إن أصواتا في الشمال وفي الجنوب تنادي بالانفصال، واضاف: «من يرد الانفصال عليه أن يقاتل للحصول عليه»،

(أنا جون قرنق دى بؤمن بوحدة السودان)

(وأن الثقافة العربيه هى جزء من الثقافة السودانيه لكنها ليست كل الثقافة السودانيه، والدينكا لهم ثقافتهم والنوير لهم ثقافتهم والنوبه لهم ثقافتهم والدناقله لهم ثقافتهم والبجا لهم ثقافتهم ، وهذه كلها وغيرها تشكل ثقافة السودان، وهذا التنوع حلو وجميل).

''انا, جون قرنق ديمابيور, اقسم بالله العظيم أن أكون وفياً لجمهورية السودان وان أدافع عنها بصفتي النائب الأول للرئيس'',

قرنق "قال لبوش انها مسالة ايام (بعد استئناف المفاوضات) قبل التوصل الى اتفاق سلام نهائي
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews/nov17-65283.html

اتفاق نيفاشا هو الوحيد الذي سيتيح ارساء السلام في السودان، وعلينا العمل على تطبيقه بالكامل
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews/oct23-52225.html
\
قرنق يتهم الخرطوم بالمماطلة في تحقيق السلام ويطلب مساعدة مصرية في تحريك المفاوضات
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews/oct4-85910.html

إن لا أساس لما تردد عن خلافات مع القائد سلفاكير من الواقع، وان اعفاءه من قيادة هيئة الأركان جاء لأنه لا يمكن الجمع بين القيادة العسكرية ومنصب نائب رئيس حكومة الجنوب
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul27-48642.shtml

قرنق: من مصلحة الحكومة الجديدة بناء علاقات مع دول الجوار
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul27-48629.shtml


قرنق: لا مكان في الجنوب للمليشيات وجيش الرب الأوغندي
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul27-44189.shtml

قرنق لجماهير رمبيك: سنحافظ على السلام ونعمل للتنمية في كل السودان

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul26-37183.shtml

قرنق : لاتوجد مشكلة في أبيي ولايمكن الحديث عن الحرب مرة اخري
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul21-93162.shtml

جون قرنق يقف على الأوضاع بمدينة نيوسايد وينفي وجود خلافات
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul27-44176.shtml

قرنق: تركنا الحرب وراءنا ولن نعود إليها
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul20-87971.shtml


جون قرنق :سنتعاون ليعم السلام دارفور والشرق
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jul18-67431.shtml

Quote: وأن الثقافة العربيه هى جزء من الثقافة السودانيه لكنها ليست كل الثقافة السودانيه، والدينكا لهم ثقافتهم والنوير لهم ثقافتهم والنوبه لهم ثقافتهم والدناقله لهم ثقافتهم والبجا لهم ثقافتهم ، وهذه كلها وغيرها تشكل ثقافة السودان، وهذا التنوع حلو وجميل).

الاخ اساسى السودان داير زول لما يجى بس يتكلم يكون عندو من الفطنه والزكاه لمخابطة ناس كل زول مختلف من التانى بس يقبلو الكلام الموزون
ناهيك من ناس جو يحكموا السودان بى مزاجهم دون النظر الى خلفية هذا الوطن العملاق الذى اراد له رب العباد ان يكون اكبر دوله عربيه
دا ناحيه ويحتل اكبر اكبر مساحه فى القاره السمراء عشان كدا داير رشد فى كل شى حتى يكون هذا البلد مستقر تحياتى

جون قرنق فقد كبير.
شكرا يا اساسي.

اتوقع بعد ايام قلائل البوست دا يزيل جميع مداخلات الاعضاء ..

!!!

قرنق : اتفاق القاهرة مكمل لاتفاقية نيفاشا

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun18-11366.shtml

حركتي كسبت في الشمال فقط حوالي مليون ومائتي ألف عضو جديد

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun11-49275.shtml

قرنق :10 وزارات اتحادية للحركة الشعبية في حكومة السلام

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun9-34467.shtml

قرنق لـ الخليج: لن أترك تجمع المعارضة ونسعى إلى مشاركته في الحكومة

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun6-08796.shtml

اننا نتوقع عودة حوالي ثلاثة ملايين من الشمال الى الجنوب، وعودة مليون اخرين من الدول المجاورة
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun3-75829.shtml

اتفاق السلام هذا سيغير السودان للابد
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jan9-26210.html


قرنق: 10 ألاف فرد من قوات حفظ السلام يصلون إلى السودان قريبا

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jan31-13289.html


حريصون على مشاركة التجمع فى حكومة الوحدة الوطنية ذات القاعدة العريضة التى ستشكل بموجب اتفاقية السلام فى يوليو المقبل

http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/jun2-72152.shtml

الدكتور/ جون قرنق يقدم ندوة متميزة بواشنطون ويؤكد ان برنامج السودان الجديد هو الاصلح لبلد متنوع كالسودان
سودانيزاونلاين.كوم
sudaneseonline.com
2/15 1:27م
الدكتور/ جون قرنق يقدم ندوة متميزة بواشنطون
ويؤكد ان برنامج السودان الجديد هو الاصلح لبلد متنوع كالسودان
واشنطون/ 14/2/2005م.

نظم مكتب الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان فى يوم السبت الموافق 12/2/200م بمنطقة واشنطون، ندوة سياسية كبرى بعنوان السلام والوضع السياسى الراهن تحدث فيها الدكتور جون قرنق رئيس الحركة الشعبية والجيش لتحرير السودان.

حضر الندوة عدد كبير من السودانيين من عدد من الولايات المتحدة الامريكية بمختلف انتماءآتهم السياسية والاثنية والدينية بجانب بعض الامريكان.

بدأت الندوة بتقديم من السيد/ بطرس ابولو السكرتير الادراى لمكتب االحركة الشعبية بواشنطون مرحبا بالجميع ومقدما رئيس مكتب الحركة الاستاذ/ بنجامين مريال الذى حى الضيوف الكرام مهنئا الجميع بالسلام مشيرا الى التحديات الكبيرة التى تواجه المرحلة القادمة ومن ثم قدم ممثل الحركة الشعبية بشمال امريكا السيد/ استيفن وندو والذى بدوره قدم اعضاء الوفد مبتدأ بممثل الحركة الشعبية باروبا السيد/ جون دوكو والقائد/ باقان اموم والقائد/ نيال دينج ومن ثم قام بتقديم الدكتور جون قرنق.

حى الدكتور جون الجميع وهناءهم بالسلام مبتدأ بتحية الاطفال والمرأة والشباب والضيوف وعامة السودانيين مقدما ندوة متميزة تحدث فيها عن السودان بتكوينه التاريخى والاجتماعى والانثروبولوجى والاثنى والجغرافى والدينى، متناولا بالشرح والتحليل والامثلة مشكلة السودان بصفة عامة ومسببات اندلاع الحرب منذ استقلال السودان مؤكدا ان الظلم الذى ظلت تمارسه الحكومات المركزية قد عقد من المشكلة السودانية وقاد الكثير من المناطق فى الهامش للنضال مشيرا الى نضال الحركة الشعبية فى جنوب السودان وجبال النوبة والانقسنا، ونضال حركات دافور والبجة والرشايدة، مؤكدا انه سيبذل قصارى جهده لكى تنال تلك المناطق حقوقها كاملة بصورة عادلة وكذلك كل انحاء السودان من اقصى شماله الى اقصى جنوبه ومن اقصى غربه الى شرقه وهو برنامج السودان الجديد الذى يستوعب الجميع بفهم جديد يعيد للجميع حقوقهم كاملة ولا يهمش احد، مؤكدا ان عامل العروبة او الافريقية او الاسلام اوالمسيحية وغيرها كعوامل منفردة لن تقود الى هوية لبلد متنوع كالسودان لكن السودانوية التى تشمل الجميع دون احساس اى شخص بالدونية او التعالى كفيلة بخلق سودان جديد يتساوى فيه الناس على اساس المواطنة ويجعل خيار الوحدة جذابا، وقد اشاد الدكتور جون قرنق بالنموذج المتطور للتسامح الدينى فى جبال النوبة مشيرا الى انه فى الاسرة الواحدة قد تجد المسيحى والمسلم ومن يعتقد فى الديانات الافريقية ( الكجور) مشيرا الى افتتاح برنامج زيارته التى قام بها قبل عدة شهور بمنطقة جلد بجبال النوبة.

وقد قدم الدكتور جون قرنق تلخيصا للبرتكولات السته والنماذج التطبيقية للسلطة والترتيبات الامنية، مشيرا الى ان جوهر الاتفاق قد اوقف الحرب وحدد موعدا لانتخابات نزيهة برقابة دولية بجانب لجنة دستور المرحلة الانتقالية التى ستشارك فيها كل التنظيمات والاحزاب السياسية بجانب عدد من المفوضيات التى وردت فى الاتفاق.
وقد اكد الدكتور جون قرنق ان الاتفاقية اعطت جنوب السودان حق تقرير المصير بعد ستة سنوات كما اعطت جبال النوبة والانقسنا حق التشاور الشعبى والاول برتبط بالاستفتاء الشعبى بينما الثانى مرتبط بالمجالس التشعريعية فى جنوب كردفان والنيل الازرق.

وحول وحدة السودان او انفصال الجنوب اكد الدكتور ان جاذبية خيار الوحدة مرتبط بالممارسات والتطبيق الجيد للاتفاق واحساس المواطن فى جنوب السودان بانه مواطن من الدرجة الاولى وينال حقوقه كاملة وما يحسه بتغيير حقيقى فى حياتة وفى عقلية وممارسة الاخرين، واكد الدكتور جون قرنق بانه وحدوى وهو ما يهدف اليه السودان الجديد، لذلك بدأت الحركة الشعبية بفتح مكاتبها فى كافىة انحاء السودان فى الخرطوم وفى الشمال والشرق والغرب، ولكن اذا ما استمرت العقليية القديمة فى السودان فان ما يراه مواطن الجنوب عبر صناديق الاستفتاء سيكون هو خيار الجماهير ويجب ان يحترمه الجميع.
كما اشار الدكتور جون قرنق الى ان الاتفاق نص على وجود بنك مركزى بباب واحد وشباكين احدهما فى الشمال يتعامل بالنظام المصرفى الاسلامى والاخر فى الجنوب يتعامل بالنظام المصرفى العالمى.

ولقد تقدم الكثيرين بالاسئلة والتعليق وكان اهمها مطالبة المرأة برفع نسبتها فى التمثيل وخاصة داخل الحركة والتى اشار الدكتور و القائد/ باقان والقائد نيال الى ان النسبة التى حددت ب 25% للنساء فى الحركة الشعبية هو حق مميز للمرأة ولها الحق فى المنافسة فى ال 75% فى كافة المستويات اى بمعنى اخر ان المرأة ستعامل بصورة متساوية مع الرجل فى كافة المجالات وتظل نسبة ال 25% (كراع عنقريب خاص)، كما شدد الدكتور جون على اهمية تعليم المرأة.

وحول راى بعض التنظيمات الشمالية فى فصل الدين عن الدولة والسياسة وتحميلها الحركة الشعبية هذه المسئولية اكد الدكتور جون قرنق بان اهل الشمال اذا كان لديهم راى واضح حول علاقة الدين بالدولة، عليهم ان يطرحوه بانفسهم وبصراحة لان هذا يهمهم واذا كان هذا هو رايهم فهو سيدعم هذا الراى.

وعن بعض الاراء التى تنادى بمؤتمر جامع اكد الدكتور جون قرنق ان هنالك اولويات اولوية السلام الحالى هو ايقاف نزيف الدم ومن ثم ان الاتفاق اتاح المجال لديمقراطية بعد ثلاثة سنوات وهو انجاز كبير لكافة الشعب السودانى مؤكدا ان هذا الاتفاق قد تم بين الحركة والجيش الشعبى لتحرير السودان وحزب المؤتمر الوطنى، لكنه اتح المجال لتحول ديمقراطى يستوعب كل التنظيمات.
وحول قضايا الفقر والعمال والمهاجرين والنازحين ودعم اسر شهداء الحركة والايتام والارامل والمعوقين وكذلك الجيوش اكد الدكتور جون قرنق ان هنالك خططا تسير فى هذا المجال.

واختتم الدكتور جون قرنق حديثه بان التنمية فى الريف وتحويل ما هو موجود فى المدينة الى الريف كالكهرباء والطرق المعبدة مثلا هو كفيل بتغيير حياة وضمان لاستقراراهم وتطورهم ، ذاكرا بان الحركة الشعبية قد بدأت بالفعل فى مناطقها المحررة بالعديد من الطرق والخزانات وغيرها من المشروعات.

واخيرا حى الدكتور قرنق الجميع متمنيا ان يشهد السودان تحولا كبيرا فى كافة المجالات.
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/anews2005/feb15-47047.html

كلمة الدكتور قرنق لمنسوبي حزب المؤتمر الوطني أمسية عودته إلي الخرطوم للمرة الأولي بعد السلام

Dr. John Garang last journey

Dr. John Garang and William Nyoun Bany in Bilpam

Dr. John Garang and Salva Kiir Mayardit in Longkuei

Last picture(s) of John Garang before his death on 30 July 2005. Also, the SPLA in earlier days..primarily near Nuba Mountains fighting against the Government of Sudan (GOS. The longest continuous civil war in Africa came to an end when the permanent peace agreement between the parties was signed in January of 2005.
National elections are set for 2009; 2011 will mark the date for a referundum on separating the north and south (although no boundaries are agreed to at this time...)

Dr. John Garang arrival in Khartoum

جون قرنق.. اتفاق السلام ماذا يعني؟ <A style="CURSOR: hand" onclick=PopReadonly####dataAudio()>

مقدم الحلقة: رأفت يحيى ضيف الحلقة: جون قرنق: زعيم الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان تاريخ الحلقة: 12/10/2003 - أهداف جون قرنق من تشكيل حركة تحرير السودان - مدى إدراج البعد الديني في الحرب السودانية - ملامح العقيدة الجديدة للجيش السوداني في ظل الترتيبات الأمنية - حقيقة وجود خلافات في الجبهة الجنوبية - طبيعة العلاقة بين قرنق والترابي - طبيعة علاقة الحركة مع مصر والعالم العربي - حقيقة العلاقة بين الحركة الشعبية وإسرائيل رأفت يحيى: أعزائي المشاهدين، السلام عليكم. ضيفنا في هذه الحلقة العقيد جون قرنق (زعيم الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان)، الذي خاض حرباً دامت أكثر من عشرين عاماً مع الحكومات السودانية المتعاقبة خلال هذه الفترة، حرباً كان ضحاياها أكثر من مليون قتيل، وأكثر من أربعة مليون لاجئ داخل السودان وخارجها، فضلاً عن تعطل عملية التنمية في الكثير من مناطق السودان، وباتفاق قرنق مع الحكومة السودانية حول الترتيبات الأمنية والتحضير للاتفاق حول النقاط الخلافية المتعلقة بتقاسم السلطة والثروة يصبح الطريق في نظر البعض ممهداً لتحقيق سلام شامل في كل أنحاء السودان، غير أن آخرين يساورهم شك في أن تضع الحرب أوزارها، وأن ما يجري من وجهة نظرهم هو مجرد استراحة مقاتل أو بالأحرى التحضير لبناء دولة جديدة في جنوب السودان. أشكرك دكتور قرنق أن أتحت لي فرصة لقائك هنا في رومبيك جنوب السودان، والحقيقة أنك تبدو أنيقاً جداً في زيك العسكري، ولكنك على وشك أن تصبح نائباً للرئيس السوداني، فمتى تتخلى عن هذا الزي العسكري وترتدي اللباس المدني؟ جون قرنق: هناك أشخاص في الحكومة الحالية من العسكريين، ووجود مقاتلين من الجانبين في فترة ما بعد الحرب لا يعني بالضرورة أن يكون هناك نزاع، اشتغلت سابقاً في الجيش السوداني برتبة عقيد، وذلك قبل الحرب ولست جديداً على هذا الجيش. أهداف جون قرنق من تشكيل حركة تحرير السودان رأفت يحيى: دعنا نتحدث عن المشكلة من بدايتها، اسم حركتك هو تحرير السودان، من أي شيء تريد تحرير السودان؟ جون قرنق: هي ما تعنيه بالضبط، فإذا ما أخذنا مثلاً الوضع هنا في رومبيك أو جنوب السودان، ومنذ أن خلق الله هذه الأرض لم تكن هناك طرق مرصوفة، والناس يعانون حيث يقطعون مسافات طويلة تصل أحياناً إلى خمسة أو عشرة كيلو مترات لجلب الماء، وإذا قمت بحفر بئر على مسافة تقل عن عشرة كيلو مترات ولو بنصف كيلو متر تكون قد خففت عن معاناة تلك المرأة التي تقطع عشرة كيلو مترات يومياً لجلب الماء وساهمت في تحريرها أيضاً، هناك سوء فهم لدى بعض الناس حين يتساءلون التحرر مِن مَن؟ والسؤال قد يكون بالأحرى التحرر من ماذا؟ هناك من يقول إن البلاد تحررت عام 1956، نحن لا نتفق مع ذلك، فهذا التحرير كان زائفاً، ولم يشمل كل السودانيين، نحن الآن نقوم بإشراك كل المواطنين السودانيين في عملية تحرير ثانية إذا شئت ذلك، أشركنا كل المواطنين في جنوب السودان وجبال النوبة، والفونج جنوب النيل الأزرق، والبيجا شرقي السودان بشكل لم يحصل سابقاً، حيث قرروا مصيرهم بأيديهم، وهناك الآن حركة في دارفور تطلق على نفسها حركة تحرير السودان، وتريد كذلك اتخاذ قرارات لصالح البلاد، ولذلك فبدلاً من أن تكون البلاد تحت سيطرة مجموعة قليلة من الأشخاص الذين يقررون كل شيء يجب أن يتم إشراك كل السودانيين في اتخاذ القرارات. رأفت يحيى: إنك لديك تفسيراً يبدو فلسفياً أكثر لما تقصده بتحرير السودان، أنت تقصد بالتحرر -كما فهمت- معنىً آخر على مستوى كل السودان. جون قرنق: لها معنى شامل ومتكامل، وهذا جانب منها، أي التحرر من المعاناة ومن مختلف القيود ضد الحرية والحياة وفيما يتعلق بطريقة الحكم فإن المعايير المتبعة في السودان مقيدة للحرية، السودان يتميز بالتنوع، التنوع في تاريخه الذي يرجع إلى ما قبل الميلاد، فمنذ مملكة الكوش إلى الوقت الراهن تجد أن ممالك ودولاً ظهرت واختفت لتشكل ما يسمى الآن بالسودان، أسمي ذلك التنوع التاريخي، واليوم لدينا نمطان من التنوع، هناك أولاً التنوع العرقي، حيث يوجد أكثر من خمسمائة مجموعة عرقية في السودان يتكلمون أكثر من مائة وثلاثين لغة مختلفة، وهناك في الجانب الثاني التنوع الديني، حيث يوجد المسلمون الذين يشكلون ما بين 60 و70% من السكان، والمسيحيون وآخرون لديهم ديانات إفريقية قديمة، أنا أسمي كل ذلك التنوع المعاصر، ويجب أن ينعكس التنوع التاريخي والتنوع المعاصر على أسلوب الحكم، لكن هذا لا ينطبق على السودان، ولم يكن الأمر كذلك منذ سنة 1956، نظام الحكم في السودان قام على الإسلام والعروبة، صحيح أن الإسلام عنصر أساسي في حياتنا في السودان، وصحيح أيضاً أن عدداً واسعاً من مواطنينا لديهم خلفية عربية، لكن هذه نصف الحقيقة، ولا تمثل كل السودان الذي يتميز بالتنوع الذي تكلمت عنه من قبل، وعليه من أجل سودان جديد ومتحرر يجب أن يقبل السودان بكل أبنائه على قدم المساواة، سواءً أكانوا من ذوي الأصول الإفريقية أو العربية أو كانوا مسيحيين أو مسلمين، لأنهم في المقام الأول سودانيون. رأفت يحيى: أنت تريد تحرير السودان من الفقر، من الظلم، من عدم المساواة. جون قرنق: من عدم التكافؤ والظلم. رأفت يحيى: هناك تصريحات ذكرت فيها أن السودان مثل إسبانيا احتلها العرب قديماً، ويجب أن يحرر السودان الإفريقي من العرب أيضاً؟ جون قرنق: كلا، ليس هذا ضد أحد، ومن أجل الشعب السوداني نريد أن يقبل السودان ويشرك كل مواطنيه على اختلافهم، ولتحقيق السلم والاستقرار يجب علينا أن نقبل أنفسنا، لسنا ضد أحد، ولسنا ضد العرب أو المسلمين، فلدينا الكثير منهم في منظمتنا، ومنظمة النوبة مثلاً أغلبية أعضائها من المسلمين، وأغلبية سكان جنوب النيل الأزرق من المسلمين، في شرق السودان أغلبية أعضاء الحركة هناك من المسلمين أيضاً، هناك أفراد في منظمتنا كياسر عرمان ومنصور خالد هم مسلمون وذوو أصول عربية، إن الاتهام الذي يوجهه الناس لنا بأننا ضد العرب والمسلمين غير صحيح على الإطلاق، إذ ليس بإمكاننا ذلك، لأن المسلمين هم الأغلبية في بلادنا، وهذا ليس صحيحاً نريد سوداناً ينتمي إليه كل المواطنين على قدم المساواة. مدى إدراج البعد الديني في الحرب السودانية رأفت يحيى: رغم هذه الأسباب الرئيسة التي أشرت إليها إلا أن هناك بعض العناصر من الجانبين تريد أن تعطي هذه الحرب بعداً دينياً، مسلمين ومسيحيين من الجانبين، ليس فقط من الداخل وإنما من خارج السودان أيضاً. جون قرنق: حسناً، إذا كانوا من خارج البلاد فلا يمكنني أن أتكلم عنهم، لأنهم سيفعلون ذلك بأنفسهم، لكن من داخل البلاد ومن وجهة نظرنا كحركة لم نقل أبداً إنها حرب دينية، بل على العكس تماماً فالطرف الآخر -أي الحكومة- هي التي كانت تقول دائماً إنها كذلك، بل إنها تحركت وأعلنت الجهاد ضدنا نحن سكان الجنوب وضد سكان جبال النوبة، وفي عام 1993 اجتمع علماء كردفان وأصدروا فتوى للجهاد ضد سكان جنوب السودان وجبال النوبة، وإذا ما فتحت جهاز التليفزيون في أم درمان، أو أي وسيلة إعلام أخرى ستجدها تدعو إلى الجهاد مراراً وتكراراً، إذن الطرف الحكومي هو من كان يؤكد على الجانب الديني للحرب، نحن لا ننفي وجود عناصر دينية للصراع، وهناك طبعاً دلالات دينية، لكن الحركة لم توجد ولم تؤسس ولم ترتكز على أبعاد دينية. رأفت يحيى: ولكن هناك أطرافاً دينية في أوروبا وربما أميركا تروج لذلك البعد الديني في الصراع أيضاً. جون قرنق: طبعاً، لدى بعض الأشخاص في أوروبا وأميركا مخاوف من ثلاثة أمور، الاضطهاد الديني في السودان، لأنه تم حرق بعض الكنائس، وتعرض المسيحيون هناك في الخرطوم مثلاً إلى الاضطهاد الديني، وتم اعتقال أشخاص في كاتدرائية هناك في عدة مناسبات، هناك أيضاً مخاوف بخصوص الحريات الدينية والعبودية وحقوق الإنسان في البلاد، وإن هذه الموجة أو الحركة هي حركة عالمية لا تقتصر على السودان فحسب، هناك أيضاً مخاوف عامة حول الديمقراطية والحريات الدينية وحقوق الإنسان في العالم كله، فالعالم أصبح قرية كونية. ملامح العقيدة الجديدة للجيش السوداني في ظل الترتيبات الأمنية رأفت يحيى: إذا تحدثنا عن اتفاق الترتيبات الأمنية التي توصلت إليها مع السيد علي عثمان طه فإن هناك نقطة مهمة تتعلق بعقيدة مشتركة تخص القوات التي سيجري تشكيلها من الجانبين، هل تعتقد أن هذه العقيدة المشتركة ستحل محل عقيدة سابقة قاتل بها كل من الشماليين والجنوبيين، العقيدة الدينية التي حكمت جانباً أساسياً في الصراع، النظر إلى الآخر على أنه كافر أو أنه مسلم يجب قتاله، أي عقيدة جديدة تقصدون من خلال هذا الاتفاق؟ جون قرنق: هذا سؤال جيد، لكل جيش في العالم عقيدته العسكرية التي يتخذها قاعدة في تدريبه وثقافته، ثقافة الجيش تقوم على هذه العقيدة، الجيش الحكومي يعتمد في عقيدته العسكرية على الجهاد ونشر الدين وحمايته، هذه هي عقيدتهم، أما عقيدتنا نحن في الجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان فهي تعتمد على التحرر من أجل السودان الجديد، إذا كنا سنشكل وحدات منسجمة من هاتين العقيدتين المختلفتين فإن هذه الوحدات التي ستنصهر فيما بينها يجب أن تقوم على أساس قاعدة جديدة، لا هي بعقيدة الجهاد ونشر الدين وحمايته، ولا هي عقيدة التحرير من أجل سودان جديد، بل هي شيء مشترك، شيء جديد نسميه العقيدة المشتركة، بدل العقيدة الجديدة، لأن كلمة جديدة ربما ستبدو متشابهة أو مشابهة لتعبير السودان الجديد، أردنا شيئاً يجمعنا أكثر مما يفرقنا، وتوصلنا إلى حل وسط هو العقيدة المشتركة. خلال السنة الأولى من الفترة الانتقالية سيجتمع الطرفان لتطوير هذه العقيدة، وستكون طبعاً عقيدة تمثل شيئاً جديداً، سوداناً جديداً فعلاً، نعم ستكون مختلفة لأنها لن تركز على خلافاتنا، بل ستبرز الأشياء المشتركة بيننا، وذلك سيؤدي إلى خلق جيش جديد، إذا اخترنا تنظيم استفتاء في حدود ست سنوات وصوَّت الجنوبيون للوحدة سيصبح لدينا جيش جديد يمثل فترة ما بعد الاستفتاء أو ما بعد وضع الفترة الانتقالية، إذن سيتم استخدام هذه العقيدة الجديدة أو العقيدة المشتركة خلال الفترة الانتقالية لتدريب الوحدات المنسجمة والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان والجيش الحكومي، وذلك حتى ينشأوا معاً خلال المرحلة الانتقالية بدل الانتظار حتى موعد الاستفتاء وتصويت الناس على الوحدة، لقد بدأنا فعلاً بتشكيل الجيش الجديد منذ الآن من خلال تدريب الجيوش الثلاثة، حيث سيكون هناك ثلاثة جيوش خلال الفترة الانتقالية، ستُدرب الوحدات المندمجة والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان والجيش الحكومي على هذه العقيدة الجديدة حتى إذا جاء موعد الاستفتاء ستكسب الوقت، وإذا صوَّت الناس على الوحدة سيكون سهلاً تشكيل جيش جديد ينتمي إلى المرحلة الجديدة. [فاصل إعلاني] رأفت يحيى: بعض المراقبين ينظرون إلى اتفاق الترتيبات الأمنية بتوجس ويرون فيه صعوبة لأن يطبق على الأرض؟ جون قرنق: طبعاً سيتم تطبيقه، ما ينص عليه الاتفاق الأمني هو أنه سيتم نشر الجيش الحكومي شمال خط الحدود بين الجنوب والشمال والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان جنوب الخط، لا يجب أن تكون هناك أي صعوبات، لكن بما أننا بلد واحد، فإننا سنمثل هذه الوحدة في الوحدات المندمجة، وكذلك في العقيدة المشتركة، لذلك سيبقى الجيش السوداني في الجنوب على شكل وحدات مندمجة، كما أن الجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان سيكون في الشمال على شكل وحدات مندمجة كذلك، وهذا سيمثل وحدة البلاد وسيادتها، لذلك لا أرى أي صعوبات في تطبيق ترتيبات الاتفاق الأمني. رأفت يحيى: بعض السودانيين يعتقدون أن قرنق كان لبقاً إلى حد بعيد في أن يحصد الكثير من المكاسب، ومع ذلك لا يزال بعض أنصاره داخل الحركة غير مرحبين باتفاق الترتيبات الأمنية. جون قرنق: أولاً لم نحصل على الكثير من الحكومة، قد يبدو ذلك كذلك، ولكن لماذا؟ لأن الحكومة أخذت كل شيء، ولم تترك لنا شيئاً، ليس لنا إذن ما نقدمه إلى الحكومة، وهي التي تملك كل شيء، وعليها أن تعطيه، لذلك أفترض أن الحكومة أخذت 100 نقطة وأعطتنا نقطة واحدة، وهذا كثير لأنهم يملكون كل شيء، ليس صحيحاً إذن أننا أخذنا كل ما نريد من الحكومة، إنه اتفاق سياسي عادل. فيما يخص الترتيبات الأمنية، فالاعتراف بكون الجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان جزءاً من الجيش السوداني ضروري لإنهاء الحرب، وعليه فقد نالت الحكومة شيئاً، وهو أننا قبلنا إنهاء الحرب، وهذه نقطة إيجابية للشعب السوداني، والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان وللحكومة. أما فيما يتعلق بالسودانيين في الجنوب، فلهم الحق في إبداء التشكك، لأنهم سبق وأن خُدِعُوا مرات عدة، فالزعيم الجنوبي السابق السيد (أبيل ألير) ألف كتاباً سماه "نقض المواثيق"، يحمل نفس المضامين، إذن لا ألوم الجنوبيين في كونهم متشككين، لأنهم سقطوا في كثير من المطبات في الماضي، ولا يريدون تكرار ذلك، لكننا واثقون أنه سيتم التعامل مع مخاوفنا بخصوص وجود جيشين خلال الفترة الانتقالية، وهذا يمنحنا الأمان ويحد من مخاوفنا، أما بالنسبة إلى الشماليين وجيش السودان فقد يساورهم الخوف من وجود جيشين، مما يؤدي إلى استقلال مبكر في الجنوب السوداني، وهذه مخاوف مشروعة كذلك، وسنحتاج إلى التعامل مع هذه المخاوف من خلال طمأنة الشماليين بدعوتهم إلى التعاون خلال الفترة الانتقالية، ووضع المعايير الضرورية التي ستضمن أن الوحدة ستكون جذابة. رأفت يحيى: دعني أطرح عليك قضية أخرى، أن الدكتور قرنق سوف يعمل على بناء جنوب السودان خلال الفترة الانتقالية، والتي مدتها 6 سنوات، سيعمل على الحصول على الكثير من الدعم من الشمال، خاصة مع وجود البترول، وبالتالي فإنه خلال الفترة الانتقالية ستتشكل نواة دولة جديدة في الجنوب. جون قرنق: من حق جنوب السودان أن يتطور من خلال موارده الخاصة، وموارد أخرى تأتي من الخارج، من الغرب ومن جامعة الدول العربية، فقد زرت الجامعة والتقيت بعمرو موسى للحديث معه حول الصندوق العربي لتنمية جنوب السودان، وأوجه نداءاً عبر قناة (الجزيرة) إلى العالم العربي للمساعدة في تنمية جنوب السودان، ولجعل الوحدة تبدو أكثر جاذبية أيضاً، وعليه فإذا طورنا جنوب السودان، سنطور بذلك الإنسان السوداني، لأن جنوب السودان يمثل ثلث سكان البلاد، إذا طوَّرت ثلث السكان الذي تم إهماله بالإضافة إلى النوبة والفونج جنوب النيل الأزرق، سيكون هناك رأيان، رأي يقول إنك تطور دولة جديدة، وآخر يقول إنك تطور الشعب السوداني والسودان، وذلك هو هدفنا، أي تطوير الشعب السوداني، وجعل أقاليم النوبة والفونج جزءاً ألا يتجزأ من الشعب السوداني، وهذه المخاوف في الحقيقة لا أساس لها. رأفت يحيى: الآن وكما أشرت هناك بعض السودانيين في غرب السودان، وفي مناطق أخرى في البلاد يعانون مثل الجنوبيين، وهذا الاتفاق بين الحكومة والحركة الشعبية، سوف يشجع هذه الأطراف السودانية الأخرى أن ترفع السلاح في وجه الحكومة لأخذ حقوقها أيضاً بالقوة، إذا اقتضى الأمر. جون قرنق: قد يشجع ذلك مجموعات أخرى لحمل السلاح ضد الحكومة، ومن أجل منع ذلك على الحكومة أن تبذل قصارى جهدها وتذهب إلى تلك المناطق في غرب السودان وشرقه لتنميتها، إن الإهمال والتهميش يدفعان الناس إلى التمرد، صَدَقت، الناس سيتمردون لو تم إهمالهم، لا يجب أن نتخوف من ذلك، يجب أن يكون في ذلك رسالة إلى الحكومة مفادها أنه إذا أرادت أن تمنع أشخاصاً آخرين من اقتفاء أثر الجنوب والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان، يجب على الحكومة أن تهيئ برامج لتنمية المناطق المهمشة في السودان، حتى تتجنب تمرداً آخر، لأنه إذا لم تتم تنمية هذه المناطق ستتمرد بصرف النظر عن وجود أو عدم وجود الجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان، إنهم بشر، صحيح أن بعض المناطق في الشمال تعاني أكثر من الجنوب، ففي شرق السودان مثلاً حيث زرت البيجا، تعاني كثير من المناطق هناك من التخلف الشديد، هنا الوضع أحسن، فالأمطار تسقط والأراضي خضراء، أما هناك فالصحراء قاحلة، ويصعب العيش دون تدخلٍ من الحكومة التي لم تفعل شيئاً حتى في قبيلة الرشايدة، الناس يعانون الإهمال، حيث لا مدارس ولا ماء، وينتقل الناس بجمالهم من مكان إلى مكان، إنها مسؤولية الحكومة. رأفت يحيى: قريباً جداً يتوقع أن يكون الدكتور قرنق نائباً للرئيس السوداني، فما هو تصورك لحل المشكلات السودانية التي أفرزت الحرب؟ جون قرنق: لم يتم الاتفاق بعد على قضية تقاسم السلطات، بما فيها الرئاسة، وهناك اقتراحات أحدها يقول إن منصب رئيس الجمهورية يجب أن يعطى للحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان، الاقتراح الثاني وهو الذي تم طرحه من قبل الوسطاء في منظمة الإيجاد، وبعض المراقبين الاقتراح الخاص بالحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان ينص على التناوب على منصب الرئيس، وتقسيم المرحلة الانتقالية إلى فترتين، تستغرق كل واحدة منهما ثلاث سنوات يتم خلالها التناوب على السلطة. وبخصوص الجزء الأول من سؤالك ليس هناك اتفاق حول الرئاسة، أما ما يتعلق بدور الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان في مرحلة ما بعد الحرب، فإننا سنركز أساساً على التنمية، والرفع من مستوى معيشة الناس، كتزويد منازلهم بالمياه، وإيجاد أسواق لمحاصيلهم فهذا ما سنركز عليه أساساً. رأفت يحيى: ولكن الجنوب يشكل فقط 30%، كيف يمكن أن تتبادل السلطة مع الرئيس السوداني لمدة ثلاث سنوات؟ هل في ذلك عدل؟ جون قرنق: ألا تظن ذلك، نعم أرى إنه أمر عادل، هكذا تم إيقاف الحرب في بوروندي من خلال التناوب على السلطة، طبعاً بالنسبة للحركة الشعبية والجيش الشعبي وسكان جنوب السودان سيكون ذلك عادلاً، وأعتقد أن الأمر سيكون كذلك بالنسبة للشعب السوداني، وقد لا يكون ذلك عادلاً عند أولئك الذين اعتادوا على السلطة في الخرطوم، لكن هذا يعتبر حلاً نزيهاً عند عامة الناس في السودان. رأفت يحيى: في هذه الحالة وأنت تتطلع لأن تكون رئيساً للسودان، هل أنت في هذه الحالة تمثل السودانيين الجنوبيين؟ أم كل الشعب السوداني؟ جون قرنق: كلاهما معاً، الحركة طبعاً انبثقت من جنوب السودان للتعبير عن مطالب سكان الجنوب، لكن هذه المطالب لا تنحصر في جنوب السودان، بل تهم كذلك بقية الشعب السوداني، ونحن لدينا رؤية للسودان الجديد ونمثل أفكاراً حول مستقبل السودان، وأيضاً مصالح الكثير من الناس، لأن النضال لا ينطلق من فراغ، ونحن نعبر عن هواجس ومطالب خاصة للناس، فسكان جنوب السودان ضحوا بأرواحهم حيث يجري الحديث عن حوالي مليون قتيل وأربعة ملايين من اللاجئين، ولا أعرف مدى صحة هذه الإحصائيات، لكن هناك الكثير من المعاناة التي تحملها سكان جنوب السودان، إننا نمثل الشعب السوداني من جنوب السودان وجبال النوبة والفونج جنوب النيل الأزرق إلى شرق السودان، ولدينا الكثير من الدعم في كل مناطق البلاد.. في الجامعات وحتى في أقصى الشمال، ففكرة السودان الجديد شعبية ورائجة جداً، إذن فنحن نمثل الأفكار والناس كذلك. حقيقة وجود خلافات في الجبهة الجنوبية رأفت يحيى: دعنا نتحدث عن الوضع في الجنوب، هناك حديث عن خلافات بين القبائل الجنوبية، بين الدنكا والنوير، الجنوب يبدو ليس جبهة موحدة أمام الحكومة، كيف ترى ذلك؟ جون قرنق: هذه ليست خلافات جوهرية كبيرة، ما هو الخلاف بين قبائل الدنكا والنوير؟ كلاهما يعاني الفقر والتهميش والقمع، ليس هناك إذن خلافات جوهرية، لكن زعماء القبيلتين يستغلون الاختلاف العرقي لخدمة أهدافهم الخاصة، كما أن الحكومة في الخرطوم تستغل هي الأخرى هذه الخلافات، لكن عندما يتم التوصل إلى اتفاق سلام وتسوية سياسية عادلة، وإذا ضمَّت الحكومة في جنوب السودان آخرين، لن يكون هناك خلافات جوهرية، سيكون هناك طبعاً خلافات سياسية مثل تلك التي توجد في أي بلد، لكن سنكون قادرين على حل تلك المشاكل. رأفت يحيى: عندما نتحدث عن تقاسم الثروة، ما هي رؤيتك لحسم هذه القضية مع الحكومة؟ جون قرنق: نحن قدمنا موقفنا، ونعتقد أنه يجب تقسيم الثروة النفطية بالتساوي، وأن تحصل منطقة (بانتيو) على حصة عادلة من النقاط الموجود هناك، وكذلك الحكومة في جنوب السودان، يجب أن تحصل على حصتها، والباقي من العائدات يجب أن يذهب إلى كل الشعب السوداني، إننا نتحدث عن النسبة المئوية التي يجب أن يحصل عليها كل من المنطقة المنتجة للنفط وحكومة جنوب السودان وبقية الشعب، وسوف نتفاوض على هذا الأساس. طبيعة العلاقة بين قرنق والترابي رأفت يحيى: لو توضح لنا أي نوع من العلاقة تربطك بالدكتور الترابي، خاصة وإنكما تمثلان تياران متناقضان؟ الترابي يمثل توجهاً إسلامياً، فكراً أيديولوجياً إسلامياً؟ جون قرنق: الحكومة التي كنا بصدد التفاوض معها في نيباشا، كانت تحاربنا وكنا في حالة حرب معها، والدكتور حسن الترابي كان جزءاً من هذه الحكومة، وهم من نفس الحركة السياسية، وهذه حقائق على الأرض، هدفنا السعي لإقامة علاقاتٍ مع كل القوى السياسية في البلاد، مهما كانت ميولاتهم الأيديولوجية، لأننا في بلد واحد هو السودان، ويجب عليَّ أن أعمل مع الجميع، بصرف النظر عن قناعاتهم الأيديولوجية، لكي أستطيع التوصل إلى تسوية سلمية، وعليه فإن المحادثات التي أجريناها مع الدكتور حسن الترابي ومولانا محمد إسماعيل الميرغني وسعيد صادق المهدي في القاهرة، أسفرت عن إعلان القاهرة، وبذلت كل هذه الجهود من أجل إجماع وطني وإجماع حول السلام نفسه، عكس ما حصل في اتفاق أديس أبابا، الذي شاركت فيه القيادات فقط، نحن نريد إشراك جميع القوى السياسية السودانية في عملية السلام لنتوصل إلى إجماع وطني حول السلام نفسه. طبيعة علاقة الحركة مع مصر والعالم العربي رأفت يحيى: ما هي رؤيتك لطبيعة العلاقة التي تربط الحركة الشعبية بالعالم العربي؟ وخاصة بمصر التي يبدو أنها قلقة على مصادر المياه في الجنوب؟ جون قرنق: علاقتي الشخصية مع مصر جيدة جداً، وعلاقة الحركة مع مصر جيدة كذلك، لقد زرت مصر لأول مرة عام 97، ولدي علاقات واسعة مع الأوساط المثقفة والإعلام والعديد من المنظمات ومع الحكومة، ومنذ عام 97 تمكنَّا خلال ست سنوات من بناء علاقات وثيقة مع مصر، الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان، وحكومة جنوب السودان لن يهددوا بأي حال من الأحوال مصالح مصر المائية، أنا شخصياً كتبت رسالة الدكتوراه في مشروع قناة (جونغلي)، ولا أعارض تلك القناة، بل فقط ناقشت التقسيم العادل لمزايا القناة، حتى يستفيد سكان منطقة القناة من المياه، إذن حتى قبل الحرب من خلال مساهماتي الشخصية في رسالة الدكتوراه، دعمت مشروع القناة. فيما يخص مصر أنا دائماً أتحدث عن وادي النيل، والتفاعل التاريخي مع وادي النيل، ففي تاريخ مصر كان الجنوب دائماً هو سبب نجاة البلد، ووحدة مناطقها العليا والسفلي، وبالإمكان كذلك الآن أن يؤمن الجنوب خلاصاً لمصر، ولا يشكل تهديداً على الإطلاق، بل على العكس هو منفعة، وسنواصل العمل على تطوير هذه العلاقات. وفيما يتعلق بالعالم العربي أنوي إقامة علاقات واتصالات واسعة مع بقية العالم العربي، من خلال جامعة الدول العربية، وأيضاً عبر علاقات ثنائية مع الدول العربية، لدينا علاقات تاريخية في جنوب السودان مع الكويت ولنا اتصالات جيدة مع الشيخ زايد، وسنواصل توطيد العلاقات مع العالم العربي. حقيقة العلاقة بين الحركة الشعبية وإسرائيل رأفت يحيى: هناك تقارير عديدة عن نشاط إسرائيلي واسع في جنوب السودان، سواء على مستوى دعم الحركة مادياً، أو تدريب عناصرها عسكرياً، إلى أي مدى هذه التقارير صحيحة؟ جون قرنق: حسنا إنه لأمر جيد أنك موجود هنا في رومبيك، ولم ترَ أي إسرائيلي هنا، كانت هناك أخبار أغلبها من ترويج بعض المشوِّشين، الذين يريدون تخويف السودانيين بالشمال، والعالم العربي من علاقات الجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان مع مصر، لقد أُشيع كذلك أنني أنجزت دراستي الجامعية في إسرائيل، والحقيقة أنني لم أزر إسرائيل أبداً من قبل، إنها مجرد دعاية تسوقها حكومة الخرطوم لتقديمنا إلى العالم العربي في صورة سيئة، وعلى العكس فإن العديد من الدول العربية تقيم علاقات مع إسرائيل، إنها مجرد دعاية، ولم نتلقَ أي مساعدات من إسرائيل، ومصادر المخابرات العربية تستطيع أن تؤكد صحة ذلك بنفسها، مصر تملك جهاز مخابرات جيد، وبإمكانها أن تعلم ذلك بطريقتها الخاصة، وأنا متأكد أنهم سيكتشفون أن الحركة الشعبية لتحرير السودان والجيش الشعبي لتحرير السودان لم يتلقيا إطلاقاً أي مساعداتٍ من إسرائيل. رأفت يحيى: Dr. Garang, Thank you so much to giving me this unique opportunity. جون قرنق: You are welcome

We want to keep his legacy alive, ... Keeping the peace is how we can honor his memory.”

John Garang


We lost Garang at a time when we needed him the most, but we think that we have made great strides toward peace and we believe that peace process should continue,”

John Garang

She was very strong and gave me confidence,”

“It is still a shock. It seems like a bad dream and that when I wake up I will see him. But all I find are people weeping.”

John Garang

“It is neither my intention to depart from the route of John Garang nor to change the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.”

John Garang

If you get knowledge, you can't keep your knowledge away from people seeking help, ... These are our people.”

John Garang

Dr. John wanted you to be united,”

John Garang

They looted everything, raped the women and shot the children. After, they burned it all down,”

John Garang

This peace agreement signals the beginning of one Sudan regardless of race, religion or tribe.”

John Garang

You may be aware that certain media houses in Khartoum are deliberately spreading cheap propaganda alleging divisions within the Government of Southern Sudan and the SPLM. They have even gone further by manufacturing differences between me and my Vice President by attributing certain comments on me agai...

SOURCE: AllAfrica.com

شكرا اساسي

شكرا ياريس

هذه افادات مهمة للتاريخ

توضح كيف كان هذا الرجل وطنيا حقا

ووحدويا حتي النهاية .......

اتسأل.....

هل توقع الراحل باننا سنصل في

وقت ما الي نقطعة اللاعودة.....؟

افتقد هذا الزعيم الخالد وانا اري

ايام الوطن قد اصبحت معدودات.....

باستفتاء او بدونه الانفصال اصبح امرا واقعا ( توجد مرارات....!!!!)

مودتي

In­ter­view with BBC World Ser­vice­was just be­fore the sign­ing of the (CPA) Com­pre­hen­sive Peace Agree­ment which end­ed two decades civ­il war be­tween Arabs moslims north and african chris­tians south. Late. Dr. John was a vi­sion­ary lead­er that had a vi­sion of the new Su­dan to be achieved the po­lit­i­cal ide­ol­o­gy of the Su­dan Peo­ple's Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment / Army. Dr. John man­aged to bring about a 6 yaer ceas­fire be­tween north and south which cre­at­ed a se­mi-​au­tonomous gov­ern­ment of south­ern su­dan, trans­formed mil­i­tary (SPLA) in the South and trans­formed pary (SPLM) in Su­dan with a vi­sion of po­lit­i­cal and gov­ernem­nt change in Khar­toum through demo­crat­ic modes which will bring about a free, just, sec­u­lar and demo­crat­ic new su­da.
.

John Garang’s final interview

Publication date: Tuesday, 2nd August, 2005

Last Interview: Anne Mugisa

First Lt.Gen. John Garang arrived at Entebbe Airport at 1:05, on Friday and was met by Vice-President Gilbert Bukenya. Anne Mugisa (right) interviewed the jovial and towering Garang just before he boarded the plane to Rwakitura


Mugisa: Congratulations on your promotion to Lt. Gen., Your Excellency.

Garang: Thank you. How are you?
Mugisa: I’m fine, Sir. How are you and how is the Sudan?
Garang: Quite alright.
Mugisa: I have just a few questions to ask you, General.
Garang: Sure. Here take a seat.
Mugisa: Your Excellency, what are your plans for rebuilding southern Sudan?

Garang: Oh! (laughs) We have put in place a plan to rebuild the southern Sudan. You know that area is very big (widens his eyes and smiles). Bigger than Uganda and Kenya together and there is no infrastructure to talk about. For example, there is no tarmac road since (rolls his eyes) Adam. We have over 12 million people there and they all need services.
Our first priority is to resettle the people and remove them from the internally-displaced people’s camps and also return home refugees living outside Sudan. There are between three to four million Sudanese refugees outside the country. We need to provide peace, security and stability and disband all the militias. There are external and internal militias including those who were formerly supported by the government. There are many militias in the Sudan, including the LRA.
So our priority is that and the infrastructure which includes roads, opening up waterways, rehabilitation of the railway line to Wau in the north, relinking the region with Uganda and Kenya.
We also need to rehabilitate the government infrastructure there. The southern Sudan has 10 states. Ten supervisors have been appointed and in the next seven days they will put in place a team to oversee the government infrastructure rehabilitation there. Then we need to put in place the financial infrastructure. There are only three banks there.

Mugisa: When do you intend to start on the infrastructure building; what period do you envisage to have a respectable amount of development in place?

Garang: We have started now, but you know that that place had been destroyed. It will take time.

Mugisa: What do you intend to do with Joseph Kony (the leader of LRA rebels) hiding in southern Sudan, where he recently ambushed Sudanese returning home and killed them.

Garang: He won’t be hiding there for long. It is not only Kony, but also all the militias who have been operating in the area. We need to provide peace, security and stability. So the militias, including those that were formerly supported by the Government, must be disbanded.

Mugisa: What have you come to discuss with President Yoweri Museveni?

Garang: We have not discussed yet…

Mugisa: But you surely have an agenda for the meeting?
(At this point, Ugandan foreign affairs officials ask us to end the interview because Garang must proceed to Rwakitura where Museveni is waiting).

Garang: (Laughs and says to me as he stands up) That is too early. I have come to meet President Museveni not you.

Mugisa: Thank you very much sir, and have a safe journey.
Garang shakes my hand, still smiling and everybody moves out of the VIP lounge on to the tarmac where he boards the presidential chopper to Rwakitura. Two days later, my friend rings me and says, “Sorry, your friend is dead. Garang is dead.”

 

John Garang: New Sudan Vision 01جون قرنق: السودان الجديد ج

Heritage) - Khartoum, Monday, Nov., 2, 1987, (PAGE 4)

Colonel Dr. John Garang Speaks To Heritage On (War and Peace in the Sudan)--
1.

Last year Heritage interviewed leading personalities at home and abroad. The interview was a part of the paper’s contribution to the present search for peace in the country.
First Heritage interviewed Comrade Mengistu Haile Mariam in Addis Ababa in December last year. Comrade Mengistu generously offered his views on the subject of peace and how it could be achieved. His was followed by Prime Minister Sadiq el Mahdi, who also gave his views about the subject, last April.
Then early last month our Editor Arop Madut who conducted the interviews with the two leaders, flew down to Nairobi where he had the chance to talk to the SPLM/SPLA leader, Col. Dr. John Garang de Mabior. Below is the full text of the interview. The rest will be serialised in the subsequent issues:

Arop Madut:

Q: 1 From what one has learned so far so you were not satisfied with the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 on the South:: yet you accepted to be absorbed into the Sudan Army. Your brief comment:

DR JOHN GARANG:

A: It is true that I was not satisfied with the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972. It’s also true that I was absorbed into the Sudan National Army when the agreement was implemented. Not only was I dissatisfied with the Addis Ababa Agreement on the Southern Sudan, I was not satisfied with the objectives and the aims of the Anya Nya as a movement. This was because the Anya Nya at that time stood for the secession of southern Sudan to form a separate sovereign state. Before I joined the Anya Nya Movement, I went to the camp of General Joseph Lagu, the Commander of the Anya Nya to brief me about the objectives of his movement. From his briefings it was clear that his Movement was a separatist movement. I told him point blank that I was opposed to secession movements. I left in disappointment. I decided to go and continue with my graduate studies. After reconsidering my position after six months, I decided to join the Anya Nya Movement despite my disagreement !
with its objectives. These objectives, I thought, could not be changed unless one did participate in the movement itself. So as a matter of principle, I joined the Anya Nya with a view of making fundamental changes in its aims and objectives. I have, needless to say, been on record as early as 1970 about the terms of the unity of the country, which should therefore be on new basis. Our plans to make new changes in the Anya Nya movement were pre-empted by the Addis Ababa Agreement that ended the 17 years war that has been ranging in Southern Sudan since 1955. Our work to transform the Anya Nya Movement from a reactionary to a genuine revolutionary movement was thereby brought to a halt. Meanwhile the agreement was accepted by Southerners because jobs were given. The ruling clique in Khartoum had then realized that what the Janubiin (Southerners) wanted were jobs. So why not give them jobs? Joseph Lagu was therefore taken into the National Army as a Major General, Abel Alier as a Minister and I was absorbed into the Sudan Army.

Q: 2 Can you enlighten us as to why you were opposed to the Addis Ababa Agreement before you could see it operational?
A: We were opposed to the terms of the Addis Agreement because its basic terms and the basis for the Agreement were first to absorb the Anya Nya into the National Army, second to integrate it after absorption and third to destroy it. So you have a process were the main aim was to achieve a cheap victory over the Anya Nya forces. In brief the concrete basis for the Addis Ababa Agreement was to disarm the Anya Nya forces that had proved formidable in the battlefield through peace. All the other coding; vis-à-vis the regional self-government Act, the ministerial posts and all things connected with the local autonomy were only peripheral. The main objective to be exact was to pull out the armed component of the Anya Nya Movement, to neutralise it and finally destroy it.

Q: 3 Since you said all the Anya Nya officers were aware about the harm and the strategic plans of the Sudan govt. in regard to the future of the Movement, why did you accept to be absorbed into the Sudan National Army?
A: We tried to oppose it but our voices were few and we realised that it was not going to be successful and opportune because the masses of the people in the south of Sudan were not prepared to support our move at that time to continue with the war. So we made the analysis of the situation. Late Brigadier Emmanuel Abur, Lewa (Major General) Joseph Kuol Amum – now with us, myself and many young officers, sat down, analysed the situation and decided to oppose the Agreement. After the meeting we circulated a document to that effect. It was sent to all the Anya Nya major camps in Bahr El Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile Provinces. That Document should now be with the Sudan Military Intelligence office in Khartoum. As part of your journalistic research, you can try to find it. However, that document was betrayed by someone we use to call Giant (Saturnino). This man surrendered it to General Joseph Lagu in Juba and one of our officers Kamilo was arrested in Lobone. Gen. Lagu gave this document to the Military Intelligence Branch and I believe it is still in their file in Khartoum. This was we thought, going to be a futile opposition because the South, the springboard of our opposition was not prepared to back us. Many southern people were prepared for jobs than the continuation with the war. The priority was rather who would get what jobs. Who would get PS, who would get a group VII, who would be a director, who would be a Minister. On our side in the Anya Nya Armed Forces, we were struggling for ranks. The atmosphere was therefore not conducive for the continuation with the war. We recognised that people wanted peace not another war. Any popular struggle, naturally must involve the people. So seeing that the people were not ready for the continuation of the war we thought it would be futile to fight on. We thus suspended our activities, and knowing the character of the Agreement we accepted to be absorbed into the national army. Of course we were aware that the contradictions and the conflicts.

Q: 4 Many people have been led to believe that the reasons that led to the rise of the SPLA/M was the division of the South into mini-regions and the subsequent introduction of the Islamic Sharia Laws in 1983. Would you agree with this assessment?
A: I would not agree with this assessment and you would definitely agree with me that it was not the ‘Kokora’ or the division of the South into small regions or the introduction of the Islamic Sharia laws that led to the rise of the SPLA/SPLM. Of course these factors did have some bearing on the said situation. What actually triggered off the rebellion was, not these issues. We went to the bush before the South was divided. Although the discussion about the division of the South had been going on for a long time the South was divided in May while the Sharia Law was introduced in September. To be fair, what triggered off the rebellion was the plan to transfer the absorbed Nya Nya forces to the North and thereby integrating them all over the Sudanese armed forces where they would become individuals there and there thus eventually; through old age, premature pension, death and dismissals, the phenomenon of the Anya Nya force within the Sudanese army would disappear. This, in reality, was the main objective of Addis Ababa. This was why we precisely opposed the terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement. I had predicted it, and was proved right.

Q: 5 Do we understand that you were during your absence from the country in constant touch with those whom you believe would help you launch a revolutionary movement?
A: Definitely we were in frequent contact with each other. We were not only in contacts, we were active. We were even engaged in sabotage activities in places like Wau, Malakal and other places. We were active during the ten years between 1972-1982 planning to launch the Peoples Revolution.

Q: 6 Many people have been made to believe that the war you are waging in the South against the Khartoum govt. has been imposed on you by certain circumstances. Would you agree to this statement?
A: It depends on the connotation of war being imposed on me, or the SPLA. Essentially the war was not imposed on me but on the Sudanese people by certain circumstances. It has not been imposed on me as an individual. As an individual I cannot afford to fight the Sudan Government or the Sudan Army. There should be objective conditions that can make a people angry to force them fight a war.

Q: 7 What I meant by the war being imposed on you is that, you were on annual leave in Bor town when the battalion 105 mutiny took place that you took over when the commander of the rebel garrison Major Kerubino was wounded. In other words many people believe that you did not plan this war, you were just dragged into it.
A: It is not true that the war was imposed on me by the circumstances you have just described. This is what some people say to explain their arguments. It may be the timing to start the movement that might have been imposed on me by the said circumstances. For your information, the Bor incident of May 1983 was not a mutiny by Battalion 105 as it is being claimed in certain quarters. We have been planning to start this movement and Bor was not our primary target. Our plan was to move onto Juba, Capture it and make it our springboard to launch the movement. If the movement had started in Bor it was because Major General Siddiq Al Banna, the then commander of the Southern Command who wanted to pre-empt our move struck first. In reality, our plan to launch the present movement started in February 1983. At that time Comrade Chagai who is now our commander in Bil Pam and who was our runner came to Khartoum in February for consultation concerning our plan. On his arrival, we discussed the possibility and plans for me to come to Malakal in order to coordinate our activities. And because Salva Kiir was an intelligence Officer in Malakal, it was therefore possible for us to coordinate our activities.
After we had discussed our plans, Chagai returned to Malakal. On his arrival to Malakal, Salva Kiir sent an urgent telegram urging me to come to Malakal to attend the sickness of my brother whom he said was extremely sick. He said my presence in Malakal was a must. I took a seven-day leave to attend my brother’s sickness. Of course I did not have a brother in Malakal let alone the fact that he was sick. So I came to Malakal with William Abdalla Chuol, a member of our organization, and who had been living with me for three weeks, in my house at Haj Yousif in Khartoum. After several meetings in Malakal, we decided to send William Abdalla Chuol to Gordon Kong of the Anya Nya Two at Bill Pam so as to put all his forces on full alert for the impending assault on Juba in August 1983. Having coordinated our plans, I went back to Khartoum. Our plan was, that the Anya Nya Two forces were to assemble in Pachala and Waat areas. William Nyuon our present Chief of Staff was to command Waat and Kerubino Kuanyin to command Bor. The operation was to be launched from Bor, with the forces in Pibor Pachala, Akobo and Waat giving support. We thought that if the assault on Juba failed we would have, at least, had some base to continue with the movement. In May, Chagai came back to Khartoum with the information that the situation was deteriorating fast and that the assault on Juba planned for August was not going to be possible. So I took annual leave in order to go to Juba in order to see the exact situation. If the situation, in my assessment was not going to reach August, I would therefore proceed to Kapoeta to make sure that the Battalion 117, one of our strong support units support our move. Of course, in order to attack Juba we would need uprising in our garrisons, which were being transferred to the North. We knew of course that Battalions 117 in Kapoeta and 111 at Rumbek would be ready to join us. As for battalion 110 in Aweil, we could not count very much on it because most of the soldiers from this unit.
On my arrival to Juba I found that the situation was tense. There was the question of money for the soldiers, which was reported to have triggered off the rebellion in Bor, Pibor, Pachala and Akobo. This issue kept the people moving between Bor and Juba in effort to diffuse the situation. In my assessment, the situation had already reached a point where it could no longer be diffused. The attack on Bor was in fact imminent. I had sent my family ahead with instructions to proceed to Bor and that I would follow later. When I reached Juba on the 9th of May I put up with Peter Cirillo, who was Deputy to Siddiq el Banna, Commander of the Southern Command, “of course, when you are planning illegal or under-ground activities it is always best to be close to the Authority. So in Khartoum I was very close to Generals Yousif Ahmed Yousif and Sowar el Dahab. I was also very close to General Abu Kadok, the army top brass. We used to have dinners together. My calculation was that if there were intelligent reports about my activities, their reaction would be ……. “John waled kues wa mamumkin Yamoul Hajat zeeda…” John is a good boy, and it is not possible for him to do things like this. As I said before I put up with Peter Cyrillo the present Governor of Equatoria. I would dress up every morning and go to the office with him.
On the 12th of May, I went to the office of General Siddiq al Banna. On seeing me he said “John when did you come to Juba” “three days ago I replied. “What do you want here and where are you going to? (“Mashi Fi Eijaza syiatak’) I am going on leave sir,” I replied. He said, “Inta fi Eijaza….Inta men ayi mahal?” Are you on leave and where do you come from?” “From Bor,” I answered. I could see his face suddenly changed. John if I were you, I would not go to Bor. Why sir, I am an officer on leave and Bor is my home. I have officially been given leave by the General Headquarters, Khartoum. Moreover I have my agriculture project in Bor which I intend to organise”. I explained. He said, “If I were you John, I would not go to Bor. To be frank with you John, General Al Banna continued. Those of Kerubino have rebelled and as far as the Sudanese Army is concerned, Bor, Pachala and Pibor are no longer part of the Sudanese Army… They are rebels. If you go there and if they don’t kill you it means that you are with them.” I am very happy with your advice Sir. But what you have told me has made it very necessary for me to go to Bor. “Why”? He asked. “I have sent my family to Bor four days ago. My family came ahead of me and are in Bo,” I replied. So, with your permission, Sir, If I leave tomorrow for Bor, go and collect my family and come back the following day, will that be acceptable to you Sir? If you stick to that programme, if you go tomorrow and come back the next day, there will be no problem.

So, I said “thank you very much syiatak. You are really a senior officer. This is an advice a senior officer like you can give to his junior officers.” “But syiatak.” I continued. “I am happy because I am a senior officer in the Sudanese Army. I am also the Deputy Director of the Military Research Unit. If there is something of that nature, I should have not been given my leave in the first place. In the second place, I should have been briefed in Khartoum. I don’t blame you anyway but those of Khartoum who gave me leave without briefing me and allowed me to go to Bor where there are military operations. This is unbecoming. But nevertheless you have saved the situation ‘Syiatak’. That is why it is always necessary to have a good commander. You have briefed me about the situation in Bor. I will go to collect my family tomorrow. Thank you syiatak”. I gave him a salute and left the office.
Siddiq Al Banna might have been a big fool. He knew the exact situation. As a veteran soldier, he should have not allowed me to go to Bor. However, I left for Bor the following day. It was on the 13th of May when I reached Bor. On the 14th Salva Kiir Mayardit, one of our co-ordinators in Malakal sent us an urgent message. The message stated that Bor would be attacked within the next 48 hours. That the Buffalo-planes were transporting troops to Akobo. That troops were being massed in Akobo in order to attack Pibor and Pachala. That Bor would be attacked from Juba. From this message, we knew that the attack was coming and made preparations for it. We made the home of Dr. Lueth as an assembly place for discussing war plans. There was a Sudan Army company under a major at Langbar, north of Bor and the Battalion 105 at Malual-chaal south of Bor under Kerubino.
So we made a brief meeting about how to proceed with the war. I told Kerubino that since I was on leave I would go to Langbar to tie down the company there. I told him that if we were attacked from the rear at Langbar and attacked from Juba would be a disaster since it would dislodge us altogether.
So on May 14, I went to Langbar as planned, to be around as a senior officer. Abel Alier was there. And in order to make friends with the Commander at Langbar, we used to play cards with him and other officers. So on the morning of May 16, at 5 am the attack came from Juba as expected. I then sent Kerubino to command the troops of Battalion 105 and went to Langbar to save the situation from being attacked from the rear. At one time the Radio communication set of the attacking forces from Juba went off the air. So the commander of Langbar was ordered to send a force to Bor to see what was going on there. He gave me the message and asked me what he could do.
As a senior officer, I said, I advise that you do nothing. Because, I continued, “You are a company and if you send a platoon you would be left with only two platoons, and if the rebels come here they will over-run your camp. Moreover you have Sayed Abel Alier here. You have the white men of the Jonglei Projects and those of the De groot here. These are your responsibilities. What had happen to the Radio we do not know. But it could be some technical fault”. I assured him. “So let us sit and wait for two to three hours. There may come an answer from Juba informing us that they are on the air again”. So he listened to my advice and did not send any force. After three hours the reply came asking him not to send any force because the Radio set was on the air again. That was one occasion.
The second occasion, was when Kerubino was shot in the arm and was taken to Bor Hospital. The commander of Langbar received another message from the attacking forces that Kerubino was shot. The message ordered him to prepare a force to go to the Hospital. He gave me the message. I told him not to go to the Hospital because, I said, the people in Juba might not know what might be going on in Bor theatre of operations. I told him that Kerubino might have not come to the Hospital alone, may be with more than a company being aware that you have only a company here. He might have come with two companies. If he has a company you need three companies to attack him because the rebels are in a better position. They are better prepared and ready to repulse an attack on them than we are”. So I asked him to leave anything to me. I told him that I would diffuse the situation because I had been the commander of Battalion 105 before. I told him that, as their former commander, most of the rebels knew me and that they would not harm me if I go to them. I told him that I would go to the Hospital and if Kerubino was wounded and in the Hospital, if he was there, I would come back and give him the answer. I assured him that I would come back to decide what kind of action to take. He was happy!!!
So I went to the Hospital. We took Kerubino and sent him across the river. I then returned to Langbar and told the Company Commander that Kerubino was taken to the Hospital and that he should send the message to Juba that Kerubino was brought to the Hospital, treated and had been taken away by the rebels. He immediately sent the message. So from what I have just told you, you could see that the claim that the war was imposed on me by circumstances is not true. We have been planning since 1970s to launch this movement.

Heritage, Khartoum. Monday 9, Nov., 1987, pp4.

Q: 8 Can you brief us as to what at the onset led to the split in the SPLM, which gave birth to the Anya Nya II organization? What actually went wrog? How are you trying to resolve it?
A: This is another great misunderstanding that there was a split in the SPLM/SPLA movement that gave birth to Anya Nya Two organization. This is not true. These are two different organizations with totally different aims and objectives. Anya Nya Two started as a result of the Akobo mutiny in 1975 led by Lt. Vincent Kwany, in which Colonel Abel Chol was killed. The Akobo mutineers then organized themselves into Anya Nya Two whose aim was to revive the Anya Nya One Movement disbanded in 1972 following the Addis Ababa Agreement. The Anya Nya Two at that time was supported by Libya and Bil Pam was their guerrilla camp before we came.
When I was at the General Headquarters in Khartoum, we used to be briefed about Bil Pam. The reports we had is that Gordon Koang had 7,000 strong, that Yagoub Ismail was with several thousand men at arms and Abdalla Zakaria had many thousands…. So you can see the Anya Nya Two was already an existing movement before the birth of the SPLA. There is no question, therefore, of the split in the SPLM that gave birth to the rise of the Anya Nya Two Movement. In short, the Anya Nya Two Movement was formed eight years before the SPLA came into existence. The objective of the Anya Nya Two from the onset of its inception was again for the separation of the Southern Sudan from the rest of the country.
So when we came in 1983 we organized the SPLM/SPLA. The Anya Nya Two meanwhile continued as an independent movement. Our objective was therefore to influence the Anya Nya Two and to have them join us. The Anya Nya Two, on the other hand, was trying to influence us to join them. Thus at the start (1983), we had two movements with different objectives.
While the SPLM was for the unity of the Sudan, the Anya Nya two was for the separation of the Southern Sudan. Our immediate task after we formed the SPLM/SPLA was to try to regroup the scattered fighting forces that we found, politicise them, win their confidence and make them organic to the SPLA. It is worth to note here that the Anya Nya Two was not only confined to Upper Nile. It was stronger in Bahr El Ghazal.
So we succeeded in getting the whole of the Anya Nya Two of Bahr El Ghazal and thereby incorporated it into the SPLA. Most of the Anya Nya Two in Upper Nile were also incorporated into the SPLA. Some of them are now holding high ranks in the SPLA. Major John Kulang who is an alternate member of the SPLA/SPLM Military High Command was a member of the Anya Nya Two organization when he joined us.
So in reality, it was Anya Nya Two that was split; some of them the majority I should say, joined us while the rest remained with Gordon Koang and continued to maintain their separate identity. Some of the politicians who came with us following the Bor incident notably Samuel Gai Tut, Akuot Atem and Gabriel Gany who essentially opted for separatism joined Anya Nya Two and managed to take over its leadership. These politicians had assumed that since the Nuer nationality was at the Ethiopian Sudanese border, they would keep away anybody coming to join us. This strategy led, sadly to say, to the deaths of many people who were coming from Bahr El Ghazal in Fangak.
So it was our failure to win all of the Anya Nya Two that led to the continuation of the Anya Nya Two as a movement. The failure of the Anya Nya Two, on the other hand to get us into their movement, let to the existence of two movements.
Later on Anya Nya Two, which was a genuine movement fighting for the separation of Southern Sudan, was transformed into a government militia. The brainchild of this tribal militia was Daniel Koat Matthews, the then Governor of Upper Nile. We have now in our file the copy of the letter addressed to His Excellency President Nimeiri.
The content of that letter was aimed at the destruction of the SPLM/SPLA by organising tribal militias. The Anya Nya Two was thus superseded by the SPLM, so to speak. From thence on the Anya Nya Two through Daniel Koat Mathew’s agitation, became a government militia just like the Murahelin forces of Southern Kordofan, like the Mundari militia, like the Ismail Konyi Militia and like the Fertit militia of Western Bahr El Ghazal. It therefore became the aim of the SPLA movement never to allow or give free hand to these militiamen to divert the people’s revolution. The policy of organising tribal militias needless to say, was started by Nimeiri and Daniel Koat, continued by Sowar El Dahab and is being promoted by Sadiq El Mahdi, It is therefore the aim of the SPLM do deny Sadiq El Mahdi or whoever is in Khartoum to continue to use these militias. We shall try and struggle to influence them. We have more and better arguments for them to join us than for them to join the Sudanese Army. The militias are beginning now to realise that, they have been deceived by the government for quite a long time. Good example is that Gordon Koang at one time was promised that he would be appointed the commander of the Southern Command and the Anya Nya Two the Government of the Southern Sudan (HEC) if his movement could succeed to defeat the SPLM/SPLA. But then as the governments in Khartoum came and went these promises were not honoured, Gordon Koang did not become the commander of the Southern Command with the rank of Major General as promised nor did the Anya Nya Two become the regional Government in Juba. At the end the Anya Nya Two started to realise that they were being taken for a rough ride. We have explained to them these things from time to time. They have at last realised these false promises, which are now crucial to the present ongoing reconciliation process. As I have said before these are politicians who take advantage of the name of Anya Nya Two in order to make money in Khartoum, Nairobi or other place

Q: 9 What about the claim that the quarrel between the SPLA and the Anya Nya II started in Addis Ababa when you arrived there in 1983. It was alleged that you held election as to who should have been the chairman of the movement. The report had it that Akuot Atem was elected the first chairman of the SPLM, that Samuel Gai Tut was to be the commander in chief and you the chief of staff. It was alleged that the split came as a result of leadership as well as ideological differences. What is your brief comment on these allegations?
A: This is not true. There were no elections held and there would have not been any elections since we did not have constituencies to hold some sort of election. A simple explanation is that the SPLA was formed in side the Sudan, and by the soldiers who defected from the Sudanese Army. Whereas, the Anya Nya Two was a movement that was already in existence by the time we formed the SPLM/SPLA.
The question which arose at the time we arrived there was whether the new comers that where pouring out of the country were going to identify themselves with the SPLA or with Anya Nya Two. Of course it was a matter of choice and those of Akuot Atem, Samuel Gai Tut and Gabriel Gany decided to join Anya Nya Two. In fact everyone was free to join any of the two Movements without any quarrel. The quarrel only erupted, when the Anya Nya Two was transformed into a government militia by Daniel Koat. Otherwise there were no conflicts between the two organisations before the transformation of Anya Nya Two from a genuine secessionist Movement to a government militia.

Q: 10 It is now four years since you launched SPLA movement. Looking back today, would you say the objectives for which it was launched are being realised?
A: Looking at the four years of our struggle, I would say, yes, the objectives are being realised. The Primary objective is of course the unity of the Sudan, which should be on new basis. We are trying to build a new Sudan free of religious and racial discrimination, a Sudan that is free from the two families rule. We want to build a new Sudan devoid of all kinds of sectarianism. In the past our people used to talk about north and the southern conflict. Now I am glad to say, the Sudanese are no longer talking about the solution of the so called problem of the Southern Sudan but that of the Sudan as a whole.

Q: 11 The Prime Minister Sadiq el Mahdi has been quoted as saying that your forces have been meeting tremendous difficulties in the battle fields against the strong Sudanese army. That they are being pushed back every time they try to take to offensive. What is the situation in the battlefields?
A: That might be Sadiq’s wish that the SPLA forces are suffering in the battle fields. But facts are there for anybody to see.
The true picture about the situation is that when we met with Sadiq in July last year it was clear that he was going to launch a massive military offensive against the SPLA having achieved the type of peace he wanted. This was obvious from his face. I even told him, Mr. Prime Minister don’t go and do what I see in your eyes. Don’t go and launch a military offensive against the SPLA. Don’t try this because you will not be able to defeat the SPLA. I told him further that if he wanted to defeat it, he should go and recruit six hundred thousand new recruits. Then he would be able to attack us. But I cautioned him that if he recruited six hundred thousand he would definitely recruit them from the south, the east and the west of Sudan. These are the areas of recruitment into the Sudanese Army.
Mr. Prime Minister, I assure you that six hundred thousand this would be good for the SPLA. Because, you will recruit them, train them, arm them and then deploy them against us. When you deeply deploy them against us one third of these recruits will defect to us”. I warned the Prime Minister. This is how the SPLA was formed and this is how it thrives. Two hundred thousand out of the six hundred thousand will surely join us. I wanted to warn him, that in order for a conventional army to fight these two who would then be guerrillas, you need a ratio of one to ten. To fight the two hundred thousand of your own creation which will defect to us in addition to the existing SPLA forces, you need another army of Two ‘Million’. This will go on indefinitely. So Mr. Prime Minister don’t attempt to do this”. I concluded.
He did not listen to my advice. In stead he went and launched a massive military operation against us. He was even quoted as boasting that he would celebrate the 1987 Intafadha (April Uprising) in Buma our Headquarters. So, we took the Prime Minister’s challenge very seriously, took all the necessary measures and effectively repulsed his offensive. We did not only repulse the massive military offensive but the Prime Minister did not celebrate the Al Intifadha in Buma. In stead we captured the strategic town of Pibor which is not very far from Buma and which we still hold. We also captured another strategic town of Jekou, which we are still holding. Most recently we captured Mayom in Bentiu area, which we also are holding. We have now extended the war to Western Equatoria Province where we were not there before. Major James Wani Igga Alternate member of the SPLA/SPLM Political-Military High Command is now on the Zairian border. We have also extended the war to Southern Kordofan and Major Yousif Kuwa Mekki Alternate member of the SPLA/SPLM is the Zonal Commander there. We have also extended the war to Southern Blue Nile.
So, to come to your question, the Prime Minister’s massive military offensive has effectively been halted. On the contrary, the SPLA is on the move. The situation on the ground is therefore very favourable to the SPLM/SPLA. That the SPLA is on the move is not a claim by us, but a truth. We have more than 200 prisoners of war and they are in our POW camps. Lt. Colonel Salim Saed former commander of Jekou himself talked over Radio SPLA. It was very clear from Colonel Salim’s speech, as a man who had been in a trench for a long time, and who knows the heat of the battle, that the situation is in our favour. He is, in fact, a better authority to speak the truth about what is going on in War Zone One, than Sadiq. The army in the South knows better how the war is going on there, not Sadiq who has never been in a trench. On my part, I spent eight hours in a trench during the capture of Jekou. I am therefore in a better position to know what is actually going on in the South. Prime Minister Sadiq has never been to the war theatre. He is either not being well briefed by his commanders or he deliberately ignores the facts.

Q: 12 Certain quarters inside and outside the Sudan do claim that foreign hands are behind the SPLA successes in the battlefields against the Sudanese army. They point accusing fingers at Ethiopia, USSR, Cuba, GDR, as being on the top of the lists. What is your reaction to these accusations?
A: This is a complete nonsense. We have never had a single foreigner fighting on our side in the battles we have been engaged in ever since the war started in 1983: and we will not in the future accept any foreigners to fight on our side. This is a Sudanese war and therefore a purely internal affairs. It originated within the Sudanese body-politic. It is a known fact that the first soldiers of the SPLA were from battalion 105 and 104, and does not need any expert explanation. So, there are no foreign personnel in our army. The charge that there are foreigners helping us are just mere malicious propaganda. However, all the Sudanese public is all aware that there are no foreigners in our forces.
Before we launched the SPLM/SPLA, I was a Colonel in the Sudanese Army not in the Ethiopian, GDR, or Cuban Army, I was in Khartoum and many officers, like Kerubino Kwanyin, William Nyuon, Arok Thon, Daniel Awet, Bona Baang and many others were in the Sudanese Army. Other officers were in the Sudanese civil service or other sectors of Sudanese life. Dr. Lam Akol and Dr. Riek Machar were lecturers at the University of Khartoum. James Wani Igga was working in Juba. Kuol Manyang was the Director of the Multi-Purpose Training Centre in Juba. John Kulang was in the Sudanese Army. These officers are members in the SPLA/SPLM Political-Military High Command.
There is absolutely no foreigners fighting on our side. On the contrary, it is Sadiq Al Mahdi who used foreigners. He invaded the Sudan in 1976 with murtazagha (mercenaries). The murtazagha forces were crushed simply because they were foreigners or at least there were foreign elements in that force. The Sudanese Army took it as a challenge that foreigners were invading the Sudan. Where as we have been able to maintain our ground, made gains and consolidate our positions for the last four years. If we did not base our movement on the Sudanese people we would have been dislodged a long time ago.

Q: 13 In regards to logistics, where do you get your arms and ammunitions?
A: When we launched the movement in 1983, we started with the arms and ammunitions of Battalion 104/105. In 1984 we got a windfall of armaments and ammunitions from Libya. A lot of people say we got our arms and ammunitions from Ethiopia. This is not true. Others think that we get our arms from the Soviet Union. This is also not true. The only foreign country that helped us was Libya. I was in Tripoli for eleven days in April 1984. At that time we had mutual hostility against Nimeiri. “An enemy of your enemy is your friend!” So goes the saying. We reached a good understanding with Ghaddafi and so he gave us lots of arms and ammunitions including anti-aircraft missiles. We knew of course that this would be a temporary support because once Nimeiri was overthrown this support would come to an end. So, we stockpiled a lot of arms and ammunitions. Having received these arms we became very strong and began over running enemy camps, making many ambushes and virtually annihilating military convoys and taking all their arms. The annihilation of Sudanese Para-troopers between Bor and Juba in 1985 is a case in point. The armaments we got when our forces captured Pibor enabled us to arm two battalions.
To sum up, our initial sources of armaments were battalions 104/105. We had a foreign source of armaments, which was Libya. Now all our arms procurement comes from the Sudanese Army. We are getting more arms and ammunitions overrun army garrison after army garrison. We are indeed making ambushes and are getting lots of armaments daily.

Heritage, Khartoum, Monday, Nov., 16, 1987, pp4.

Q 14. On the ongoing war, the SPLM leadership is being accused of using food relief as a weapon aimed at attempting to win public support to your side? What is your brief comment?
A. Definitely, I don’t agree with this accusation. For how can we use food relief as a weapon? And what is the argument in support of this accusation?

Q: 15 The argument in support of this accusation is that when the international relief agencies wanted to airlift food to the famine-stricken Southern Sudan in the middle of 1986 through "Operation Rainbow," the SPLA threatened to shoot down any plane that would fly over the areas you control; thus making it difficult for the food to reach the people that needed it. This is the charge.
A: When I was fighting in Kapoeta, Mike Wooldrige of the BBC came to me and told me that Sadiq El Mahdi had agreed that the international relief organisations could work with the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (SRRA) the humanitarian Branch of the SPLM, provided that, he added, the SPLM allow food convoys by air and by land to go to the government control towns. My answer was in the affirmative. We agreed that the SRRA, the international relief organisations and the Sudan Government Relief Agency to sit down and provide modalities, ways and means whereby food could reach the targeted populations in the towns and in the countryside, provided that the food was not used either by the Sudanese Army or by the SPLA soldiers. This would mean that the operations be monitored by the three parties concerned.
So, Mr Bradley of the “Operation Rainbow” came and asked whether we were serious. As an element of goodwill he requested us to allow a few flights so that the process was seen to be working. So, we allowed few flights. Then, he went to the Sudan Government side and requested that it allowed a few flights to the SPLM control areas to distribute some food there. The Sudan Government rejected the request. We turned down Mr. Bradley’s request because we believed that the Sudan Government’s intention was to send the relief aid to the towns under its control while the majority of the people living in the countryside and who were badly in need of the relief were left without help. We therefore interpreted the Sudan Government’s rejection of Mr. Bradley’s proposal as hostile, for if it was not, Sadiq El Mahdi would have accepted it.
So we said that any aircraft which would attempt to come to the Southern Sudan would be considered as hostile. This was however another area of misunderstanding in regard to the ‘Operation Rainbow’. This misunderstanding was a result of agitation from Khartoum.
As regards to the allegation that we were the ones who refused the “Operation Rainbow” to fly food to the hunger stricken in War Zone One, I would say that this is not true. It was not us who refused the said Operation. It was Sadiq El Mahdi who frustrated the efforts of the International Relief Agencies to airlift food to the hungry people in the south after publicly he had been on the record that he would accept the International Relief Organisations to work with us. However, our side of goodwill was implemented while the Sudan Government side of goodwill was not. We were not in anyway obliged to accept food to be taken to the towns under Sudan Government control. Our move to prevent food to be taken to the towns was justified because we were getting reliable reports that, this food was being used by the Sudan Government Army.
If the Sudan Government side had agreed and allowed the Relief Agencies to work on both sides to the conflict, the next stage would have been to develop a mechanism whereby the three sides, namely the SPLA, the Sudan Government and the International Community would monitor how food was to be used on both sides to the conflict.
In brief, the Khartoum authorities completely refused the monitoring process. They were interviewed by the BBC, and they flatly said they would not accept the monitoring of food distribution.

Q: 16 What do you propose to be done in this connection while the war goes on?
A: Now that there is drought in the south, the most affected areas by the war, it extremely becomes very necessary to get food to the needy. In this connection, we would hold to the same formula that the SRRA, our humanitarian wing; the International Community and the Sudan Government humanitarian wing to sit down and device ways and means to get food to the affected areas both in the towns and in the countryside and to monitor its distribution so that it is not used either, by the Sudan Government troops or by the SPLA forces.
The three parties namely the SPLA, the Sudan Government and the International Community can form a committee to monitor the transport and distribution of this food. We can assign our own personnel to the government control towns if the Sudan Govt. guarantees to their security. We would also give security to the Sudan Govt. personnel who would be monitoring food distribution in the areas under our control. This, is in our opinion, would be a way out of this misunderstanding.
On my part as a leader of the SPLM, I will have no opposition to the formation of this committee. Rather, I bless and encourage it because there is going to be famine this year. Our people are going to suffer and they will die if nothing is done urgently.
At this juncture, I appeal to the concerned relief agencies to reactivate the relief operations to the areas affected by the droughts.

Q: 17 The SPLA/SPLM pledge that it is fighting to liberate the whole Sudan is being ridiculed by some individuals both from the north and the south. The northerners say to liberate the Sudan from who? The southerners on the other hand say, they do not want to shed their blood to liberate the Arab portion of Sudan. What would you tell these compatriots?
A: This question to liberate the Sudan from who has for a long time been asked by the people who are interested in perpetuating differences between the north and south of the Sudan that have been imposed by certain circumstances and promoted by their clique regimes in Khartoum. In fact, when these compatriots say to liberate the Sudan from who; the answer they expect is from the Arabs. This is the context of their agitation. What I would tell these compatriots is that I had been on record and I am saying this again that when we in the SPLM speak about the liberation of the Sudan, we use it in a broader sense.

As far as the SPLM philosophy is concerned the question that arises is not to liberate the Sudan from who but to liberate it from what? In my speech to the people of my village sometimes back, I demonstrated this point very clearly. I told them that during the dry season the women of the village have to walk 15 miles to get water from a well. If we reduce that distance from 15 miles to one mile or zero mile, if we locate the well in the village you will have essentially liberated these women from walking 15 miles. This is what we mean to liberate a person from what not from Who? I explained to them. Looking at it in this context, we mean to liberate the people from neglect. In our Sudanese situation, the whole countryside has completely been neglected by those that have been in power in Khartoum since independence.
The successive regimes in Khartoum have been putting all our foreign reserves on air coolers, on refrigerators, on television-sets, on good cars and all kinds of comfort. Whereas, our foreign reserves should have been spent on things like bore wells in the villages, haffirs and life-saving drugs for rural people just to mention but a few. This is what when we refer to the term ‘liberation from what’.
Another good example to demonstrate the misinterpretation of the term liberation is that before Nimeiri was overthrown, Sadiq’s wife was quoted in one of her talks with our people in London as saying….. “Ya jama’a , izza intum ta shill al ‘L’ da” If you can take away this ‘Letter L’ so as to read The Sudan Peoples’ Movement, we shall all join this Movement. But to say, “The Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement…. To liberate the Sudan from who?” She asked.
This is the context in which the agitators in Khartoum would like to use the word liberation so as to distort it to mean a small thing that would mean the liberation of Sudan from the people. This is not how we use it. We in the SPLM use it in the sense that we want to liberate the Sudan from circumstances: the circumstances of oppression, of exploitation, of neglect which the majority of Sudanese find themselves in not only in the south, but all over the country, including Khartoum the capital of the whole country.
If for instance the tens of thousands of our people living in the carton huts in Khartoum are resettled in some decent places, if we make shelters at least for these people, we will have liberated them from these carton houses. This is our concept of the liberation. To come to the point the term Liberation is being ridiculed from that perspective by the people from the north because they want to associate it with racism.
On the other hand, some people from Southern Sudan ridicule the term by saying…. “Why should Southern Sudanese shed their blood in liberating the whole of the Sudan!”?
“Here again, this comes through sheer ignorance as to what the term liberation is all about or they deliberately want to distort it with the aim of ridiculing the Movement. These are the same southerners who claim that they would join the SPLA if it was fighting for the liberation of the southern Sudan. They insist that they would join the SPLA/SPLM if we change our manifesto to speak about the liberation of the south. This is rubbish.
Okay, let us speak about those who want to liberate the south. If they are going to liberate the south what method are they going to use? If they are going to liberate the south through fighting, then they need not to be told that the liberation of the south and of the whole Sudan involves fighting.
So, we invite those who want to liberate the south to come. Let them come. Nimule is still under the Army of Khartoum. Let them start fighting the Sudan army from there. When they reach what in their calculation, is the end of southern Sudan, let them stop. We will have a territorial army. We will have a home guard. We will deploy them on the Zairian border, on the Ugandan border, on the Kenyan border and on the Ethiopian border. In the meantime, the rest of us who would want to continue up to Khartoum and to Wadi Halfa will continue.
Secondly and most fundamentally, I would like to say that both the southerners and the northerners who make these ridicules do not completely understand the dynamics of how the liberation is going to take place. Those who make these ridicules from the north think that a southern army will eventually march into the north. The southerners who think that southerners should not shed their blood in order to liberate the whole Sudan think that a southern army will march to the north. This is not how we see things as happening. We see things as happening through the process of northerners themselves being involved in the struggle.
Now our forces are in southern Kordofan. We have lots and lots of recruits from southern Kordofan. The force that is in southern Kordofan, half of it is composed of the citizens of the area. So the process of liberating the whole country will involve the northerners in the fighting. They will not be standing in the dark watching the liberation going on. This is of course a very mechanical way of looking at a social reality. In deed as the war engulfs the whole country it will mean the involvement of all the people in the liberation.
To be specific the people of southern Kordofan are already involved and their own son Major Yousif Kuwa Mekki is their commander in southern Kordofan. The same is happening in southern Blue Nile. We have Malik Agar. He is the son of the area and he is fighting there. So, there is no question, you see, of southerners going to shed their blood while the northerners just fold their hands and wait for their liberation to take place. That is not how it will work.
There is no question of northerners thinking that a southern Sudanese army is going to invade their part of the country. This is a complete misunderstanding of reality, either innocently or deliberately construed in order to distort our objectives and ridicule them for political purposes.

Q: 18 Some Sudanese describe the SPLA/SPLM as a regional movement. What have you done so as to give it a national character?
A: In the first place, SPLM is not a regional movement. It is true, it started from a certain region which happens to be the southern Sudan. But this does not make it regional. It will be regional if its objectives are regional. So, we have regional parties like the southern Sudan Political Association (SSPA) for example. By their own definition of the objectives the members of SSPA have made themselves regional. There is also the General Union of the Nubas (GUN). By their definition, its members have made their organisation regional. So by our definition, we are not a regional organisation.
If you look at the other parties which claim to be national e.g. the Umma Party, You will find that what makes the Umma Party national is its claim, otherwise one can say that it is a regional party. The Umma Party is a movement that was started and is still based on the Ansar. There is therefore nothing one can say is national about the Ansar sect. I do not know how many the Ansars are. They may be three million compared to 22 million, the entire population of the Sudan according to the 1983 census. The Ansar sect is a regional organisation if the definition I stated above is applied to them. But because of their claim to the national rights, the Ansar Sect is a national organisation according to the definition of its objectives. The same thing can be applied to the DUP, which is based on the Katimmiyia Sect. So, there is nothing really that can make these parties national. They can as well be termed as regional like the SPLM if it were a regional organisation.
So one can say that the SPLM started at a certain time and at a certain place; but what is important is that the inner core that is its objectives, which are, needless to say, national.
In regard to the other part of question as to what we have done to give it a national character, I would say that, firstly by definition of its objectives and secondly its consistency with the definition of these objectives, which have gone beyond the region from which it started. As we have pointed out before, we are now in Southern Kordofan. So you can no longer talk about the SPLM being a southern Movement because we are already entrenched in southern Kordofan and southern Blue Nile and hopefully we will soon be in other areas.
We do admit people from all parts of the country and we have been doing this. At present, we have people not only from the Nuba Mountains and the Southern Blue Nile but also individuals from other places in the northern Sudan. There are people from Shendi, who are in our Movement. A regional party would not admit people from that region. A national party admits people from any part of the country. SPLM is therefore a national Movement.

Q: 19 In an interview with this paper last April, the Premier Sadiq El Mahdi warned that southerners and especially the Dinkas, would be exterminated by the northerners who are being turned military by the continuation of the war. And in order to save them from being wiped out, he advised that the SPLA/M must end the war in favour of peaceful settlement. What is your response to this suggestion?
A: If the Prime Minister has made this statement, then one would say that it is very unfortunate because he is not speaking as a national leader. By making such a statement, the Prime Minister is perhaps thinking about certain tribes in a certain perspective as not being a part of his constituency. By making such a statement, he is telling these tribes “look, if you are giving me trouble, I am going to kill you”. This is not the talk of a Prime Minister, but of a leader of a small place like Khartoum. This statement is very unfortunate for Premier Sadiq because it makes him very small indeed. This is not a responsible statement. It was just an idle talk. It wouldn’t worry the Sudanese people as a whole. This is because, here is a portion of the country that somebody who claims to be the Prime Minister for the whole country, consciously programmes the extermination of people he claims to lead. No wonder, events like the Dhain massacre, and the massacre in Wau go to support such threats. In fact, one would say the Prime Minister is not only expressing threats but is actually doing it, if he is not attempting to do it. It is upon the Sudanese people to take necessary measures in order to rid the Sudan of this cancer. If the Prime Minister is talking about exterminating this or that tribe, then he needs not be reminded that nobody is going to be exterminated while lying down. Because if it comes to extermination, it will no longer be the Dinkas to fight against such mad ideas but the rest of the Sudanese people will struggle against the implementation of such ideas. The Sudanese people needless to say, the Dinkas included have the will and stand to do this.

Q: 20 Some Sudanese are saying that the war you are waging in the south is hindering development and progress in the whole country and particularly in the north. They go as far as suggesting that it would be better for the two parts of the Sudan to form two separate states in order to accelerate rapid development. What is your brief comment on this statement?
A: It is true the war is hindering development in our country. The question one should ask before answering this question is the development for Who? The Sudanese people have not benefited from whatever development there was. We are fighting first for a new Sudan in which all the Sudanese people all nationalities will be one people. Having achieved this objective, we will surely benefit from that development. So the development that we are hindering or which is being hindered by the war could mean development for the small clique in Khartoum. We are happy that the Chevron Oil Company operations have been stopped because the development that might have been made as a result of the oil revenue would have not benefited the Sudanese people. It would have only benefited the Nimeiri system thereby prolonging his dictatorial rule. If the oil had been prospected and refined under Nimeiri’s rule, he would have not been overthrown. The same thing can be said about the Jonglei Canal.
So, to answer your question, I would say, yes, development is being hindered in order to achieve higher objectives, which we strongly believe will result into faster development for the benefit of all.
Development is in fact being hindered because of the war and we are going to continue to hinder it until higher goals are achieved.

Q: 21 What about the assertion that it would be better for the south to separate so as to accelerate socio-economic development in the northern Sudan?
A: Separation of any part of the Sudan is not in our objectives. We are fighting for a united new Sudan and will fight against anybody who wants to dismember the Sudan, be they southerners or northerners.
I am aware that there are some people in Khartoum who say that (al harab bigha ghali) the war has become very expensive and that it would be better to give the south independence or let the south go. This is ridiculous because nobody has the right to give independence to anybody in this country. Giving independence is not like a cup of tea, one can give to someone and say, have it, it is yours. No, it does not work like that. “Bene wa benak” (between me and you who has the power in his hands in Khartoum to give the south independence? It is my conviction that nobody has this right and I don’t think that the talk about giving the south independence is a serious matter. It might be a mere propaganda being played up by certain individuals who want Sadiq El Mahdi to unite what they call the Arab north against the so called, African south.
Even if the southerners want to secede, I can assure you that nobody will in this country give them the chance to take such a step. In brief secession is not in our objectives and we, in the SPLM, will fight any ideas or actions aimed at dismembering the Sudan.

Q: 22 Reports coming out of the Southern Sudan indication that towns are being razed to the ground and much property being destroyed. Who is doing this destruction?
A: When there is fighting, things get destroyed on both sides. The aim of the war in fact is to make the other side non-combatant. You simply make him non-combatant by disarming him. If things get destroyed, it is because the destructions are the effects of the war.

Q: 23 It is almost three years now and the people have been talking about convening of the national constitutional conference. There are indications that suggest that it may or may not take place soon. What in your view are the obstacles impeding the progress towards the conference?
A: The main obstacle hindering the convening of the constitutional conference is, what I would call entrenched sectarianism in Khartoum. In fact, Sadiq El Mahdi and his group do not want to go to the National Constitutional Conference. When Nimeiri was overthrown, the SPLM and the Sudanese political forces in the country were in dialogue among themselves. These dialogue culminated in the Koka Dam Declaration. The Umma Party was a signatory to the Koka Dam Declaration. Instead of implementing it, Sadiq El Mahdi began to say that the two parties, the DUP and NIF, are not a party to the Koka Dam Declaration.
Instead of working with the rest of the political forces in order to convince the other two parties, from the alliance, Sadiq took an awkward position and began to assert that the DUP and NIF are not a part to the Koka Dam Declaration and that it would not only be implemented but not honoured.
It is our view that if the Prime Minister is serious about holding of the National Constitutional Conference, it should have been his responsibility and all of us who were involved in the Koka Dam, to convince the DUP and NIF to join the Alliance. This is an indication that the Umma Party and Sadiq in particular is not interested in the convening of the Constitutional Conference. Despite this he himself appears to be interested in the conference. The second indication is that as soon as Sadiq came to power in 1986 he began to talk about a national committee instead of implementing the Koka Dam Declaration. In fact there was no need to have another national committee since a 12 men liaison committee formed by the Koka Dam Assembly from among the members of the parties and political forces who attended the meeting, including the SPLM, was already in existence. Our reaction to the call by the Prime Minister for a national committee was that there was no need to have another committee when we already have a format forum for discussing the national issues.
So, when we shot down the plane over Malakal, the Prime Minister took the advantage of the incident and declared the SPLA as a terrorist organisation with which he will never talk. He even forbade other political forces from contacting us. This was very unfortunate because these actions were actions of somebody who is not interested in the convening of the national constitutional conference and the peaceful settlement of our problems. It is true we shot down a plane. In a war situation things get shot. People get shot. Tanks get shot and planes get shot. In our situation, we had given warnings that we would shoot down any aircraft flying over the airspace under our control because Khartoum was using civilian aircrafts to ferry military equipment to its besieged garrisons in the south. However, despite this warning, a plane was sent. Be that as it was, one would say that, what we shot down was the plane. But what Sadiq shot down was the whole peace process. If we are criminals then Sadiq is more a criminal than us.
So, that was about the Koka Dam. The other problem, which impeded the process toward the constitutional conference was the Prime Minster’s attitude towards the said conference. Sadiq El Mahdi has been putting obstacles after obstacles so that the National Constitutional Conference does not take place under the terms of Koka Dam Declaration. So, he terminated the peace talks. Other incidences, including the seven Bishops’ peace Mission to Addis. Of course, when a person close to you dies, there is a period of mourning and then after that life is to continue normally. So, when Sadiq was mourning the plane the funeral could not go on indefinitely. So, the Bishops came to break the stalemate of not talking to one another about the peace process and I believe they had the blessing of the Prime Minister. We met the Bishops, discussed with them, and we assured them about our willingness and eagerness to talk peace. After we talked with them we issued a joint communiqué!
After they returned home Sadiq did not see it necessary to meet the Bishops in order to brief him about their peace mission.
The third indication to show the Prime Minister’s reluctance to the holding of the constitutional conference is the declaration of the state of emergency. So we have now triple emergencies: The first state of emergency was declared by Nimeiri; when Sowar El Dahab came he imposed his state of emergency without first repealing the one imposed by Nimeiri; when Sadiq came, he too declared his own. These, to my mind, are obstacles impeding the constitutional conference. In order to have conducive atmosphere for peace talks the state of emergency should be lifted at least in the north where there is no war. If the state of emergency is not lifted what is the use of talking about the Sudan as being an example of democracy.
The fourth indication is that recently the National Alliance gave a memorandum to the Prime Minister, Sadiq El Mahdi on the peace process. But he criticised the Alliance for not condemning the SPLA. When one is engaged in the search for peace, and is determined to hold dialogues with the parties concerned there is no sense in insisting that the other party to the conflict be condemned. In fact there are many things that can be condemned about Khartoum, e.g. the barbaric incidences like the Dhain Massacre and the Wau killing of many innocent civilians.
The fifth indication to prove that the Khartoum Government is not interested in the present search for peace is that, when the African Parties came to meet us about the peace process, we agreed and issued a joint communiqué calling for the convening of the national constitutional conference. Instead of blessing the African Parties’ peace initiative, the Prime Minister went on record to condemn those who took part in the delegation. He condemns the Addis Ababa Peace Forum, the Kampala Quest for Peace and the Nairobi Search For Peace Communiqués, before these parties could return to Khartoum. He even threatened that he would dismiss the Ministers from the Council of the South who took part in these conferences before they could explain their position. He wants to dismiss the people who came to prepare the ground for the national peace conference. This again is an indication for lack of seriousness on the part of the Prime Minister in regard to, the holding of the national constitutional conference. I understand from some of the African Parties’ members that when they moved in the Parliament sometime back, the idea of forming a parliamentary committee to explore ways and means of bringing about peace in our country and to re-initiate contacts with the SPLM, the motion was defeated by the Prime Minister’s own Party.
The last point is my talk with him. I told him when we were parting that “Mr. Prime Minister, if I were you, I would, on arrival at Khartoum Airport, announce that I am implementing the Koka Dam Declaration. “If you do this, Mr. Prime Minister, I assure you I will declare a cease-fire the following day.” This was a challenge to him and I expected him, as a statesman, if he is one, to take it up seriously. I told him not to worry about what the DUP and NIF would think or do. I also told him to scrap the Islamic Sharia because it was not enacted by any Act of Parliament but by a mad dictator called Nimeiri. I told him not to stick to state of emergency and Sharia because they were not his responsibility. I told him that whatever the DUP and NIF opposition were, their voices were being drowned by those Sudanese, who have been suffering and who want peace. I also told him that I knew what he was going to do despite my advice. He asked me how I knew it? I told him that I was reading his mind because he was sectarian in thinking. “You are going to intensify the war with the hope that you will defeat SPLA. Or at least bring it to manageable size and then hold your version of the National Constitutional Conference.
So to sum up my answer to your question, I would say that the above facts are the main obstacles impeding the convening of the constitutional conference because the Prime Minister wants to convene it when it suits him and when he is the initiator of such a conference.
So, when the Parliamentary group want to initiate the peace talks, he says no, when the Church leaders want to initiate the talks he says no; if the SPLM wants to initiate peace talks he says no, and when we want to hold the conference through the Koka Dam Declaration, he says no… Instead he declared the state of emergency. The blame is therefore on the Prime Minister, who wants to hold the constitutional conference when it best suits him but not when it best suits the Sudanese people.

Q: 24 The recent peace offensive which resulted in the Addis Ababa peace forum, the Kampala quest for peace, and the Nairobi search for peace communiques is being seen in certain quarters as an attempt by the SPLM leadership to rally the Africa countries behind the SPLA so as to enable it fight against the Arab north? Do you agree with this sort of speculation?
A: The Addis Ababa Peace Forum, the Kampala Quest For Peace and the Nairobi Search For Peace meetings were in fact aimed at attempt to re-initiate the peace talks which were brought to a halt following the last Malakal plane incident in order to keep the ball of peace rolling despite the Prime Minister’s opposition. Our view in this regard is that if the Prime Minister and his party do not want to talk peace with us, we can talk with many other Sudanese political parties who are willing to talk with us. So, we have started to talk with African parties and will be in contact with those political forces that are ready and willing to join the peace talks we have already started. I do not therefore agree with the speculations that the recent peace offensive aimed at attempt to rally African countries to support us in the war we are fighting. These countries are poor and would be senseless to involve them in our own conflict. Moreover, they have their own problems. However,!
we have never sought any military assistance or any other support from these countries. We simply went to Addis, to Kampala and Nairobi purely to search for peace.

Q: 25 There have been some talks about the SPLA reconciliation with the Anya Nya II, are there attempts to do the same with other militias, that all Sudanese concentrated their efforts in the ongoing search for peace with less friction and quarrels?
A: Besides reconciling with Anya Nya Two, we want to come to terms with all the peace loving Sudanese including those who are opposed to our cause. In the light of this we are trying to reconcile with all the militias that have been unleashed against us and against the innocent and helpless Sudanese. We are trying to reconcile with them because we want to show them that fighting the SPLA on the side of the Sudanese Government is not in their interest nor is it in the interest of all the Sudanese people in general. The Messeryia, the Baggara Arabs of the Southern Kordofan and Darfur for example have for centuries been co-existing with the Dinka sharing pastures and the water of River Kiir (Bahr El Arab). There had been, of course, conflicts between the Dinka and the Messeryia over the pastures and water of River Kiir throughout the history of their co-existence but they were able to device successful ways and means of how to contain those conflicts. But the introduction!
of the Murahelin forces of the tribal militia by Nimeiri, promoted by Sowar El Dahab and fully implemented by Sadiq El Mahdi, has complicated the matters in the area, as this has injected a political element into what were essentially traditional conflicts. In our view the introduction of tribal militias to fight the SPLA on behalf of the Government is not in the interest of the tribes that are being involved in the conflict that is not theirs. We have been trying telling these government sponsored Messeryia militias that while they are fighting the SPLA their godfathers are sitting in Khartoum peacefully not being affected by the war. We told them that the Prime Minister and those who support them do not have cattle that will die in case there is no water and pastures. We do hope that these compatriots, who have been misled into believing that they can defeat the SPLA on behalf of the national army, will refrain from being used by the Khartoum politicians and to resume their normal traditional life.
So to answer your question, I am glad to say that efforts are being made to contact all the militia men in order to reach a peaceful settlement with them. In fact we have already started contact with the Messeryia Murahelin forces so as to come to terms with them. We are also looking forward to organise meetings with all the tribes that share the water of River Kiir. Similarly, we are talking with the Mundari Militia men and have gone a long way into making full settlement with them. The good news is that most of the Mundari Militia men have already joined the SPLA. The Ismail Konyi Militia had already been incorporated into the SPLA except for about 150 who had run to Malakal together with Ismail himself when Pibor fell into the hands of SPLA. In fact after the fall of Pibor we went on a political campaign in Murle villages and managed to win over 1,000 Konyi’s Militia men who are now part of the SPLA forces. In regard to the Fertit Militia we are exerting efforts to bring peace between them and the Jur-Luo on one hand and between them and the Dinka on the other hand. I am glad to inform you that we have succeeded to restore peace between the Murle and the Anyuak between the Nuer and the Dinka Bor and between the Dinka and Toposa who have been fighting one another for many years. These efforts to reconcile the tribes have been going on, are going on and will continue to go on until complete peace and stability is established all over the region.

Q: 26 Since you launched the SPLAM you have not visited any Arab country. You did not even ask either for military or humanitarian assistance. If what I have said is correct, will you not agree with the people who think that you are fighting for the liberation of the Africans of the Sudan from Arab domination?
A: As I have said some where in this discourse, there are people who insist and take pride in trying to play up the differences between the peoples of African stock and the peoples of Arab origins, in this country, the differences which were essentially imposed by certain circumstances. Those who try to play up these differences want to perpetuate them for their political gains. If these were not their intentions, they would not continue to ignore the fact that we are not fighting for the Africans only in the Sudan. We have been on records since we launched the Revolution that we are fighting for the whole Sudan. If there are some compatriots who still doubt our intention to fight for the whole country, I would tell them that time has come for them to recognise this fact and begin to approach us from that perspective, and sooner they do this the better it will be for the interest of the peace and the stability of our people.
It is indisputable that it was Libya, which gave us our only foreign assistance. As regard to the allegation that I have never visited any Arab countries, I can say that this is not true. I was in Tripoli for eleven days in 1984. Moreover the first country that gave us our only foreign assistance was Libya. I was also in Aden for six days at the same time when the Sudanese Minister of Defence Osman Abdalla was visiting the Democratic Republic of Yemen. I sent a delegation to Egypt and was met by President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt was therefore the third country we had contacted. We did also had contact with Jordan. They wrote to us one time and we replied them. So, you can see that we are in contact with Arab countries. The allegation is therefore not true. We are not fighting for the Africans in the Sudan.

Q: 27 Officials of the Sudan govt. strongly believe that you are not going to win this war because your constituency, the Southern Sudan is not behind you as was the case with AnyaNya movement. They also believe that the continuation with the war is just an adventure on your part. What will you say about this assertion?
A: That we have a support, a popular support in the Southern Sudan is not just a claim, but a fact that does not need lecturing to people about it. In fact who does not know that we have the support in the South? If there are some people who say that we do not have support in the South it is not because they believe in what they are saying but do not intend to admit the reality of the situation. We do have support in the South otherwise people would have not been joining the SPLA in their thousands. The fact that tens of thousands of people are joining us daily is a simple indication that we do have and continue to enjoy a popular support in the Southern Sudan. An out-standing indication to support our claim that we have a popular support is that we out-lived Nimeiri’s regime; we had out-lived Sowar El Dahab; we had out-lived Sadiq one, Sadiq two and we will definitely out-live Sadiq three. As a matter of facts, those who think and believe that we do not have a popula!
r support are either not following the events that are taking place in the war theatre or want to mislead the public opinion away from us in order to buy time… In short, I would like to affirm to you that we do have a popular support in the South.
What I would like to underline or correct at this juncture is that our constituency is not the Southern Sudan our constituency is the Sudan as a whole and we have never been vague about it. We have been saying it over and again that we are not fighting because of the so-called problem of the Southern Sudan but for the creation of a new Sudan; a Sudan that is free of exploitation, oppression and abuse of human rights; a Sudan where every body is equal before the law, a Sudan where all citizens do enjoy equal rights; a Sudan that does not chop off the limbs of citizens who commit crimes as a matter of survival. The whole Sudan is therefore our constituency. The fact that we happened to have started the Sudan Peoples Revolution in the South of the country, does not deny us our pledge to liberate the Sudan from circumstances of exploitation and oppression. That the South is a starting point where the people’s revolution was launched is important. But all the same our constituency remains the whole Sudan. The proof is that we are gaining more and more support as the war moves northwards; and are convinced that we will in the end win the support of the rest of the regions of the Sudan.

Q: 28 THE SPLM APPEAL TO THE WORKERS, PEASANTS, SOLDIERS AND INTELECTUALS HAVE MADE MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT YOUR MOVEMENT IS MARXIST-LENINIST ORIENTED AND THAT YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU ARE A NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT IS JUST A MERE CAMOUFLAGE. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THIS ARGUMENT?

A: When the SPLM addresses itself to the Sudanese people, it is appealing to the majority of the Sudanese and the majority of the workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals. This is the spectrum of the Sudanese people. Those who are left out of the spectrum, may be, are the two families namely the Mahdi and the Mirghani families and their supporters who have been exploiting the Sudanese people for the last thirty-one years. So, you can see the appeal itself cannot make us Marxist or Leninist, as many people would like to describe us. As you have rightly said before, our appeal is primarily to the exploited and the down trodden members of our public, the peasants, the workers, the soldiers and the intellectuals. Those who prefer to call us communist do not seem to understand what communism is all about. Essentially, communism in its classical sense socialises Capital. In Southern Sudan for instance, there is no capital to be socialise. Even if our movement wants to go Marxist-Leninist, it cannot, because the conditions just are not there now as there is no capital to socialise in the Southern Sudan. Frankly speaking our immediate problem is not what ideology should be adopted in the Sudan. Our main concern is the creation of a new Sudanese nation. We must build a nation before we concern ourselves with other matters. In fact, the political power in Khartoum since 1956 has been in the hands of the two family parties; (the Umma, DUP) and the National Islamic Front with its confusionist tactic of using religion as its constituency. The Khartoum regimes had for a long time exploited and neglected the majority of the Sudanese, the peasants and the workers just to mention a few. They do not effectively participate in the government of their country. The economic development on the other hand is being geared toward the interest of these two families and their parties without considering the interests of the majority of the Sudanese
people.
The SPLM is not therefore fighting in order to import a foreign ideology into the Sudan. Rather, we are fighting for a new system that will speed up economic development and equitable distribution of our vast national and natural resources, which had for a long time been neglected. Indeed our resources are quite vast. We have a potential Agricultural land of about 20 million acres. Less than 15 millions of this land, are under cultivation.
We have vast oil and minerals resources; we have enough water and fish resources in addition to potential hydro-electric power. At this juncture, I would like to state we are going to spare no efforts to rid the Sudan of a system based on sectarianism, on racism, on religion, on family and to establish a national democratic government that is well equipped to accelerate the development of these resources for the benefit of our people and within a united Sudan. These are our objectives.
To come back to your question, I would say that we are in a process of a nation formation. We are going to rejuvenate the Sudan and make it a nation that is proud of itself, a Sudan that is not just a mere bridge between the Arab and the African worlds as it has been described. This in our view will be a very dirty bridge. Of course, when people walk on a bridge, it is bound to be dirty. So we do not want the two family-parties to continue to walk on the Sudanese people be they Arabs or African. In short, we want to build a nation that will be proud of itself, that will make its rightful contribution both in African and the Arab world and in the world at large. This is the objective we want to achieve.

Q: 29 FROM WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID, IT DOES SEEM THAT YOUR MOVEMENT HAS AN IDEOLOGY BUT YOU WANT TO DEFER IT TO SOME LATER STAGE OF YOUR STRUGGLE. DON’T YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOU TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITE IDEOLOGY SO THAT THE SUDANESE PEOPLE CAN BE ABLE TO JUDGE WHETHER YOUR MOVEMENT IS A LIBERAL, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC OR MARXIST? WHAT IS YOUR FEAR?

A: We are not deferring our ideology as you have said, for some later stage of our struggle. We have been saying it and are on record about the type of system we want to establish in the Sudan. But if some people fail to recognise it, it may be because they do not want to recognise what we have been saying about what we want. We have said it many times, in our literature and some of my speeches that we want to form a new Sudan, and of course the formation of new Sudan itself must have basis. At present the basis for the new Sudan are being created, and this is something you Sudanese intellectuals must look into, find out the factors that bring us together and to build on it. In fact our history did not begin with the British colonialism, or the Turkish intrusion into our country; nor did it start with the coming of Islam or the rise of the Mahdia. It did not either begin at the 1947 Juba Conference or in 1955 when a garrison in Torit revolted. We believe that the hi!
story of the Sudanese people dates back to many thousand years. We have, therefore, been here all along. When some people talk about the ancient Egyptian civilisation, ancient Egypt or the Pharonic Egypt, one should answer the question as to who were these people and where they went… This is us, we got displaced. We got pushed down and down. We must rise up a proud nation that can look after itself.

Q: 30 ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE SUCCEDED TO FORM A NEW SUDAN WITH YOU AS ITS LEADER, WHAT IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD BE THE BEST SYSTEM UNDER WHICH THE NEW COUNTRY WILL BE GOVERNED?

A: Obviously, Sudan is a vast country, the big great country, I would say, in Africa. As such it cannot be ruled exclusively from the centre. The power must of course be devolved to the regions. You may call them regions or federal states. This is however just semantic. What is important in this regard, is the content of the devolution of power to the people for the purpose of administration and economic development in the regions or states; the intention of which is, of course, to take the government to the grassroots: the grassroots to effectively to participate in the development of the country and they in turn benefit from this development. So, the structure of the rule or the power structure, must be decentralised, with of course, the central government in the national capital in Khartoum or some other place, that can be selected as the capital of the whole country.

Q: 31 IN REGARD TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHAT TYPE WOULD YOU RECOMMEND, THE CENTRALISED ECONOMY OR THE OPEN MARKET ECONOMY?

A: You know there are certain things that can best be done by individuals and there are others, which must be done collectively. Like wise there are many projects that can best be managed by the central government others by the regional or local governments. Given our vast mineral and other natural resources, there is no way that an individual can for instance, develop and run a hydro-electric plant. A project of this kind can best be managed by a central government or regional governments. In the same way heavy industries can be run by central government. The establishment of schools and hospitals can be carried out by the central authority, as well as by regional authorities. Private schools and clinics, can be opened by individuals. Co-operative societies are areas in which groups of persons can be involved for the benefit of the people. So, you see you can have private enterprises run by individuals, you can have co-operative societies run by a group of people, !
you can have regional corporations but you must have central government institutions.
So, if you look at all these things, you cannot make a clear cut answer as to say, at the present moment, what type of economic order or development one can predict will be best for our country. Once we have succeeded to achieve our objectives, our experts will have to sit down and sort out the best ways of accelerating the economic development in our country.

Q: 32 CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN US AS TO HOW YOU ADMINISTER THE TOWNS AND AREAS UNDER YOUR CONTROL?

A: We administer the liberated towns and areas through committees. There are village committees, town committees and district committees. We will have provincial committees when we move to the cities. These committees are responsible for the administration of the villages, towns and the areas under our control. When we liberate a District we have to set up an administrative machinery to over see public as well as inter-personnel matters. We also have District Councils, which have various functions such as education, veterinary, agriculture, judiciary and medical services. All these services are supervised by an administrator. Besides we have District Councils and the District Political-Military High Command. A District Council is composed of members elected by the village committees. The District Council is headed by an Administrator. The present Administrator of Pibor for example, is Mr. Clement Katinya, a former administrator in Malakal. He replaced Mr. Ater Dak who has been transferred to the Headquarters. We give some military training in our military and political schools. They participate in battles before they are posted to run the liberated areas. All the administrative structure is under an Area Commander who ######### the District Military-Political High Command. The District High Command is the policy making body as well as the executive organ in a District. The District Administrator is a member of the District High Command. The political officer, the intelligence officer and the members of the District councils are also members of this policy making body. In summery, it is through this process that we run the administration in the liberated areas.

Q: 33 DO YOU INTEND TO ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT ONCE YOU HAVE LARGER AREAS UNDER YOUR CONTROL?

A: Well, it depends on what you mean by a government. What I have described above is a form of government. Of course, we don’t call it a government. We call it a provisional administration. In other words we do not have a government in a sense that this is a ministry of education, a ministry of health or a ministry for agriculture. We just set up an administration from the grassroots to provide services and other development activities. Coming from the base, we are essentially establishing an administration as we go along with the liberation of the whole country. But we do not have a government in the sense you might have conceived in your mind or in the conventional sense. We are not therefore going to declare that we have a government.

Q: 34 JUDGING FROM THE EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE IN OUR COUNTRY DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS, ONE WOULD BE BOUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WAR YOU ARE WAGING AGAINST THE SUDAN GOVERNMENT MAY, IF IT IS NOT BROUGHT TO A SPEEDY END, LEAD THE SUDAN INTO A LEBANESE-LIKE SITUATION. WHAT IN YOUR VIEW CAN BE DONE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE LEBANESE EXPERIENCE?

A: It will be very unfortunate if we go in for a Lebanese-like situation in which all factions in the country are fighting one another indiscriminately. I am sure nobody among the peace-loving Sudanese would like to see us follow the Lebanese experience where the warring factions do not differentiate friends from enemies. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that we have some bad elements in our society who would like to Lebanise the Sudan. These people are there and will do all kinds of things to instigate and promote sectarian ideas and actions that will push us into a Lebanese-like situation. Of course, we would not allow this to happen.
To answer your question…what can be done to avoid Lebanising the Sudan, my only advice is that first, all Sudanese political forces and the Sudanese people at large must fight against any attempt to Lebanise our country. We must also fight against attempts to implement them. In our view the only way to avoid any disastrous approach to Sudanese problem, is to hasten the process of dialogue and to restore peace in our country as soon as possible. The restoration of peace is of vital importance if we are to concentrate all our efforts on the development of our human and natural resources. This will, of course, demand that the current war be brought to a speedy end. We should not have a cause for quarrel because we are a large country with huge untapped resources enough for all of us.
The second thing that must be done if we are to avoid disastrous approach to our problems is for the Sudanese to get rid of sectarianism, racial and religious discriminations as well as the system based on a family rule. These factors must be eradicated immediately because they have bled our country for the last thirty-one years of its political independence. Regrettably, Sudan has not known peace since it obtained its political independence. There was the 17 years old war, there was the nine years of uneasy peace, then came the Anya Nya Two war. It is now going to be five years since the SPLA started the present war. Finally, the Sudanese people must realise that we have been at war with one another precisely because while some of us are trying to establish a multi-nationality and multi-religious society, there are others who are trying to create a mono-nationality and mono-religious nation. In our view we must get rid of these factors because they have been responsible for the three-decade-old instability in our country. Indeed, thirty-one years of instability is a long period in the history of a nation. We must therefore draw useful lessons from our immediate history to recognise the fact that the above factors cannot advance our cause. On the contrary they are responsible for our continued disunity. These factors left unresolved will never make us build a united and proud nation. In order to avoid the Lebanese experience, we must create a conducive atmosphere for the building of a new Sudan; a Sudan that is free of all forms of discriminations; a Sudan of equality and justice; a Sudan that is a home for all of us.

John Garang With Kenyan Journalists 
 
 
 
 
Garang

 

NAIROBI, Nov 18, 2004 (KTN TV) -- The leader of the Sudan People`s Liberation Movement (SPLM), John Garang, has said that the cause of Sudan`s Darfur conflict is basically marginalization.

SPLM Leader John Garang. (AP).

In an interview with KTN TV presenters Julie Gichuru and Waweru Njoroge, Garang blamed the humanitarian disaster in Darfur on the Sudanese government`s "counter-insurgency strategy".

He said there was no relation between agreements signed between the Sudanese government and the war in Darfur, adding that the Darfur rebellion was "formally organized in 2001".

He called for a "comprehensive political settlement, both for southern Sudan as well as for Darfur".

The following is the text of the interview broadcast live by Kenyan KTN TV on 18 November; subheadings inserted editorially :

Presenter Julie Gichuru: We are joined by leader of the Sudan People`s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Dr John Garang de Mabior. Thank You very much for joining us tonight.

Garang: Thank you.

Gichuru: Let`s start with an overall look at the situation in Sudan. Twenty-one years of civil war, an estimated two million people dead, millions of others displaced in the process. Just when we seem to achieve a semblance of peace in southern Sudan, Darfur breaks out into conflict. What`s the cause of this?

DARFUR CONFLICT

Garang: It is a complex situation but there is no time to explain all. But it is an issue of marginalization. The people of Darfur, like the people of other regions of Sudan like southern Sudan, have been basically marginalized. They have no access to significant power, they have no access to wealth.

There is the issue of identity. Sudan has been described by the rulers in Khartoum since 1956 to be an Arab-Islamic country. But the realities of Sudan are quite the contrary. Seventy per cent of the Sudanese people are indigenous Africans, 30 per cent are of Arab origin. That`s the diversity of the Sudan. So it is basically an issue of marginalization, and the people of Darfur felt that they have no access to power, to resources, to wealth, and they rebelled, and the government took very harsh measures in trying to quell this rebellion.

The humanitarian tragedy that is in Darfur is basically caused by the government counter-insurgency strategy.

Gichuru: You have actually answered my second question there because I was coming to the fact that we understand that Darfur and the conflict has been precipitated by the agreements in southern Sudan and the people thought that well they have got a better deal, we need the same kind of deal in place and this is what the major part of the conflict.

Garang: No. It actually goes back quite a way. It goes back to the drought of 1984. So it has been there for quite long. It is a struggle of resources and before the rebellion in Darfur got formally organized in 2001, and this was before the Machakos protocol, the government used to call this armed robbery, which is the same struggle over resources. Whereas a connection has been made between Naivasha protocols and the war in Darfur, there is really no connection in terms of the rebels in Darfur taking up arms in order to get the same deal as the SPLM has gotten in Naivasha. The rebellion in Darfur happened before the Machakos protocol.

Gichuru: So that is actually a fallacy.

Garang: It is a fallacy. But the situation in Darfur is just as the situation is southern Sudan, that is neglect, marginalization - take what we call the New Sudan, which is southern Sudan plus Nuba Mountains plus Blue Nile - this is an area that is greater than Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi combined - these are the areas that are controlled by the SPLM - and in this vast territory, since the days of Adam and Eve, there has never been a [word indistinct]. That is just an indication of the neglect and marginalization that I am talking about in southern Sudan as well as in Darfur.

We obviously need a comprehensive political settlement, both for southern Sudan as well as for Darfur, as well as for eastern Sudan, as well as for the far north. So it is a very widespread problem in the Sudan.

SPLM GOVERNANCE

Presenter Waweru Njoroge: Taking up the issue of the north and south agreement, actually moving away from Darfur - when [word indistinct] involves power sharing and security and wealth sharing, how prepared is the SPLM for this kind of governance?

Garang: We are very prepared indeed. Without resources, we as a movement have held on for the last 21 years of struggle. We have put in place a civil administration in the New Sudan - in southern Sudan, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile. As I speak to you we are running over 3,000 primary schools. We have more than 30 senior secondary schools. We have an administration in place. We have regional administration. We have county administration. We have payam [as heard] administration. So, as a guerrilla movement we already had structures of governance. We will need to transform these structures from guerrilla-based structures to formal structures, that is, we shall form the government of southern Sudan.

"FREEDOM FIGHTERS"

Njoroge: And as you prepare for peace in your country how do you plan to shed the tag of rebel leader and become a nationalist?

Garang: It is quite simple. It is a continuation of the struggle. We have struggled for the last 21 years. We have been called rebel by others, but we don`t call ourselves rebels. We are freedom fighters, and when the fight for freedom is over, which means achieving our objectives, the objective of the New Sudan - the objective of the right of self-determination - the according to the terms of the Naivasha protocols we will form a government of southern Sudan and we will assume formal governance. There are lots of former rebels who have made the transition from rebel to formal governments. An example is President Museveni that talked in Gigiri this afternoon. He shed the tag of a rebel leader to become president of Uganda, the same thing in Ethiopia, the same thing in Eritrea. And so we have a lot peers, people who have gone before us.

Gichuru: Absolutely. Unfortunately out time is very short. On a final note. So much is said about conflict and so little about the person. We want to know - I understand that you have a masters [degree] in agricultural economics, a PhD in economics - How did end up chairman, leader of the SPLA and fighting this fight?

PROFILE

Garang: It is a long story. In the first war, which is the Anyanya war that lasted 17 years, I participated in that war. I actually first came to Kenya back in 1963. So I attended your independence celebrations here, I even taught school here, I was headmaster of Gatunga`ng`a Senior Secondary School, that is near Nyeri [central Kenya]. From there I went to the USA. I got my first degree in 1969 in economics at Grinnel College. Then I returned to the Anyanya. I was absorbed into the Sudanese armed forces as a result of the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement. I became a member of the Sudanese army in 1972 with the rank of captain. I went Fort Benning Military School in USA in 1974. I then got a scholarship to go for my masters degree at Iowa State University where I got a masters in agricultural economics and got a PhD in economics, returned to Sudan still in the army, became a colonel in the army and I was teaching in the University of Khartoum.

In 1983 when the war broke out we formed the SPLM/SPLA and I became chairman and commander in chief of the SPLM/SPLA.

Gichuru: Thank you very much for joining us.

Garang: You are welcome.

Gichuru: We hope we will speak with you soon. We have been speaking with chairman of the SPLM and of course leader of SPLA Dr John Garang de Mabior.

Material from the BBC Monitoring Service

 

شكرا ياأساسى على هذا البوست ،

وأتمنى أن تقرأ بوستك من الغلاف للغلاف بإهتمام ،
فالافكار والمواقف التى فيه يجب ان تخرجك من الظلمه الى النور... فعلى بركة الله.

وبالتأكيد مدعى السودان الجديد أيضا يجب أن يثقفوا أنفسهم فى مايدعونه.

شكرا أيضا للأخ بكرى.

.

الأخ أساسي
كل التحايا
السودان بعد الإستقلال تجاذبه مشروعين ( المشروع الحضاري) و(السودان الجديد). الأول صاحبه الدكتور الترابي وإستطاع توظيف الدولة المركزية لفرضه حتى أنهكها وأصبحت الدولة في عداء مع الشعب بدلا أن تكون خادمة له وهو مشروع فاشل لانه غير متصالح مع وجدان الشعب السوداني ولأنه مشروع يسبح ضد جغرافية وتاريخ هذا البلد العظيم. الثاني ومنظره دكتور جون مشروع ولد كمعادل موضوعي للأخر وكحاجة لتعزيز الوحدة الوطنية ولتكون الدولة لامركزية ومحايدة و مستوعبة للتعدد الديني والعرقي وللتنوع الثقافي. هذا المشووع وُلد ليبقى فقط ستتغير وسائل الوصول اليه وسيأخذ وقتا أطول لتحققه الجماهير المؤمنة به في الهامش وتلك التي ستقتنع أن فيه مصلحتهافي مدن وأرياف شمال السودان مستقبلا. للحادبين على الوحدة الطوعيةالأن لابد من خلق رأي عام ضاغط من اجل تنفيذ البنود المتبقية من إتفاق السلام وعلى رأسها الإستفتاء وايضا لابد من وقفة صارمة لمنع عودة الحرب من كل السودانيين الوطنيين اما القوى المؤمنة بالسودان الجديد فيجب عليها أن تعمل على تمليك هذا المشروع لشعوب السودان وعلى إبتكار وسائل دمقراطية سلمية للنضال من أجل هذ المشروع وهي حتما قادرة على تحقيقه طال الزمن أو قصر. التحية والرحمة لروح الزعيم قرنق الذي أحبّ السودان وشعبه وضحى بحياته من أجل هذا المشروع العظيم.