The President of the Republic, H.E. Field Marshal Omar Hasan Ahmad Al Bashir, visited Juba on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008. This visit was aimed at holding joint council of ministers meeting to review the North-South agreement, its implementation and signing a number of feasibility studies on a number of projects in South Sudan, including dam construction in Equatoria region, the seat of the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) and the three State Governments of Eastern, Central and Western Equatoria.
The visit is the third in three years – that is to say ever since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed on January 9th, 2005. This visit also appeared to be the first that went without any kind of intimidating statements or sounds from the pro-separatists in South Sudan as was the case in his visit to Juba immediately after the signing of the CPA; and the second CPA anniversary; in which the President and his First Vice delivered speeches critical of each other's party and government.
Agreements, feasibility studies and/or contracts that officially sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially from H.E. President Al Bashir are necessary as they are likely to be welcomed by Egypt. It is worth noting that the history of the River Nile Basin Organisation (RNBO) has always seen Egypt getting up in arms whenever an RNBO member-state tries to construct a dam or divert Nile or any of its tributaries' water for local use.
In 1979, Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, said that, “the only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water." In 1988, then Egyptian Foreign Minister, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who later became the United Nations’ Secretary-General, predicted that the next war in the Middle East would be fought over the waters of the Nile, not politics. Since then Egypt has threatened to bomb dam development in Sudan. It has also challenged Kenya’s rhetoric denouncing the 1929 and 1959 agreements and desire to withdraw from them as acts of war. It warned Tanzania over its plans to drain the Lake Victoria, http://www.fratfiles.com/essays/143511.html.
However, the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially the Fulla Falls in Nimule, Eastern Equatoria States, has been truly long over due. One would simply attribute this delay to the civil war in the Sudan but the truth is that there was no will from the successive regimes in Khartoum in the past to construct any dams in South Sudan.
One would wonder why it took President Nimeri 16 years to rule the Sudan and yet he turned a deaf ear and a blind eye on the feasibility studies that were done during that time to construct a dam in the Fulla Falls in Nimule! President Nimeri had about 12 of his 16 years' rule within the Addis Ababa Agreement government, which was popularly known as the Regional Government of South Sudan (RGoSS). This meant that Nimeiri, those in his government and those before him were not interested in constructing that dam; for fear that it was to cause them their relationship with Egypt; and that it was a project that would improve the economy of South Sudan.
According to the feasibility studies that were carried out before the civil war broke out in the Sudan in 1983, the RGoSS was made to understand that if constructed, the dam was to generate hydroelectric power enough to light the entire African continent let alone the Sudan. This was before the oil could be drilled and pumped into the market. Nimeiri and his officials refused to offer the South that opportunity to control the North in any way: economically or otherwise.
The President's decision to sign on the dam projects in South Sudan, including the Fulla Falls, is indeed a gesture of goodwill. This move is one of the many steps required by the people of South Sudan who believe that such moves do truly make unity of the Sudan attractive. There are many more steps that are needed by the people of the South that would increase the chances of making unity attractive.
The President's current visit to Juba, however, should have helped to improve the deteriorating relationship between President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir. This is because the visit appeared to have been one of those rare visits in which President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir, interacted without their usual tensions.
Thus, one would seriously hope that the two should seize the opportunity of their good relationship now to thoroughly discuss the dangers facing the future partnership; the forthcoming referendum; and unity of the Sudan versus separation of the South. For example, which amongst the Northern Sudanese parties is capable of working with the SPLM to implement the CPA, assuming that the NCP loses election? What are the chances of the CPA survival with a party other than the NCP? Which of the parties in the Sudan have the obligation to implement the CPA?
The forthcoming referendum has to be thoroughly discussed. Trying to suspend discussions on the forthcoming referendum may plunge this country into another serious civil war. This is because each of the two options would take both South and Northern Sudanese by surprise.
Thus, it is important to discuss aspects like those that make the unity of the Sudan attractive, at least for the people of South Sudan. For example, why should the people of the South insinuate opting out of Sudan's unity? Is it because they fear political domination by the North Sudan? Is it economic suppression or sanction of the South by the North which is the matter? Is it racism? Is it Shari'ah laws? These are frank questions that seriously need to be asked and sincere answers need to be given. It should be realised that the CPA has answered some of these questions while others remained unanswered.
Starting from this article, sincerely, it is not difficult to deduce which of the questions above has the CPA answered and which it didn't. One of these questions is Shari'ah Islamic law. Let no one misunderstand this author on this issue of Shari'ah because when it was declared upon the Sudanese people in September 1983, it was declared by a political decree. This being the case, it certainly needs a political analysis to reflect its impact on the non-Muslims in the Sudan.
Shari'ah law is definitely what the people of the Northern Sudan want, one would like to assume. It is the right of the people of North Sudan to have Shari'ah all over the North. But Shari'ah is not only applied on Muslims alone – it is also being applied on the non-Muslims in Khartoum and other parts of the North. There are Northern Sudanese who say Shari'ah must stay and whether the South Sudanese like it or not it is there to stay. Those Northern Sudanese who say whether South Sudanese like it or not Shari'ah is there to stay are simply asking the South Sudanese to choose between living with and without Shari'ah and this amount to a direct call for separation by North Sudanese. It is like definitely making it simple to choose from the two options. Why is it that simple? It is because South Sudanese have gone through very serious suffering and faced so many problems related with alcohol brewing and drinking in Khartoum and other parts of the North. Some have had Shari'ah directly applied on them when found drunk or brewing; something they don't have to go through when they are in the South.
The unity of the Sudan cannot exist with Shari'ah denying non-Muslims their rights, especially within the national capital, Khartoum. This author wrote in 2003 on the "Nakuru Document and the secularization of the national capital" and seriously supported the rights of Muslims in Khartoum State, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-02-05T04%3A58%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7. He is supporting the rights of Muslims in Khartoum and the entire North today and forever but would like to ask this question: how could South Sudanese become part of the national capital, if Shari'ah denies them the right of being so?
So if separating from Northern Sudan would keep them away from Shari'ah, it should be noted by all Northern Sudanese that South Sudanese, including some of their Muslims who drink alcohol may opt for separation. Those who might have misunderstood that, by allowing Shari'ah to continue in the North during Naivasha talks need to know that it was never meant that it should be applied on non-Muslims in Northern Sudan. It is now three years after the CPA and Shari'ah is still being applied on the South Sudanese in Northern Sudan; is this fair; how attractive could unity be in a situation like this?
Some of the readers would like to know whether or not the issues of Shari'ah Islamic laws were addressed in Naivasha? The answer is that they were addressed but Northerners who negotiated the CPA took it for a victory and believed that they had won to maintain Shari'ah in the North.
Meanwhile, the South Sudanese who were in Naivasha did console themselves for losing to convince their Northern counterparts on dropping out Shari'ah. They believed that the South was to go and so there was no need discussing something that was irrelevant to South Sudanese at the time and in future.
Should the people of the North insist that Shari'ah must stay? Well, that is absolutely their right and as such H.E. President Al Bashir should be frank to tell his First Vice that it is not possible for Shari'ah to go. This frank statement, however, would be what H.E. the Vice President will convey to the people of the South through their representatives and the results of the referendum should not be blamed on anyone but perhaps on the will of both: the North and South Sudanese people. This would help avoid any future disagreements that might lead to yet another useless war.
Should the people of the South opt out of the unity of the Sudan, however, the Northern Sudanese should not blame them. Instead, they should start working on the possibilities of confederation in the Sudan as a whole, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/separation-as-option-in-south-sudan_05.html. This confederation will be the only alternative that will give everybody in the Sudan what s/he deserves. The modalities for this confederation will need an inter-party conference to discuss them. One good proposal that could be given to support the governance of such a confederation is a rotating presidency. S/he who becomes the president of the confederation will have to rule the confederation from his/her confederation headquarters to avoid the inconveniences of secular and Shari'ah laws that would be adopted by various confederations.
There has to be a way out of the hurdles which the Sudanese themselves put in front of them as they try to end their differences. It is time for physical and non-physical confrontations between the children of one nation to end. Trying to ignore that the Sudan has no problems, even after the CPA, would be an under statement that may plunge the Sudan into yet another chaos.
Each group of people in the Sudan deserves to have what they want – at least as a human right. Muslims have every right to profess their religion and operate under Shari'ah. Christians have the right to profess their religion and operate under secular laws. Those who follow traditional beliefs have the right to profess their type of traditional belief. Those who do not fall in any of the three categories have the right to exist. The CPA, which has become part of this country's constitution, supports this. Sudan's Interim Constitution Part I, Chapter I, Religious Rights; states that, the State shall respect the religious rights to:-
(a) Worship or assemble in connection with any religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes; (b) Establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions; (c) Acquire and possess movable and immovable property and make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief; (d) Write, issue and disseminate religious publications; (e) Teach religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes; (f) Solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals, private and public institutions; (g) Train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate religious leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief; (h) Observe days of rest, celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of religious beliefs; and (i) Communicate with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at national and international levels, http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_Sudan.pdf.
The President's decision to sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan in order to boost power generation is a move that is trying to first, assert his responsibility over the development of the entire country, including South Sudan; second, enhance; and third, strengthen the basis for this country's unity. This is because the dams, once they become operational and generate power in the South, will improve the South Sudan's chances towards development and economic growth in general. With power, it will be easy to introduce heavy and light industries and save hard currency spent on imported items. With power, effective communications and rural electrification programme will become permanent realities; thus making true Dr Garang's notion of taking towns to the rural people.
It is, however, the hope of the peace-loving people of South Sudan that the good relationship that exist between the partners, especially of late, continues to improve so that more developmental projects come home to South Sudan. Three years of the CPA have just gone by and what the people of the South have achieved from the central government is the signing of the agreements and/or contracts on dams' construction and other national projects in South Sudan. These projects and many more could have increased had the relationship between the partners been good.
The visit is the third in three years – that is to say ever since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed on January 9th, 2005. This visit also appeared to be the first that went without any kind of intimidating statements or sounds from the pro-separatists in South Sudan as was the case in his visit to Juba immediately after the signing of the CPA; and the second CPA anniversary; in which the President and his First Vice delivered speeches critical of each other's party and government.
Agreements, feasibility studies and/or contracts that officially sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially from H.E. President Al Bashir are necessary as they are likely to be welcomed by Egypt. It is worth noting that the history of the River Nile Basin Organisation (RNBO) has always seen Egypt getting up in arms whenever an RNBO member-state tries to construct a dam or divert Nile or any of its tributaries' water for local use.
In 1979, Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, said that, “the only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water." In 1988, then Egyptian Foreign Minister, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who later became the United Nations’ Secretary-General, predicted that the next war in the Middle East would be fought over the waters of the Nile, not politics. Since then Egypt has threatened to bomb dam development in Sudan. It has also challenged Kenya’s rhetoric denouncing the 1929 and 1959 agreements and desire to withdraw from them as acts of war. It warned Tanzania over its plans to drain the Lake Victoria, http://www.fratfiles.com/essays/143511.html.
However, the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially the Fulla Falls in Nimule, Eastern Equatoria States, has been truly long over due. One would simply attribute this delay to the civil war in the Sudan but the truth is that there was no will from the successive regimes in Khartoum in the past to construct any dams in South Sudan.
One would wonder why it took President Nimeri 16 years to rule the Sudan and yet he turned a deaf ear and a blind eye on the feasibility studies that were done during that time to construct a dam in the Fulla Falls in Nimule! President Nimeri had about 12 of his 16 years' rule within the Addis Ababa Agreement government, which was popularly known as the Regional Government of South Sudan (RGoSS). This meant that Nimeiri, those in his government and those before him were not interested in constructing that dam; for fear that it was to cause them their relationship with Egypt; and that it was a project that would improve the economy of South Sudan.
According to the feasibility studies that were carried out before the civil war broke out in the Sudan in 1983, the RGoSS was made to understand that if constructed, the dam was to generate hydroelectric power enough to light the entire African continent let alone the Sudan. This was before the oil could be drilled and pumped into the market. Nimeiri and his officials refused to offer the South that opportunity to control the North in any way: economically or otherwise.
The President's decision to sign on the dam projects in South Sudan, including the Fulla Falls, is indeed a gesture of goodwill. This move is one of the many steps required by the people of South Sudan who believe that such moves do truly make unity of the Sudan attractive. There are many more steps that are needed by the people of the South that would increase the chances of making unity attractive.
The President's current visit to Juba, however, should have helped to improve the deteriorating relationship between President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir. This is because the visit appeared to have been one of those rare visits in which President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir, interacted without their usual tensions.
Thus, one would seriously hope that the two should seize the opportunity of their good relationship now to thoroughly discuss the dangers facing the future partnership; the forthcoming referendum; and unity of the Sudan versus separation of the South. For example, which amongst the Northern Sudanese parties is capable of working with the SPLM to implement the CPA, assuming that the NCP loses election? What are the chances of the CPA survival with a party other than the NCP? Which of the parties in the Sudan have the obligation to implement the CPA?
The forthcoming referendum has to be thoroughly discussed. Trying to suspend discussions on the forthcoming referendum may plunge this country into another serious civil war. This is because each of the two options would take both South and Northern Sudanese by surprise.
Thus, it is important to discuss aspects like those that make the unity of the Sudan attractive, at least for the people of South Sudan. For example, why should the people of the South insinuate opting out of Sudan's unity? Is it because they fear political domination by the North Sudan? Is it economic suppression or sanction of the South by the North which is the matter? Is it racism? Is it Shari'ah laws? These are frank questions that seriously need to be asked and sincere answers need to be given. It should be realised that the CPA has answered some of these questions while others remained unanswered.
Starting from this article, sincerely, it is not difficult to deduce which of the questions above has the CPA answered and which it didn't. One of these questions is Shari'ah Islamic law. Let no one misunderstand this author on this issue of Shari'ah because when it was declared upon the Sudanese people in September 1983, it was declared by a political decree. This being the case, it certainly needs a political analysis to reflect its impact on the non-Muslims in the Sudan.
Shari'ah law is definitely what the people of the Northern Sudan want, one would like to assume. It is the right of the people of North Sudan to have Shari'ah all over the North. But Shari'ah is not only applied on Muslims alone – it is also being applied on the non-Muslims in Khartoum and other parts of the North. There are Northern Sudanese who say Shari'ah must stay and whether the South Sudanese like it or not it is there to stay. Those Northern Sudanese who say whether South Sudanese like it or not Shari'ah is there to stay are simply asking the South Sudanese to choose between living with and without Shari'ah and this amount to a direct call for separation by North Sudanese. It is like definitely making it simple to choose from the two options. Why is it that simple? It is because South Sudanese have gone through very serious suffering and faced so many problems related with alcohol brewing and drinking in Khartoum and other parts of the North. Some have had Shari'ah directly applied on them when found drunk or brewing; something they don't have to go through when they are in the South.
The unity of the Sudan cannot exist with Shari'ah denying non-Muslims their rights, especially within the national capital, Khartoum. This author wrote in 2003 on the "Nakuru Document and the secularization of the national capital" and seriously supported the rights of Muslims in Khartoum State, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-02-05T04%3A58%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7. He is supporting the rights of Muslims in Khartoum and the entire North today and forever but would like to ask this question: how could South Sudanese become part of the national capital, if Shari'ah denies them the right of being so?
So if separating from Northern Sudan would keep them away from Shari'ah, it should be noted by all Northern Sudanese that South Sudanese, including some of their Muslims who drink alcohol may opt for separation. Those who might have misunderstood that, by allowing Shari'ah to continue in the North during Naivasha talks need to know that it was never meant that it should be applied on non-Muslims in Northern Sudan. It is now three years after the CPA and Shari'ah is still being applied on the South Sudanese in Northern Sudan; is this fair; how attractive could unity be in a situation like this?
Some of the readers would like to know whether or not the issues of Shari'ah Islamic laws were addressed in Naivasha? The answer is that they were addressed but Northerners who negotiated the CPA took it for a victory and believed that they had won to maintain Shari'ah in the North.
Meanwhile, the South Sudanese who were in Naivasha did console themselves for losing to convince their Northern counterparts on dropping out Shari'ah. They believed that the South was to go and so there was no need discussing something that was irrelevant to South Sudanese at the time and in future.
Should the people of the North insist that Shari'ah must stay? Well, that is absolutely their right and as such H.E. President Al Bashir should be frank to tell his First Vice that it is not possible for Shari'ah to go. This frank statement, however, would be what H.E. the Vice President will convey to the people of the South through their representatives and the results of the referendum should not be blamed on anyone but perhaps on the will of both: the North and South Sudanese people. This would help avoid any future disagreements that might lead to yet another useless war.
Should the people of the South opt out of the unity of the Sudan, however, the Northern Sudanese should not blame them. Instead, they should start working on the possibilities of confederation in the Sudan as a whole, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/separation-as-option-in-south-sudan_05.html. This confederation will be the only alternative that will give everybody in the Sudan what s/he deserves. The modalities for this confederation will need an inter-party conference to discuss them. One good proposal that could be given to support the governance of such a confederation is a rotating presidency. S/he who becomes the president of the confederation will have to rule the confederation from his/her confederation headquarters to avoid the inconveniences of secular and Shari'ah laws that would be adopted by various confederations.
There has to be a way out of the hurdles which the Sudanese themselves put in front of them as they try to end their differences. It is time for physical and non-physical confrontations between the children of one nation to end. Trying to ignore that the Sudan has no problems, even after the CPA, would be an under statement that may plunge the Sudan into yet another chaos.
Each group of people in the Sudan deserves to have what they want – at least as a human right. Muslims have every right to profess their religion and operate under Shari'ah. Christians have the right to profess their religion and operate under secular laws. Those who follow traditional beliefs have the right to profess their type of traditional belief. Those who do not fall in any of the three categories have the right to exist. The CPA, which has become part of this country's constitution, supports this. Sudan's Interim Constitution Part I, Chapter I, Religious Rights; states that, the State shall respect the religious rights to:-
(a) Worship or assemble in connection with any religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes; (b) Establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions; (c) Acquire and possess movable and immovable property and make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief; (d) Write, issue and disseminate religious publications; (e) Teach religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes; (f) Solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals, private and public institutions; (g) Train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate religious leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief; (h) Observe days of rest, celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of religious beliefs; and (i) Communicate with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at national and international levels, http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_Sudan.pdf.
The President's decision to sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan in order to boost power generation is a move that is trying to first, assert his responsibility over the development of the entire country, including South Sudan; second, enhance; and third, strengthen the basis for this country's unity. This is because the dams, once they become operational and generate power in the South, will improve the South Sudan's chances towards development and economic growth in general. With power, it will be easy to introduce heavy and light industries and save hard currency spent on imported items. With power, effective communications and rural electrification programme will become permanent realities; thus making true Dr Garang's notion of taking towns to the rural people.
It is, however, the hope of the peace-loving people of South Sudan that the good relationship that exist between the partners, especially of late, continues to improve so that more developmental projects come home to South Sudan. Three years of the CPA have just gone by and what the people of the South have achieved from the central government is the signing of the agreements and/or contracts on dams' construction and other national projects in South Sudan. These projects and many more could have increased had the relationship between the partners been good.
No comments:
Post a Comment