|
|
 Re: عفواً ايها الساده / خوجلى / المهدى / مصطفى فلن تعاد الخدعه من جديد !!!. (Re: سفيان بشير نابرى)
|
The History of RSD--Continuation
As I have mentioned above, the RSD was considered by the SPLM/A (the Torit Faction) for the first time in the Torit Resolutions of 1991 . It was also considered in the meetings between the SPLM/A and the NIF in Abuja I and AbuJa II of 1992 and 1993. However, the crucial period in which RSD was considered as a solution to the issue of war in the Sudan came in 1994 and 1995.
In 1994 the Islamic Junta leader, Omar al-Bashir, had officially asked the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) to intervene and mediate between his theocratic Khartoum governemnt and the SPLM/Factions. IGAD took the request seriously and went to work. In an attempt to find a common ground for negotiations, IGAD drafted six principles, later on to be known as the Declaration of Principles (DOPs). IGAD asked the parties to give their consent or agree to these principles, as the basis of negotiations for the resolution of the war. SPLM/A immediately agreed to these principles in 1994, while the Khartoum government dragged its feet for several years, despite many meetings arranged by IGAD between 1994-2002. The main two principles were: the unity of Sudan as a secular state, with effective separation of STATE and RELIGION. In case Khartoum government did not accept a secular Sudan, the South should vote in a referendum internationally supervised to determine its future, RSD. Such VOTE would INCLUDE UNITY OR SEPARATION. The other principles were political, security, constitutional and administrative interim arrangements, wealth sharing and ceasefire.
After al-Turabi/al-Bashir coup of 1989, the Northern opposition began immediately to organized itself to oppose this theocratic coup, and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) came into being in 1990. In one of the resolutions of the NDA was the the need for coordination between the NDA and the SPLM/A. As such, the Torit Resolutions included the need for the SPLM/A to join the NDA. The NDA therefore eagerly accepted the membership of the SPLM/A, Torit Faction, while rejecting the membership of the Riak/Lam Faction, for the obvious cooperation between Riak/Lam Faction with the Khartoum government.
In 1995, the NDA convened a confwerence in Asmara for the future of the Sudan. Among the issues disccussed was the issue of war and how to resolve it. The conference agreed that the unity of Sudan should not be imposed by force on the people of Sudan, and if Southern Sudan wanted to secede it should have a right to do so, in a referendum in which it would express its opinion whether South should continue to be a part of Sudan or opt for separation. This was the consensus of the meeting, including the SPLM/A. There was no way SPLM/A could agree to anything less than that after it had agreed to the IGAD's DOPs earlier in 1994.
The NIF Khartoum governemnt attacked or criticized the NDA for agreeing to the RSD in Asmara, when it had offered the same to Riak/Lam faction in 1992 in a meeting behind the people of Sudan and in an hotel. The NDA genuine acceptance of RSD was done openly and honestly before the world and the people of the Sudan.
As always, NIF assumes ignorance in others, it offered RSD to Riak/Lam in the Khartoum Peace Agrement of 1997. Again the NIF was not serious or honest in that offer. It had to take Lam and Riak several years to realize that the RSD promised them was meant to draw the rug under the feet of Dr. Garang and to turn the war in the South into South-South war. Dr. Riak realized that by early 1999 and left to rejoin the SPLM/A, while it took Dr. Lam some few more years to come to the conclusion Riak had reached in 1999.
The failure of Khartoum Peace Agreement, coupled with NIF failure to win the war on the battle fronts, forced the NIF to begin serious negotiations with SPLM/A, now strenthened by rejoing of Dr. Riak Machar. To begin that serious negotiations it had to accept the IGAD's DOPs. However, it rejected the the unity of Sudan and separation of State and religion, calling it one of its red lines. As such IGAD had no other way but to ask the SPLM/A to fall back on the RSD, which the NIF eagerly accepted as the basis of negotiations. In 2002, the Machacos General Fraework Protocol was reached, giving the people of the South RSD in six years.
These days there is wailing and chest beating that Southerners are bound to vote for SEPARATION in 2011. Off course, true to its colors the NIF is mis leading the Norther elite that Southerners are working for the break-up of Sudan. Non of this Northern elite is asking the right question: Why did you reject the unityt of Sudan under a secular democratic arrangement? Were it not you, the NIF, who accepted the RSD, with the consequence of separation because you told the world that Islam and state are inseparable? If the leadership of the SPLM/A and the , people of the South are now in favor of Separation, was it not what the NIF agreed to under the Naivasha peace agreement? Why is Madam Garang de Mabior being castigated when she clearly said she is a separatist? If Pagan Amoum, Deng Alor or Madam Rebecca Garang were not to favor separation, a right recognized under Naivasha, who is going to talk about separation? Why should those who favor unity have the right to talk and those who are not in favor be deprived of stating what is pereferable them under the peace agreement? Naivasha does not say those who favor separation would be deprived to state their opinion in the media or convey that preference to foreign circles?
The Arab-Islamic elite and the Northern media have not learned from history, and have always believed whatever all the governments since 1956, including the NIF government, say as the policy towards the South as an article of faith. I thought this time round the Arab-Islamic elite and the media would take on the NIF theocratic government as to why it refused the UNITY ATERNATIVE in the IGAD's DOPs. Instead the Ara-Islamic elite and the media have come out again to castigate and attack southerners for being separatists. Why should one phrase "to make unity attractive" be so important so as to cancel out the clear provisions of Naivasha that southerners have the right to choose one of the alternatives, including SEPARATION.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست