SSIM
blasts Garang as `bloody dictator'
Executive Intelligence Review February 14, 1997
{The
following statement was issued by the Secretary for External Affairs of the South Sudan
Independence Movement (SSIM), Costello Garang Ring Lual, on Jan. 25, in Germany, and
presented the same day to the Washington, D.C., forum on Africa sponsored by the FDR-PAC.
It is entitled, ``The Position of SSIM and the Other Southern Charter Signatories
Concerning the Ongoing Events in Southern Blue Nile and Eastern Sudan.''}
By signing the
Political Charter with the GOS (Government of Sudan) on the 10th of April 1996, the SSIM
and its other Southern allies made their position crystal clear on how to solve the
South-North conflict. A high-ranking SSIM delegation, headed by Secretary for External
Affairs Costello Garang Ring Lual, toured the U.S.A. from the 20th of June to the 20th of
August, followed by the European countries listed below, to explain the position of the
Southern Charter's signatories.
The delegation visited
Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany; and thereafter, two
leading members of the Movement, Joseph Malual Dong and Dr. Stephen Abraham Yar, who
accompanied the Secretary for External Affairs on his visit to the U.S.A., proceeded to
Great Britain to present the position of the Southern Charter's signatories to the British
government.
Our position, which we still hold, was that:
1. We were willing to
take the opportunity of a negotiated peace settlement. We were not going to engage in
speculations regarding the intentions [of the GOS] as the good or bad will of GOS would be
proved at the roundtable. The Charter, for SSIM and its other Southern signatories which
we represented, is like going to marriage where one does not ask whether it is going to
work or not, but one goes into it with all optimism and intention to make it work.
2. The ruling
Islamic-oriented politicians in Khartoum are realistic and intelligent enough to
acknowledge the fact that Sudan is multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural, and
multireligious. No pure ``Islamic theocratic political system,'' as feared by the West,
could be established all over the country, under such circumstances with large,
non-Islamic groups in the South and elsewhere also aspiring for their own cultural and
religious identities. Our cooperation with the current GOS would give the ruling groups a
sense of security and would, in the long run, also dilute some of the current ideological
outlooks, which are considered by the West and the South alike as ``Islamic
fundamentalist.'' The right of self-determination for the People of South Sudan is the
price we demanded, and are going to get, for the ongoing cooperation. If the ruling
Islamic-orientated groups reneged on it--we don't believe they would--we will stop all
sorts of cooperation.
3. For the SSIM-SSIA
and its allies, the oppositional northern political parties in the NDA [National
Democratic Alliance] are not a better alternative to the current GOS, as far as the South
is concerned, for several obvious reasons:
a) The Umma Party and
the DUP [Democratic Unionist Party] are like the NIF [National Islamic Front] Islamic
parties which intend to create an Islamic state in Sudan. They have for several years
ruled the country and were not able to solve the ongoing conflict.
b) It was the former
Prime Minister and Umma leader Sadiq al-Mahdi who introduced the arming of northern tribes
during the time of his premiership in order to use them against the SPLM/SPLA. Robbery
became the order of the day and the South was devastated as a result of the Umma-DUP
Southern policies.
c) The fact that the
SSIM-SSIA was rejected for NDA membership and the very fact that the northern oppositional
parties were collaborating with a bloody Southern dictator, namely, the SPLM-SPLA leader,
Dr. John Garang, shows that these parties are for sure no more democratic than those
ruling in Khartoum, as the NDA tends to openly claim.
4. The SSIM-SSIA would
see to it that there is linkage between the solution of Southern Sudanese problems and
those of the neighboring countries and will address Egyptian fears concerning the flow of
the Nile water, which is, after all, not used in Southern Sudan for irrigation, since the
South enjoys enough rainfall.
5. The U.S.A. and its
Western allies should encourage reconciliation of Southern rebel groups and abstain from
endorsing the SPLM-SPLA as the ``main resistance'' movement. The SPLM-SPLA leader was
portrayed by the delegation as a bloody dictator who has misused Southern Nationalism for
personal ends. No Southern Sudanese is fighting for the creation of what the SPLM-SPLA
leader terms ``democratic, secular, and united New Sudan.'' If the current conflict could
be solved peacefully and through a negotiated settlement, there is no need, from a
Southern viewpoint, for the continuation of war, even if the whole country is temporarily
being ruled by an Islamic political grouping.
6. To underline the
fact that the SPLM-SPLA leader is a dictator with no respect for even the lives of the
people he claims to be fighting to liberate, a list of leading Southern politicans who
were extrajudicially murdered in cold blood by the SPLM-SPLA was handed over to the
personalities met by the delegation during the visits. Documented on the list are, for
example, the names of the following Southern leaders who were either first detained and
then murdered by the SPLM-SPLA security agents, or just shot in cold blood:
1) Joseph Odubo, 2)
Martin Magier Gai, 3) Martin Makur Aleyou, 4) Martin Kogiburo, 5) Joseph Malanth, 6)
Benjamin Bol Akok, 7) James Gatwec, 8) John Jok Gai, 9) James Gaijiath Thoat, 10) Dol
Manguok Jr., and many more.
From the
above-mentioned point of view, the SSIM-SSIA and its Southern Charter Allies categorically
condemn the ongoing so-called ``NDA Offensive'' in the Southern Blue Nile and eastern
Sudan, because the only visible, logical aim behind it is denying a chance to the Peace
Charter and, hence, denying a peaceful solution of the North-South conflict. The situation
is being intentionally complicated by making out of the North-South political and social
conflict an ideological, anti-Islamic war, but at the same time, the SPLM/SPLA leader,
well known for his opportunistic tendencies, is allying himself with the traditional
northern Islamic parties, which he termed in 1983 the ``enemies of the People.'' Garang
stated that the objection of his ``revolution'' was to ``free the Sudanese masses'' from
the domination of the Mahdi and Mirghani family, whom he, together with those in Khartoum
and Geizira, termed ``the ruling clique.'' Whether in Southern Blue Nile, Nuba Mountains,
eastern or southern Sudan, it is the Southern and the Nuba youth who are being used as
cannon-fodder by the NDA. The traditional Islamic leaders in the Umma Party and the DUP
are not, and would never be, willing to send their daughters and sons to go and struggle,
fight, and die for the ``freedom and democracy'' they emptily and loudly claim to be
striding forward toward.