Peace in Darfur should not be at the Expense of South Sudan.

Abdel Wahid El Nur is a real patriot who has seen and witnessed firsthand the cunning and uppity-prone behavior of the Khartoum government. Just as many writers have pointed out, Sudan is in a rush and in dire pain to sign peace with all Darfur rebels in order to embark on its Southern Sudan schemes of Jihadism. They know pretty well that no army in Sudan will ever succeed against the SPLM/A without the plethora of power that comes from the Fur, the Baggara, and Eastern Sudan’s Beja people. For this, they are looking for fighters. But wounded fighters can better be your enemies. And a wounded friend should not obey his former enemy in a masqueraded face. 

A Chinese renowned general, Sun Tzu had this testimony in his memoirs, The Art of War: "There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, and positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed." Alexander the Great later successfully used Tzu’s military wits to conquer his known world at the time and spread the Hellenistic culture with a great record. The memoir would be superficially interpreted in various ways to meet the need of the vanquished. 

In this case, the people of Darfur must solve the dilemma they have with Khartoum. There are enemies that you must not enter into an agreement with when they so wished. But this is up to the people of Eastern Sudan and Darfur to decide: for how long will they keep fighting for the plunderers and mass murderers of their people; for how long will a people continue to suffer in the struggles in which they are not rewarded? They will have to choose. Any rushed peace with the Fur this time is just a moratorium asking them to stop for a while, and coercing them to turn and fight the South, and later, they will have to be thrashed completely according to the procured tactical order. That will be a justified peace to end in the total extermination of the Fur people.

It will be wise, as Nur seems to understand, to hold on until the rights of Fur people are guaranteed and grievances addressed before signing any elusive peace. The people of Southern Sudan know what is going on in Darfur and that is why Bashir had refused categorically not to allow GOSS to take part in the peace processes in Darfur. The point is clear here: both Darfur and South Sudan are equal enemies of the Islamic government in Khartoum and bringing them together may lead to a formidable alliance. As serendipitous as the case indicates, the people of Darfur must not be dubbed into the peace of ambition by Khartoum, which will result in their total miscalculations. It would be wise to maintain the course of struggle and Southerners to bolster a firm grip on CPA. Should anything happen, it will be fine for the two parties to go on the drawing board on equal practicum.

Khartoum must come to terms with the fact that the people of Darfur do not feed on the Quran. They need health facilities across Darfur, not only in Nyala; sustained formal education, not basic Islam which leaves the masses so illiterate to be knowledgeable Muslims; sustainable food provision and sources, not crowding the people at water points with nomad Arabs thereby brooding hot tempers and frequent civil clashes; water, electricity and improved infrastructure. These are some of the basic services that the government of Sudan has denied them for half a century. A government that can do this will be a government led by the son of Darfur. No amount of polite promises will suffice the suffering of Darfur people. Fallacious propaganda must not waiver the movement, the Sudan Liberation Movement, but ironically takes the weaknesses and lies from the Islamic government in Khartoum as the cornerstone to re-establish the strength and unity towards a unified fight for the people of Darfur.

A few days ago, SLA general commander, Abdel Gadir Abdel Rahman Ibrahim, alias, Gadora, was reported to have defected from El Nur’s SLA/M to join another rebel movement. This was the work of Sudan-Government-bought-Darfuri-man, El-Tijani El-Sissi Ateem. El-Tigani had worked tirelessly to please his masters in Khartoum while equivocally undermining the justified struggle of the people of Darfur for their rights.

The wisdom that came from Gadora in reply can be equated with the position held steadfastly by the Darfuri strong man, El Nur himself. His answer was enough to thwart desperate hopes raised in Khartoum about a possible agreement with the rebels before referenda and popular consultations that will take place across the political spectrum presently known as Southern Sudan. He had this to say: " We are not against peace but opposed to untrue peace and the fabrication of rebel groups." Gadir, Sudan Tribune, September 28, 2010. El Nur had refused to accept Dr. Garang’s persuasions to be part of the SPLM/A in1990s, citing the rationale behind the absorption, and highlighting the circumspect that the SPLA/M manoeuvre to secure the South at the expense of the whole country would kill the aspirations of his people. He never thought for a second about the reason behind the sheer wisdom which had compelled the people of the Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains to join the SPLA/M as early as its inception in the 1980s.

It was such a brilliant thought from Wahid nevertheless, it lacked insight. And this lack of insight will, for a while, linger around Wahid and his group even though they always appear to be forgetful of this self-afflicted ordeal. The Darfur rebels later demanded that the CPA be made absolutely conclusive by providing a clause to accommodate both The SPLA/M and The Darfur movements, SLA/M and JEM, something earlier rejected by Wahid. Had the two movements joined the SPLA/M and followed Daud Bolad’s example, Darfur’s clause in the CPA would be the flashpoint for all marginalized Sudanese on January 9, 2011. Furthermore, SAF and Sudan government would singlehandedly be accountable for the atrocities committed in Darfur. But many Darfur leaders and Abdel Wahid did not heed this tactical vision in particular.

Daud Bolad was left to the mercy of the Sudan Armed Forces, which captured and killed him right in the middle of his people. As historical blunders are not often deemed to extinction, the vision that was turned down resurfaced like a phantom a few years later when the SPLA/M and the Sudan Government were in the quest for peace in the country. The first group to refuse the Darfur clause at the CPA negotiations in Kenya was the group led by the Sudan Government. They neither recognized that there was an ongoing conflict in Darfur that required any precaution to be similarly addressed just like the questions of Blue Nile, Southern Kordufan, and Southern Sudan, nor did it sound imperative to explain the real facts surrounding the war in Darfur. They convinced everybody, the troika, the IGAD, and other international observers that Darfur was not a concern that required greater attention like Southern Sudan. The situation in Darfur was described as a simple clash of the nomads at water points. Today we are talking of genocide.

The Red Army in Ethiopia in the 1980s sang a song entitled: ‘"what happened in the past Anya Nya struggle must not repeat itself." They sang this in presence of Dr. John Garang and other commanders in Fugnido, Ethiopia. That song was imprinted in the minds of Dr. John Garang and his military commanders who were steering the movement. They had kept it in their hearts and Garang chanted the shortened version of the song after he successfully negotiated and signed the six protocols in Nairobi, Kenya in 2005: “What happened long ago must not happen again.”

Abdel Wahid and his counterparts in the Darfur struggle must not let what happened to Daud Bolad’s Vision happen again. The souls of the perished Darfurians in the struggle demand that the aspirations of the people are prioritized and the outcome of any negotiations be substantial, prudent, bear no malice, and flawed free. This is the prism upon which a missed historical opportunity could be rescued for the pride of posterity. 

Southern Sudan Should Endure Bad Wishes

The diplomatic warning of a Russian diplomat in Cairo, Egypt, about possible Somalization of the South Sudanese region is by all means healthy. No one, even the South Sudanese wants to see the Somalization of the region because of insatiable dissidence or other political power wranglings. It is a worry for all! A sympathizer is undoubtedly a passionate peace guard.

However, the time, place, and interest disguised during the making of the statement are dubious and seriously ill-intentioned. Honesty wasn’t the best policy at the time of the voicing of this diplomatic advice and concern.

There was no better place for a Russian diplomat to make such a bootlicking statement if not in Cairo, Egypt. Egyptian interest in Sudan extends to South Sudan where a major resource pedestal to its survival, The Nile, picks up its alluvial soil for food farms and its water drives the Aswan High Dam turbines for electric power. The volumetric flow of the Nile, too, increases in South Sudan due to frequent seasonal rains. To Egypt, Sudan is the source of the Nile even though awareness exists that more water and minerals come down the Ethiopian highlands' Lake Tana in the Amhara region. For South Sudanese to live a decent life, Egypt must understand the inalienable rights and significance of the river to all others that live on its banks and at its sources. Perhaps, this would be the message it sends to South Sudan.

South Sudan, from any amateur developer’s view, can never really prosper without the Nile being at the center of developmental mêlée – whether directly or indirectly – and this seems to be the source of concerns for Egypt. For this reason, anyone who is postulating a pleasant comment of dissuasion in reference to South Sudan’s referendum on January 9, 2011, and who, for certain wild speculation, is consequently and discreetly courting the world to turn a blind eye to South Sudan as a possible state-to-be, is, by all means, a redeemable ally to Khartoum and the ruling National Congress Party. And the Russian Mikhail Margelov fits that job perfectly well.

However, Russia should gather all the thoughts and call to mind that many nations that violently or peacefully split with their ruthless masters have been taunted as would-be failures if they pull out from a union. They were warned falsely should they opt-out, they would be met with security and economic quagmires. As time and history justify, these countries have in time surpassed such prophetic stigma. Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, etc., are today vivid examples that were threatened with failures and were forced not to leave the Russian Federation. Today they are thriving democracies, sometimes better than Mother Russia itself. If it is conceivable Russia should view the situation in South Sudan with the same magnifying lens as it did in Chechnya, then there is a gross marginal error involved.

It is true the Russian economic crisis is a reason for such comments from the diplomat. However, Russian economic struggles are domestic concerns that require internal reforms and outward policy of non-interference to those others who have nothing to do with matters pertinent to economics but whose focus is on the right to self-determination. 

It will be understood in South Sudan that Russia needs a soft place and space to swing her idled tentacles of influence for economic gains. Russian arms manufacturing will not be allowed to hold Sudan prisoner like in Eastern Europe and the Middle East where Russian gas sale has become a geopolitical weapon. Russia’s great and marauding quest to find easy partners to prey on is noticeable in Sudan and other vulnerable African countries.

Sudan had been Russia's partner in trade for arms as well as a destination of a lame technology of terror for many years. Of course Southerners still evidently retain information on the Russian-made Presidential helicopter that killed John Garang, his guards, and the Ugandan crew. Russian gunships have tormented women and children for many years in Southern Sudan. Other bombers like the Antonov, a feverish high altitude bomber, became the roaring thunders in Southern skies year in and year out for decades.

Nobody tells the world what it already knows; that South Sudanese have never known state development and handouts since the inception of the Republic of Sudan. Southerners who often flee to the North in times of crisis do so because of security concerns caused by the Northern regimes, not economic downturns or a crumbling system in the South of the country.

It is presumptuously true that Sudan owes Russia a lot of money in debt for the purchase of arms as well as the training of bomber pilots during the war.  This money will not be paid when South Sudan goes away with her bounty natural endowments, which have been the sources of Sudanese undisputed ever-trickling revenue. 

God forbid if the post-referendum negotiations currently underway between the government of South Sudan the National Congress Party on the national debt will involve tricky concessions in which South Sudanese will be bound by an agreement to pay for the bombs dropped on their kids during the war! 

Ultimately, it seems the best option for Russia, Egypt, and NCP to maximize their economic potentials is to keep the South within their grip as an assurance of support by continually concocting and thwarting the referendum vote.

But this reckless maneuvering too is as dangerous as the Somalization of the South.