The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option

By Justin Ambago Ramba

November 7, 2009 — The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the Sudanese the National Congress Party of President Al Bashir representing the North and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) representing the South, was in fact nothing more than one of the so many stations in the Sudanese politics which is dominated in a great portion by power struggles between the centre and the margin (periphery). Though it is now staggering like a drunken person to use the description of the Sudanese’s First Vice President and President of the semi-autonomous south Sudan H.E Salva Kiir Mayardit, it is still holding with the support it gets from the USA government.

But in reality as a result of the new civil war in the western province of Darfur, the CPA had on many occasions failed to produce the expected impact on the general political situation in the country as the changes which were supposed to follow the peace agreement were in many occasions over shadowed by this new conflict and its international ramifications. As such it became clear to the Sudanese as well as the international community that the decay that affected the CPA in its first 4 years was in fact due to the preoccupation of the Sudanese policy makers and their counterparts in the international arena with the genocide that was carried out in Darfur as the Khartoum government chose to resort to this irresponsible scorch earth policy in its attempt to suppress the new rebellion.

However the single important factor that actually made the CPA to encounter reluctance in its implementation by the signatories remains to be the antagonizing visions of the two parties to the agreement. The Islamist NCP is in no any way ready to step down from any of its objectives of clinging to power, dominating the major decision making process, holding firmly to its fundamental Islamic orientation that only pays lip services to any inclusiveness and the much promised democratic transformation, as they (Islamists) will never ever accept to establish a secular system of rule.

The SPLM on the other hand is also holding firm to its ideology of bringing about a New United Secular Sudan. However unfortunately sooner than later the two partners became engaged in rows over the implementation of almost every single item they agreed on at Naivasha in 2005. And as this very agreement was mainly brokered by the USA administration under former President George W Bush, its implementation has all through depended at large on continuous USA pressures. This is quite disturbing as it shows that the Sudanese themselves are not keen in any way to implement the peace agreement the way it should be. And this is much so the position of the dominant NCP where it has resorted to playing a policy of frustrating its partner more than any thing else. Going by the record of their behaviour even before signing the CPA, it could be seen that the NCP is a party that can not make genuine consensus but rather agrees to any step only with the primary intension of buying time once it comes under international pressure.

As such the real survival of the Islamic fundamentalists rule in any part of the Sudan depends largely on keeping south Sudan within a united Sudan, only to be used as a means of rallying support behind NCP in the name of defending Islam and the perceived right of the Sudanese Arabs to continue ruling over their fellow Africans. Unfortunately things are always not as planned and the discontent in many parts of the north itself is becoming even more of a challenge to the ruling clique of Khartoum no less than the one posed by the South. Yet the greatest paradox remains in the fact that both the NCP and the SPLM have reached a point that they continuously need the American intervention in almost every step of implementing the remaining issues of the CPA and sometimes even on the smooth from day to day maintenance of their partnership. So is it not implying that the Sudan may have to have the US especial envoy as a permanent advisor and a political broker at the Sudanese Presidency in order to mediate between the two sides till the south secedes or for ever if the Sudan remains united?

The secession of the South which has become imminent is still seen in other part of the Sudan with much scepticism especially so amongst the marginalized people of the political north (Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, the Ingassana, and the Beja). The impression here is that, at the present moment the South seems to provide the hope of championing the cause of the marginalized people of the Sudan, a position which should be taken with a pinch of salt given the true background of the protracted wars fought in southern Sudan for the last five decades. But I hope that the other marginalized people of the Sudan need also to be very realistic with themselves knowing very well that southern Sudan has reached a stage that politically it is no longer compatible with any parts of the political north especially so when most of these regions participated in the Islamic Holy War (Jihad) that was declared by the rulers of Khartoum against the non Muslims of the South.

This final test of having one country and two systems which was meant to maintain the unity of the Sudan has apparently failed as it has become even a source of a grave unrest in south Sudan. The majority of the south Sudanese politicians now believe that the North has a hand in destabilizing the south by encouraging the inter-tribal fights especially in Upper Nile and Jonglei States with the ultimate intension of painting a negative picture of the GoSS to the international community. However should this be true then for sure it has dealt the last blow to any trust that was left between the two former foes.

And as long as the Sudan remains a united country, the Muslim governments in the North will continue to exploit the religious sentiments of its citizens whether marginalised or in the centre of power to create uneasiness with the South in the name of either spreading or protecting Islam. This was the situation that existed for the better part of the period from the independence of the Sudan (1956) till today, where the marginalized people of the north are being used as fodder to feed the North/South conflicts and thus guaranteeing the tight grip on power by the northern riverians Arab elites especially those with origins in the Northern and the Central Regions of the Sudan. While these helpless marginalized people got nothing in return except for more marginalization which has at times turned into frank campaigns of genocides as is the case now in Darfur.

It is hoped that with the secession of the South, the people from the marginalized areas of the North will turn to focus more efficiently in settling their grudges with Khartoum without any distraction from the South. While this policy of marginalization which is a common anomaly in the Sudanese politics, is already showing its ugly face even in southern Sudan. And hopefully the people of the South following secession should also be in position to address this anomaly after removing the chronically ill relationship with the North from the political equation. This is because right now there are a lot of corruption, lawlessness, generalized insecurity, inter-tribal conflicts and impunity in the South that southerners remain hesitant to talk about, leave alone attempting to tackle it as the political priority in most instances is now directed towards issues pertaining to the tenacious relationship with the North to the extend that some people have continuously insisted that southerners should stop criticizing the poor performance of the government of south Sudan (GoSS) at this particular time as that would playing directly into the hands of the northern NCP. However the silence on these issues can also prove to be counter productive.

Anyway whatever we say about the present partnership between the two dominant parties in the Sudan, we know that in the absence of a continuous US intervention the CPA would cease to exist. Also the SPLM’s expectations of a New United Secular Sudan has failed the test which suggests that the Sudanese in practise are more prone to end up with two separate states come 2011. This brings us to the natural conclusion that the noises being made in Khartoum by our fellow northerners whenever they hear of calls for the secession of the South, utterly remains to be seen as a mere act of hypocrisy while in reality they are the ones who sow the seeds of the anticipated secession.

Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, MB, BCh, DRH, MD. Secretary General of the United South Sudan Party (USSP). The party that stands for the independence of South Sudan. Can be reached at either justinramba@doctors.org.uk or justinramba@aol.co.uk

18 Forum messages

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 06:30, by Gatwech

Justin Ambago Ramba,

That is a very well articulated and analyzed article.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 06:42, by Gatwech

You see, the vision of keeping the Sudan united after failing since 1956 was/is a waste of time. Northern governments are too deformed to be reformed. They are deep rooted in islam and Arab identity. No body will change that. The so-called New Sudan Vision was used to blackmail the secessionists in the south. That was all.

Those who called for self-determination in 1991 studied the matter very well given the fact that they were educated in the North where they grew up and understood the northern mentality well more than those of John Garang who grew up in East Africa, got educated there and knew less about the mentality of northerners. He thought it was something easy to just copy western style of democracy and paste it in Sudan. Sudan is a unique situation!

Now the so-called making unity attractive by the CPA’s partners has turned into witch hunt. Instead, the northerners are de-estabilizing the South if we can borrow what many believe. In every state there are tribal fighting sponsored by Khartoum. In Jonglei it involves Lou-Nuer, Bor-Dinka and Murle. In Central Equatoria, it was Bari against Mundari. In Warrap it is Apuk against Aguok. In Lakes, Apaak against Ciec or Agaar-Dinka against Jur Beli, etc.

In Western Equatoria, the LRA is doing the job. In Eastern EQuatoria Khartoum is using Toposa and Turkana conflicts. In Upper Nile it is Shilluk against the Dinka.

So, the vision to keep Sudan united is in favour of the North to blackmail the aspiration of the people of South Sudan in their yearning for independence and at the same time keeping the South forcefully united with the North and de-estabilizing it at the same time.

Long live the vision of self-determination and independence of the South!
- The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 08:34, by Khent
  
  Those men also paradoxically recieved weapons, ammunition and supplies from the enemy- they engaged in military operations alongside the SAF against the SPLA.
  - The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 12:18, by Gatwech
    
    John Garang also shot his first bullet against the South Sudanese separatists like Samuel Gai Tut. He actually started the deadly game of violent politics among South Sudanese. However, what matters is the end result of successful vision of separatist leaders which they have scored. The end justifies the means.
    - The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 16:02, by Khent
      
      Gatwech:
      
      The ’deadly game’ did NOT start with the death of Samuel Gai Tut. The ’deadly game’ was enabled by the sordid killing of recruits coming from Bahr al-Ghazel and other areas affected by the uprising. As you may know, to reach the SPLA training camps in Ethiopia, the recruits had to pass through eastern Upper Nile, a territory that was under the control of Anya-Nya II. Anya-Nya II perpetrated wanton killings throughout the first five years of the armed struggle. The recruits were killed in cold blood by Anya-Nya II, on discovering that they were intending to join the SPLA.
      
      In 1983, before the death of Samuel Gai Tut in 1984, many innocent recruits became victims of torture, long detention or possibbly death unless they could prove beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not intend on joining Garang’s SPLA.
      
      The biggest group that fell into this abyss of death, was the Ngok Dinka of Abyei, led by sergeant Bagat Agwek Acaak. Bagat was a sergeant from the first infantry division. As he passed through eastern Upper Nile, Samuel Gai Tut’s group fell upon them killing nearly two thirds of the recruits
      
      You use the mantra "the end justifies the means", as though your position has been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment.
      
      At first you condemned, and rightly so.. Garang’s extensive Human rights abuses, and now you espouse that "the end justifies the means"? You are a capricious hypocrite.
      
      You’re clueless and are unable to distinguish a round peg from a square hole. This is why you’re reduced to justifying the injustifiable. You should really take your mindless prattle elsewhere.
      
      Riek Machar had very little to show for his collaboration with the enemy. In 1995, Dr. Riek Machar was the leader of a virtual movement, lacking any real substance or coherence.
      
      The government to whom Riek and Paulino Matip served, fostered a devastating power play between the two men, resulting in the intensifying of insecurity in what was supposed to be a government-held area- this powerplay served the government’s purpose in neutralising the Southern guerilla factions best positioned to interfere with the exploitation of the Bentiu oilfields.
      
      Matip had maintained a somewhat autonomous military and economic base in his Bul Nuer territory near Bentiu. As a Major-General in the Sudanese army, he had direct access to military supplies. In reality, Riek had more need of Matip than Paulino of Riek, and Riek’s subsequent attempt to put his own man in the governorship of Western Upper Nile, resulted with Paulino’s troops taking and sacking Ler, Riek’s headquarters.
      
      Riek’s protests at the government’s support for Paulino had no lasting effect. The intensification of oil exploitation in the Bentiu oilfields in 1998-9 brought with it, into the region, an increase of the SAF and other armed personnel, contributing directly to another outbreak of fighting between a profusion of Nuer factions beginning in April 1999.
      
      Faced with the demonstration of his powerlessness, Riek complained that while the 1997 peace agreement placed the oilfields under his control, the government’s support of Matip undermined his position and the entire ’agreement’.
      
      Privately he explained to his supporters both inside and outside the country, and to foreign observers, that he would stick to the latter of the agreement to show all concerned that when it collapsed, the fault was due to the government’s own bad faith.
      
      By the year 2000, Riek NO longer had access to government ammunition and supplies.. he was now without a movement. He tried to regain the initiative by leaving Khartoum in December 1999 and resigning from the government two months later. But lacking any real support in his home area he moved to Nairobi, where he tried to maintain the appearance of a leader of a viable political movement.
      
      The impact of the long-delayed reconciliation between Riek and Garang in January 2000 was muted by the fact, that Riek had very few troops to bring with him: he had alienated many of his former subordinates.
      
      Gatwech, you should THANK Dr. John Garang for permitting Riek Machar’s return.
      
      Where would Riek Machar be, had it not been for Dr. John Garang’s forgiveness and grace? Nowhere! And you all know it.
- The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 9 November 2009 09:02, by Sudan virus
  
  Fantastic Gatwech,
  
  In addition, if the south secede,hopefully the deformed Khartoum government will be reformed.
  
  Insisting on united sudan, means accepting all the old odds to continue in the Sudan and that means inviting another north south Sudan war.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 06:33, by Mr Famous Big_Logic_Boy

Mr Ramba don’t take us back to the violated CPA, CPA is nothing as have describe in your statement, first CPA has not been fully implemented by Notorous Criminal Party NCP, the little we get goes into personl pocket some been used as tool to threaten with other, eg the murder of NCP memebr in WES, secondly some people within Southern have gone too far the role of CPA, a lot of things about CPA been violated in South by some gangs of SPLA. Occuption of land, killing, corruption not to mention since its a culture, looting, ridding of cattle oragnised by SPLA minsters, murdering of innocents oragnised by gang minsiters of SPLA, dictatorship as shown from top, attack and killing of others for their political choice, transfer of fresh U$D to foreign countries in the broad day light, registration of fake names in pay slip and many more. Lets focus on future not what we see at the moment. It is a matter of time. People will cry 100 times but nothing will change since everything become a culture to thie government. I pity that a concern citizen must know the possible solutions to this poor management.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 9 November 2009 01:35, by Martin D Ajhak

Thanks Big logic,

You become more genealistic this time, using these general terms that describe the failures of GOSS and corruption is appreciated , keep it up.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 06:56, by jur_likang_a_ likan’g

As usual Dr Ambago you have again written another interesting article about Sudan. In fact if the history of Sudan is followed seriously, the inference one draws is that the real separatists in Sudan are Jallaba. Their rhetorics and the deeds speak volumes about this. The policy of various governments that ruled the nation has never attempted to build a united nation of Sudan based on citizenship, equality and freedom that almost all nations of Africa enjoy. The independence of the country was robbed by Jallaba hitheto. It was not for all Sudanese as only Jallaba got the benefits of that despite the fact that South Sudan and North Sudan have never been a united country as Jallaba would like to portray.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 07:05, by Akol Liai Mager

I would not agree with Dr Ambago on his view that "keeping South in a united Sudan" facilitates the popualrity of NIF as a defender of Islam.

1. My view is that in contrary, "unity of Sudan" facilitates the process for the down fall of NIF and elimination of any radicalise religious or sectarian agenda in the north. This is evident in the changes of language spoken in the north for decades that; "What southerners want, into do southerners want us to give up our religion and Arabic identity for the unity of Sudan?" They know that viable answer which evolving in their minds is yes.

The current language spoken in northern Sudn as mentioned above indicates that northerners are moving towards accepting New United Secular Sudan if that can convince Southerners to vote for unity. This is not a one side compromise, SPLM and regional Southern parties too need to compromise by selecting an acceptable Presidential Candidate, and selecting Malik Agar or Abdul Azziz Adam Al Hillu will just do the job 100%. There is nothing wrong with such compromise for SPLM and Southerners unless a racist motivated political formular left the north for south Sudan.

2. SPLM should not be the only party in the South to hold the burden of GOSS poor performance nor should President Kiir hold that burden alone either. This is because (a) GOSS as an implementing institution, it is formed by many parties from Juba based central Southern government to Ten States governments. (b) SSLA is part of the GOSS because it is an Observatory and Legislating Institution and if it fails to do its work, there should be a collective resignations from Non-SPLM Members from this institution, and lack of this indicate that all parties in the South in including Dr Ambago USSP have miserablly failed the citizens.

There is nothing wrong with New United Secular Sudan. What is wrong is the lack of believe, and this reminds me of Dr Wayne Dyer who says "Believe and you will see it with your eyes."

On his invisible power, Jesus performed a lot of Miracles. But according to Bible, before performing those miracles, Jesus ask for faith first saying to the miracle receiver that believe now and your sins will be forgiven and you will get what you want. Jesus theory remained the same up todate, as we believe in anything that we want and work for, it will appear before our eyes.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 15:32, by Gatwech

Akol Liai,

You sound like a religious fanatic or a primitive believer. Don’t mix politics with religious beliefs. Jesus had spiritual power to make things happen once the beneficiary believed in him. But this should not merely apply in politics. For example, if you don’t mobilize voters to register and simply believe that you will win the elections, then that is uniquely primitive thinking.

Stop dreaming about the so-called New Sudan vision. Even Garang abandoned it when he told southerners to vote for separation in order to become first class citizens. He first fooled himself that he could simply copy the Western style of democracy and paste it in Sudan. I did not blame him because he grew up in East Africa and knew nothing much about the mentality of northerners which is deep rooted in islam and arabism. These two identities in the north determine who should qualify for justice, development and fair cultural and socio-economic and political treatment. Garang did not realize that until 2002. But others like Dr. Riek Machar Dr. Lam Akol who grew up and got their education in the North understood the north well. They knew the best solution was separate independent identities. But Garang could not even speak Arabic, how could he understand the real northern mentality well?
- The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 9 November 2009 05:00, by Akol Liai Mager
  
  Dear Gatwech,
  
  Hugh Mackay said; "It is not what our message does to a listener or reader, but what a listener or reader does to our message that makes us good communicators." For this reason, I don’t feel surprise or annoyed. You have right to chose insult confrontation over constructive argument, feel free my brother and may God bless you for that.
  
  Just consider these:
  
  1. Taiwan-China and Georgian-Russian neighbourhood before trying to kill someone you do not agree with you.
  
  2. The blood of Nuba and Angasseners is watching the South.
  
  Akol liai

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 07:25, by Atem Angok

Dr. Justin, Though I do not know you but still brother southerner, you deserve huge credit and great appreciation from me for your coherent analysis of Sudan politics. Keep up sensitizing the blinds such as the other marginalized people who are being fooled by the NIF in Khartoum to the extend of forgetting their rights simply because of being Muslims. people, mainly southerners have to be careful about the Nation Islamic Regime in Khartom, otherwise this idiot regime may temper with CPA as they did with many previous Agreements they signed with Southerners and the living example is Mini Minawa’s Abuja Agreement which is already in the dustbin/garbage. In all, my hope and the hope of other people is SECESSION of the SOUTH in 2011. Thank you so much Dr. Justin Ambago.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 08:33, by jur_likang_a_ likan’g

The idea of New Sudan is vast to understand. No one can refute the fact that the word is either coined to address a new state in a liberated South Sudan or a politically changed Jallaba Sudan. The fact of the matter is that the word is principally meant to address a country that is supposed to evolve or reform to accomodate social equality, political freedom and economic independence whereby citizenship should be the access key to services that the country provide regardless of race, religion, sex, and regional belonging. However this is just a theory that can not materialize with people of Jallaba mentality. This is what Jallaba will eternally never want as their wealth and power has been built on a firm foundation of inequality and divide and rule principle. South Sudan needs to take charge of all its affairs and forget about future antenovs or wars for that matter. The option that we stay united is just a way of buying time for us to go back to war again as the Arab, muslim world will come again to disturb our peace by instigating their religious mates to stir problems. Remember upto now the Arabs have been using the muslim majority card to claim leadership in its continual trouble making in Sudan a thing that we do not want. South Sudan has enough to give to its people who have been massacred, humiliated, dehumanised through slave trade era upto now. We need a well governed nation with a well established defence capability to defend our homeland in air, sea and land when offended by Jallaba or any country for that matter. If I am wrong only Yahwee can attest to this fact with examples and proof in Northern Nigeria, Indonesia, and Phillipine Mindanao.

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 07:48, by mohammed ali

It is always easy to blame the Jalabba!You can use whatever descreption to characteris northeners..islamist,fundumentalist,Arabs..but this does not change the facts.I can assure you that nobody in the north even in Darfur,blue nile,nuba mountains..nobody is intersted in a united Sudan with south Sudan as part of the country,whether it is new or old Sudan.Nobody is making any noise about secession of Sudan,it is only the SPLA which is making a non-stop noise.SPLA do not know what they want!!The CPA is not staggering, it is almost completely and fully implemplemented!

Fundumentally only the referundum law is left!The law which was accepted by the vice-president of south Sudan and other negotiators from the SPLA.Machar declared in Juba airport in jubelation that he had defeated the NCP and came with the agreement of 51% out of 67%,which is very reasonable and very easy to achive.Not more than one week the non-noisy SPLA rejected the agreement!

What else is left? The national security law,which should not be of concern to sombody who wants to seceed!This law hs been drafted by the SPLA(Machar admitted that),was rejected by the communist Jallabi of SPLA Yasir Arman, a new law was drafted jointly by the NCP/SPLA, again it was rejected by the communist group of Arman/Pagan!Well and good, tolerate the existing law,which you have been tolerating for almost five years , for only one year and then you can seced and make the best law in the world in your new Sudan.Mind you this law applies to the north as the the south has it’s, free and independent government, so why is the noise?

Other laws like freedom of press, freedom of information,criminal law..etc should not be of concern to the SPLA .They are right now an independent state and within one year the are going to be tottaly separate state..so again why is the noise? or it is just a habit to blame the jalabba!!

The noise always come from the SPLA,...they refused to conduct the census then accepted , they rejected the result(though the South was enumerated only by the SPLA,even northen supervisers were ordered to leave the South)then accepted the result; election law was rejeted untill the evening before it was presented to the parliment, next morning they voted in it’s support, same thing happened to the national security law!Your president asked you to vote for secession, next day he denied that!Yet we are making the noise!!!

Southerners are ignoring the fact that RIGHT NOW THE SOUTH IS COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY AND FULLY INDEPENDENT STATE!!1WE ARE NOT INTERFERING with ANYTHING IN THE SOUTH, BUT WE ARE ALLOWING YOU TO INTERFER IN THE NORTH.YOU ARE RULING US BUT WE ARE NOT RULING YOU.YOU ARE PRESNT IN KHARTOUM TO RULE US EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE NO PRESENCE ,WHATSOEVER IN JUBA!

It is so simple! JUST STOP RULING US NOW, DO NOT LISTEN TO OUR NOISE ,LEAVE US ALONE. YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR OWN SEPARATE STATE , HAVE IT NOW WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY FOR YOU. FINISHED, THE CPA IS COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED!!!

You mentioned that the south represent hope for the marginalized people; simple ,naive question, before going too far...Does the South represent any hope for Southerners? I will leave your honest answer for you!!

People in the north are fed up!They are calling for a referendum in the north with a quorum of 90% and a majority of 75%. They will get!Enough is enough look for somebody else to blame!!

The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 15:35, by Gatwech

Dear readers,

Some of you sound like a religious fanatic or a primitive believer. Don’t mix politics with religious beliefs. Jesus had spiritual power to make things happen once the beneficiary believed in him. But this should not merely apply in politics. For example, if you don’t mobilize voters to register and simply believe that you will win the elections, then that is uniquely primitive thinking.

Stop dreaming about the so-called New Sudan vision. Even Garang abandoned it when he told southerners to vote for separation in order to become first class citizens. He first fooled himself that he could simply copy the Western style of democracy and paste it in Sudan. I did not blame him because he grew up in East Africa and knew nothing much about the mentality of northerners which is deep rooted in islam and arabism. These two identities in the north determine who should qualify for justice, development and fair cultural and socio-economic and political treatment. Garang did not realize that until 2002.

But others like Dr. Riek Machar, Dr. Lam Akol, etc who grew up and got their education in the North understood the north well. They knew the best solution was separate independent identities. But Garang could not even speak Arabic, how could he understand the real northern mentality well?
- The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 16:08, by Khent
  
  Gatwech:
  
  The ’deadly game’ did NOT start with the death of Samuel Gai Tut. The ’deadly game’ was enabled by the sordid killing of recruits coming from Bahr al-Ghazel and other areas affected by the uprising. As you may know, to reach the SPLA training camps in Ethiopia, the recruits had to pass through eastern Upper Nile, a territory that was under the control of Anya-Nya II. Anya-Nya II perpetrated wanton killings throughout the first five years of the armed struggle. The recruits were killed in cold blood by Anya-Nya II, on discovering that they were intending to join the SPLA.
  
  In 1983, before the death of Samuel Gai Tut in 1984, many innocent recruits became victims of torture, long detention or possibbly death unless they could prove beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not intend on joining Garang’s SPLA.
  
  The biggest group that fell into this abyss of death, was the Ngok Dinka of Abyei, led by sergeant Bagat Agwek Acaak. Bagat was a sergeant from the first infantry division. As he passed through eastern Upper Nile, Samuel Gai Tut’s group fell upon them killing nearly two thirds of the recruits
  
  You use the mantra "the end justifies the means", as though your position has been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment.
  
  At first you condemned, and rightly so.. Garang’s extensive Human rights abuses, and now you espouse that "the end justifies the means"? You are a capricious hypocrite.
  
  You’re clueless and are unable to distinguish a round peg from a square hole. This is why you’re reduced to justifying the injustifiable. You should really take your mindless prattle elsewhere.
  
  Riek Machar had very little to show for his collaboration with the enemy. In 1995, Dr. Riek Machar was the leader of a virtual movement, lacking any real substance or coherence.
  
  The government to whom Riek and Paulino Matip served, fostered a devastating power play between the two men, resulting in the intensifying of insecurity in what was supposed to be a government-held area- this powerplay served the government’s purpose in neutralising the Southern guerilla factions best positioned to interfere with the exploitation of the Bentiu oilfields.
  
  Matip had maintained a somewhat autonomous military and economic base in his Bul Nuer territory near Bentiu. As a Major-General in the Sudanese army, he had direct access to military supplies. In reality, Riek had more need of Matip than Paulino of Riek, and Riek’s subsequent attempt to put his own man in the governorship of Western Upper Nile, resulted with Paulino’s troops taking and sacking Ler, Riek’s headquarters.
  
  Riek’s protests at the government’s support for Paulino had no lasting effect. The intensification of oil exploitation in the Bentiu oilfields in 1998-9 brought with it, into the region, an increase of the SAF and other armed personnel, contributing directly to another outbreak of fighting between a profusion of Nuer factions beginning in April 1999.
  
  Faced with the demonstration of his powerlessness, Riek complained that while the 1997 peace agreement placed the oilfields under his control, the government’s support of Matip undermined his position and the entire ’agreement’.
  
  Privately he explained to his supporters both inside and outside the country, and to foreign observers, that he would stick to the latter of the agreement to show all concerned that when it collapsed, the fault was due to the government’s own bad faith.
  
  By the year 2000, Riek NO longer had access to government ammunition and supplies.. he was now without a movement. He tried to regain the initiative by leaving Khartoum in December 1999 and resigning from the government two months later. But lacking any real support in his home area he moved to Nairobi, where he tried to maintain the appearance of a leader of a viable political movement.
  
  The impact of the long-delayed reconciliation between Riek and Garang in January 2000 was muted by the fact, that Riek had very few troops to bring with him: he had alienated many of his former subordinates.
  
  Gatwech, you should THANK Dr. John Garang for permitting Riek Machar’s return.
  
  Where would Riek Machar be, had it not been for Dr. John Garang’s forgiveness and grace? Nowhere! And you all know it.
  
  So you are now denying that Dr. John Garang spoke Arabic? This is an example of the level of desperation you’ve sunk to.
  
  Ps: Dr. John Garang spoke Arabic quite well. I enjoy the fact that you entertain me with your baseless lies.
  - The secession of south Sudan remains the only viable option 8 November 2009 23:30, by Master
    
    The current situation in Sudan, assessed from an objective examination of its political, economic, social and security aspects, calls for the urgent adoption of a new course based on national solidarity, and the country should place unity over division and the collective over individual. Only this will prepare Sudan for a national revival and start a tangible drive for development.
    
    The first challenge facing today’s Sudan is ideological. The so-called "New Sudan" scheme, dividing the country into various parts, is closely linked to the global plans of messianic US politicians and champions of the Project for the New American Century, drawn up under former US president George W Bush. The scheme aims to change the identity of Sudan, erasing its history and sapping the power of its people.
    
    The implementation of this scheme in Sudan would promote goals that transcend Sudanese geographical borders and national territories. Eliminating Arab and Islamic culture in Sudan is only one of the declared goals of this scheme. The aim of the New Sudan project is to reshape conditions in Sudan in a way that benefits only pro-Africa, pro- Christianity and pro-American groups. Once Sudan is severed from its Arab fabric, Egypt’s southern flank would be exposed, Red Sea security would be compromised and Sudan would become a thorn in the side of the Arab world.
    
    The New Sudan scheme aims to undermine the essence of Arab national security through four main points, which include weakening the national security of Egypt and Libya by depriving them of the strategic depth Sudan now offers; threatening the security of Red Sea littoral countries; eliminating the function of Sudan as a strategic source for Arab food security; ending the role of Sudan as a bridge between Arab and African areas, and terminating cultural exchange between the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa.
    
    The second challenge facing Sudan is external. This external challenge has grown with the rise of the US as the world’s sole superpower, a development that has given a boost to a global project spearheaded by the forces of Zionism and evangelical Christianity and their allies in Africa. The nature of the external challenge has changed over the past 20 years or so. At times, foreign threats have taken the shape of an economic, military and diplomatic blockade. At other times, foreign powers have interfered in favour of local players on the political scene, and neighbouring countries have been used as instruments of pressure and blackmail.