.

Therefore, the above political groups failed to take into consideration the history of South Sudan from 1947 as a guide to forecasting the future, and in making relevant policies to keep the people of South Sudan united. So, these groups listed above, to put it kindly, failed in national planning. They had not thought or dreamt of how the future of the coming generation can be secured for peaceful co-existence. This is where NAS has been different, and where its significance comes in.

NAS has painstakingly, in the last 8 years, worked hard to put in place a movement that is determined to free the people of South Sudan in totality. It is committed to realising and bringing to light what our forefathers stood and struggled for, namely, a truly sovereign and an independent democratic country that every South Sudanese can live in, happily and in peace, regardless of tribe, creed, gender and so on. NAS is the only movement so far that has thought through what should happen in the country. It is the only movement in the history of South Sudan that has a Blueprint for the governance of South Sudan, since 1947.

Therefore, in celebrating its 8^th anniversary, the people of South Sudan can rest assured that NAS unlike the other political groups, will prioritise their interests in this struggle for freedom. NAS is in a good place, and from here, it can only grow continually. Aluta continua!

Elhag Paul

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.