السلام حار.. والانفصال.. حرّم ما بنكويبو!!

Quote: Dear Charles You did not answer my question, I repeat it for you again and I hope to find a frank and clear answer from you Regarding the American proposal during Naivasha peace process that suggested secular united Sudan against dropping the referundum is true and this proposal has been rejected by both side .. government and SPLM and the American dropped this proposal since there was no one eager to negotiate it, it is very clear that the referendum is the most important issue or we can say the main objective for SPLM because that is the only way for establishing the new independent country and that is the dream for many separatists and now its time has arrived, sceularism comes in the second stage for SPLM or the second priority, I've no doubt that if now SPLM is given the chance to choose between one secular united Sudan or referendum they will choose referendum, our government now claiming that they are following islamic system that against secularism and that does not prevent Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit to be the first vice president for the whole Sudan and all Sudanese people regardless of their religion Mr. Ahmed There is no question for me to answer. You furnished an information that America suggested secular united Sudan, provided that SPLM drops the issue of RSD. I am just saying your statement is not absolutely true. And I told you the origin of the the two principles of unity based on secularism and democracy and the alternative fall back position, i.e., RSD. These two princiles were a part of the IGAD Declaration of Principles (DoPs). If you are interested in the role of America during the negotiatios, its role was crucial when the Europians wanted and supported the SPLM suggestion that Sudan should be ruled as a "confederate state" during the INTERIM PERIOD, and the reason SPLM suggested "Confederation" and supported by the Europeans was because of the insistence of the NIF on Shari'a. America thaought would automatically lead to separation and preferred federation and worked to convince the SPLM to drop the issue of confederation. American role was also conspicous, when SPLM insisted that there should be two federal states, North and South and the NDA should be a part of the transitional period, and the NIF rejected two state idea and said it is not the business of the SPLM how the North is ruled, but in fact they came to resolve the southern demands. At this juncture, America intervened and sided with the NIF that it is not the business of the SPLM to know how the North was going to be ruled. So the present dichotomy there is one federal region, the South, and now other counterpart region, and consequently, there is government for the South and no government of the North was a desired result by the NIF, supported by America. (عدل بواسطة charles deng on 02-10-2006, 04:07 AM)