Why South Sudan and not Somaliland?

[sunnahswag]

South Sudan gained independence last year, while Somaliland has for decades struggled for independent statehood without success.

− In Sudan, the conflict was defined in cultural, religious and ethnic terms. Therefore, partition was seen as logical by Western policymakers. Somalia is one of only a few African countries that is also a homogenous nation, with just one language and one culture. That’s why the international community is unwilling to recognise Somaliland as a sovereign state, says Redie Bereketeab.
Since the collapse of Somalia in 1991 there has not been a government with which Somaliland can negotiate. Today, there is government in Mogadishu, but it is not interested in even discussing independence for Somaliland.
− Apart from the unwillingness of the international community, the neighbouring states of Ethiopia and Kenya are reluctant to countenance independence for Somaliland. IGAD, the regional organisation that played a significant role in the achievement of independence by South Sudan, has been unable to play a similar role in Somaliland, owing to the concerns of neighbouring countries about their own ethnic Somali populations. They may fear that demands for independence will arise in their countries if Somaliland is recognised, says Redie Bereketeab.

[Colonel]

1. South Sudan is mostly Christian
2. North Sudan is an independant Muslim nation
3. North Sudan's government is an enemy of the USA
4. South Sudan has oil and gives it away to the West in exchange for recognision
5. South and Mujahid North Sudan are religiously, culturally and tribally different.

1. There is no cultural or religious difference between Skinny North Somalis and Skinny Southerners.
2. Somaliland has no resources to give away to the West.
3. The USA doesn't want to have 4000 different nations along the Oil Route (red sea)
4. Nobody gives a shit about Skinnies and their calacaal

[Khalid Ali]

The people of south sudan fought for their independence the Arab north dominated them for decades The Legendary john garang made sure his country would be independent from the north in the 2005 agreement in nairobi. The struggle is the same the same with the people of Somaliland they were for decades dominated by the south and fought for their independence. The only difference Somaliland and Somalia have the same religion and for more than 2 decades Somaliland had no person to talk to about their future relationship between Somaliland and Somalia. And south sudan had a partner to talk to Omar hassan al bashir and John sat down in nairobi and worked an agreement out the west was pushing nevertheless Bashiir wanted to lose the sanctions and the criminal court stupid of him he was played South sudan broke away but he still has darfur he will never lose darfur. He had to let go south sudan to have darfur. SPLM AND SNM fought the same war a war for liberation and in 1984 they were both in addis ababa President Siilaaanyo and John Garang were best friends.

[Calibesteen]

The people of south sudan fought for their independence the Arab north dominated them for decades The Legendary john garang made sure his country would be independent from the north in the 2005 agreement in nairobi. The struggle is the same the same with the people of Somaliland they were for decades dominated by the south and fought for their independence. The only difference Somaliland and Somalia have the same religion and for more than 2 decades Somaliland had no person to talk to about their future relationship between Somaliland and Somalia. And south sudan had a partner to talk to Omar hassan al bashir and John sat down in nairobi and worked an agreement out the west was pushing nevertheless Bashiir wanted to lose the sanctions and the criminal court stupid of him he was played South sudan broke away but he still has darfur he will never lose darfur. He had to let go south sudan to have darfur. SPLM AND SNM fought the same war a war for liberation and in 1984 they were both in addis ababa President Siilaaanyo and John Garang were best friends.

[sahal80]

The people of south sudan fought for their independence the Arab north dominated them for decades The Legendary john garang made sure his country would be independent from the north in the 2005 agreement in nairobi. The struggle is the same the same with the people of Somaliland they were for decades dominated by the south and fought for their independence. The only difference Somaliland and Somalia have the same religion and for more than 2 decades Somaliland had no person to talk to about their future relationship between Somaliland and Somalia. And south sudan had a partner to talk to Omar hassan al bashir and John sat down in nairobi and worked an agreement out the west was pushing nevertheless Bashiir wanted to lose the sanctions and the criminal court stupid of him he was played South sudan broke away but he still has darfur he will never lose darfur. He had to let go south sudan to have darfur. SPLM AND SNM fought the same war a war for liberation and in 1984 they were both in addis ababa President Siilaaanyo and John Garang were best friends.

south sudanese did not fought for an independence. This move was originated in khartoum during al turabi times, he use to threaten egypt by recognizing the south as an independent country. But still the party was ruling after al turabi and the men who offered to the south this choice were al turabi students ali osman and gaazi salah deen who signed the peace accord with grang. Grang was a very nationalist sudanist and he is very popular in the nourth. What he was fighting for he calls it al sudan al jadeed/ the new sudan where the souhreners and northeners have equal rights including a southrener being head of the state.
The islamists found it good option to let the south go so they can have the right of ruling a full muslim country.
You are not fighting for rights, to rule somalia you just want an independence and the only way to get it is through mogadisho since the world sees us as one tribe with one religion and culture.
Wikki on grang


"Garang had been fighting for a "New Sudan" since 1983. He was a strong advocate for national unity: minorities together formed a majority and therefore should rule. Together, Garang believed, they could replace President Omar al-Bashir with a government made up of representatives from “all tribes and religions in Sudan."

[DayaxJeclee]

@ saxiibo waaye.

[Khalid Ali]

in Africa several cases to get independence and dejure recogntion Eritreas case 30 year war for independence eventually and successively deposed Mengistu haille mariam from power with the help of various Ethiopian rebel group led by the late Meles zenawi tigrayan people liberation front first the ELF took up arms mostly muslim Eritreans let by xamid idris awate and the second liberation front EPLF they were mostly supported by several arab country the second liberation was led by the current Eritrean president Isyas afarwerki after a long war with many losses and gains eventually the Eritreans defeated mengistu haille maiam The Eritreans installed Meles zanawi and forced him to sign their independence and secured their independence while the EPLF rebels were still in Addis ababa until 1993 after the independence referendum the EPLF moved its troops out of Ethiopia and Ethiopias navy was dismantled and Ethiopia accepted Eritreas independence.

South sudan case versus Sudan the south sudanese fought a long war for independence the first south sudanese war against the north sudanese was the anyanya rebellion from 1955 till 1975 led by joseph lagu on the South sudanese and the sudanese were led by Gaafar Nimeiry the rebels of the anyanya were supported at that time by the Ethiopian Empire of Emperor Haille sellesie after the anyanya rebellion in the addis ababa agreement they agreed to stop the war and agreed on limited autonomy for the south. in 1983 the second war for independence was about to start the president of sudan abolished the autonomy and declared the constitution of the country as islam the south sudanese disaagreed the South sudanes picked up the guns again and fought another war over 2 million people died in that war and the war spread all the way to the nuba mountains Arab Militias were fighting along side the Sudanese armies committing atrocities in south sudan. The leadership of sudan held new talks in Ethiopia with John Garang, called the koka dam agreement sharia law was abolished in south sudan from 1991 till 2003 South sudan rebels SPLM gained lots of territories despite the internal rivalries with in the rebel movement in 2005 they agreed in nairobi. That south should have an autonomy for six years, followed by a UN supervised referendum on independence

Somaliland and Somalia case , Somaliland voluntarily united with Somalia on first of July 1960 to form a union the union immediately went the wrong direction the Somalilanders were sidelined and marginalization was about to begin the Koonfurians took the entire countries leadership from the President the PM the capital the army chief the police chief and 90% of the cabinet and they saw Somaliland as just one of their own regions they got on a plate when they got independence.With lots of anger the struggle began the first Coup d'état led by Colonel hassan kayd and other Somaliland officers in 1961 to make Somaliland an independent state again the coupe failed. The than President of Somalia adan cade came with the idea to send troops from southern Somalia to Somaliland and the Somaliland troops to the south this was not welcomed by the Somalilanders It was seen as an occupation force a referendum for the constitution was voted on the vast majority of the people of Somaliland rejected that constitution with mass ballot rigging they pushed for their constitution the Koonfurians. The dictatorial regime took over and he went to war with Ethiopia after the war he tried to cripple the Somaliland economy which was based on livestock.After the war the Somaliland officers were hunted down and murdered in togwajaale in 1978 the liberation movement in Ethiopia turned into a tool of the government of Siad bare to fight against the Somaliland people based in Ethiopia. He later wanted to move his tribesmen into the Somaliland territories these tribes men of Somalia were fighting along the sna forces against the liberators of Somalilands.The war for liberation began Somalilanders in saudi arabia formed the SNM a movement a political wing and military wing and from 1979 till 1988 they would wage a guerrilla war against the Somalia government with lots of success in 1986 siad bare the dictator of Somalia deployed 2/3 of the Somalia army to Somaliland. And in 1988 the SNM liberators launched a full offensive inside Somaliland major cities in Somaliland were destroyed 300.000 people fled into Ethiopia over 50.000 people were killed but the SNM kept on marching despite all odds by 1989 the SNM signed Communique with several other rebel groups of Somalia and after the fall of the dictator in 1991. Somaliland declared its independence that was lost in 1960, Somalia fell into another civil war between their own various factions and ever since then Somalia had no functioning government from warlords to pirates to islamists and anarchists since recently Somalia had a new government a government with limited control but still given legitimacy by the international community and the International community is facilitating talks between Somalia and Somaliland.

[Calibesteen]

in Africa several cases to get independence and dejure recogntion Eritreas case 30 year war for independence eventually and successively deposed Mengistu haille mariam from power with the help of various Ethiopian rebel group led by the late Meles zenawi tigrayan people liberation front first the ELF took up arms mostly mulsim Eritreans let by xamid idris awate and the second liberation front EPLF they were mostly supported by several arab country the second liberation was led by the current Eritrean president Isyas afarwerki The Eritreans installed Meles zanawi and forced him to sign their independence and secured their independence while the EPLF rebels were still in Addiss ababa until 1993 after the independence referendum the EPLF moved its troops out of Ethiopia and Ethiopias navy was dismantled and Ethiopia accepted Eritreas independence.

South sudan case versus Sudan the south sudanese fought a long war for independence the first south sudanese war against the north sudanese was the anyanya rebellion from 1955 till 1975 led by joseph lagu on the South sudanese and the sudanese were led by Gaafar Nimeiry the rebels of the anyanya were supported at that time by the Ethiopian Empire of Emperor Haille sellesie after the anyanya rebellion in the addis ababa agreement they agreed to stop the war and agreed with limited autonomy for the south. in 1983 the second war for independence was about to start the president of sudan abolished the autonomy and declared the land of the country is islam the south sudanese disaagreed the South sudanes picked up the guns and fought another war over 2 million people died in that war and the war spread all the way to the nuba mountains Arab Militias were fighting along side the Sudanese armies committing atrocities in south sudan. The leadership of sudan held new talks in Ethiopia with John Garang called the koka dam agreement sharia law was abolished in south sudan from 1991 till 2003 South sudan rebels SPLM gained lots of territories despite the internal rivalries with in the rebel movement in 2005 they agreed in nairobi. That south should have an autonomy for six years, followed by a UN supervised referendum on independence

Somaliland and Somalia case , Somaliland voluntarily united with Somalia on first of July 1960 to form a union the union immediately went the wrong direction the Somalilanders were sidelined and marginalization was about to begin the Koonfurians took the entire countries leadership from the President the PM the capital the army chief the police chief and 90% of the cabinet and they saw Somaliland as just one of their own regions they got on a plate when they got independence.With lots of anger the struggle began the first Coup d'état led by Colonel hassan kayd and other Somaliland officers in 1961 to make Somaliland an independent state again the coupe failed. The than President of Somalia adan cade came with the idea to send troops from southern Somalia to Somaliland and the Somaliland troops to the south this was not welcomed by the Somalilanders It was seen as an occupation force a referendum for the constitution was voted on the vast majority of the people of Somaliland rejected that constitution with mass ballot rigging they pushed for their constitution the Koonfurians. The dictatorial regime took over and he went to war with Ethiopia after the war he tried to cripple the Somaliland economy which was based on livestock.After the war the Somaliland officers were hunted down and murdered in togwajaale in 1978 the liberation movement in Ethiopia turned into a tool of the government of Siad bare to fight against the Somaliland people based in Ethiopia. He later wanted to move his tribesmen into the Somaliland territories these tribes men of Somalia were fighting along the sna forces against the liberators of Somalilands.The war for liberation began Somalilanders in saudi arabia formed the SNM a movement a political wing and military wing and from 1979 till 1988 they would wage a guerrilla war against the Somalia government with lots of success in 1986 siad bare the dictator of Somalia deployed 2/3 of the Somalia army to Somaliland. And in 1988 the SNM liberators launched a full offensive inside Somaliland major cities in Somaliland were destroyed 300.000 people fled into Ethiopia over 50.000 people were killed but the SNM kept on marching despite all odds by in 1989 the SNM signed Communique with several other rebel groups of Somalia and after the fall of the dictator in 1991. Somaliland declared its independence that was lost in 1960, Somalia fell into another civil war between their own various factions and ever since then Somalia had no functioning government from warlords to pirates to islamists and anarchists since recently Somalia had a new government a government with limited control but still given legitimacy by the international community and the International community is facilitating talks between Somalia and Somaliland

I agree that things have been bad but that doesnt mean we cant change the bad things and make it better for all Somalis.

[Khalid Ali]

Sahal there are people who say John was a unionist and didn't want the division of Sudan but wanted equal power sharing some sort of confederacy. Some say the Helicopter crash was not an accident and he was assassinated. Nevertheless he is a hero to the south sudanese he secured their independence in the 2005 agreement. Even-though he might have been a unionist in his heart.

[The`Republic]

Aint no one recognizing Somaliland. This is a pointless discussion.

[AgentOfChaos]

...The Legendary john garang....

[sahal80]

Khalid
Even after the peace accord grang never talked about an independence. This is why he was killed. His death was on friday and they announced it on sunday saying we were waiting for a new leader!!(Wikki)
South sudanes even now they want to re-unite with the north like yasir carman of ex SPLM said that if the north gives a last chance for a new sudan we will come back.
This article was written by a southren sudanese after 7 years of the peace deal he says the vision of new sudan can still save sudan but the islamists have choisen the religion over the country they said you can have your south we are muslims.

"John Garang New Sudan Vision is the Key to Unity

ArticleComments (1)
EmailPrintSave

By Jacob K. Lupai*

August 27, 2007 — It may be true to say many Sudanese of different political ideologies agree that something is not right that the Sudan’s independence from the colonial rule has been nothing but a life of misery for the majority. The armed rebellions and the subsequent destruction of lives and property with massive humanitarian disasters in the various parts of the country is evidence that something somewhere is seriously flaw with Sudan as a nation. However, many informed individuals and especially the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) as a genuine national movement have diagnosed the problem as colonial policy of divide-and-rule and the mechanics of peripheral development in the Sudan that are mainly responsible for the post independence crisis in the country. Instead of addressing the problem we are now reaping what the successive Sudanese regimes sowed by following in the colonial footsteps. There was no attempt whatsoever to reconstitute the Sudan on a new model to reflect the realities of diversities in an independent Sudan.

The Sudanese political parties which were dominated by northern elite and who should be by now ashamed of their record in office saw themselves as representing the interest of an Arab Islamic nation. In their enthusiasm to convert the diversified Sudan into an Arab Islamic nation, Arabisation and Islamisation of the country were vigorously pursued and especially in Southern Sudan it was very brutal where the people were mostly non-Arabs and non-Muslims. However, the response form Southern Sudan was very swift. The response was an armed struggle that became a precedent all over the country as the only means to create a new Sudan that one could identify with. That became the vision of one man, Dr John Garang de Mabior. The entrenched Islamic fanaticism and Arab hegemony like Apartheid in South Africa could not be brought to an end through a peaceful means. Dr John Garang de Mabior knew that to be so hence his concerted effort in prosecuting the war of liberation for an independent Sudan on new basis. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of January 2005 shows that the vision of New Sudan could be realised. It was an agreement reached between the government of Sudan and the SPLM as in 1972 the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement was reached between the government of Sudan under Nimeiri and the Anyanya movement.

The vision of New Sudan has even got a new convert in the person of the former Prime Minister of Sudan, Sadiq el Mahdi who now seems a reformed individual. He talks of Sudan as full of diversities, a country with several religions and cultures, different regional forces and different political orientations. Sadiq el Mahdi claims that forcing an Islamic programme on the Sudan causes polarisation. He also claims that in 1995 they declared the Sudan needed a programme to build a democratic nation state, the recognition of religious and cultural pluralities, the rectification of the tilt towards the Arab world and the construction of a modern Sudanese nation. Clearly this was the language of a convert to the vision of New Sudan. This is because in 1977 Sadiq el Mahdi and other northern opposition groups demanded Nimeiri to revise the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement and the result was devastating with the explosion of another war that caused Southern Sudan estimated 2 million lives and about 4 million displaced either internally or fled as refugees to foreign lands notwithstanding the destruction of property. However, Sadiq el Mahdi seems to blame the National Congress Party (NCP) and the previous dictatorial regimes except himself for everything that is wrong in the Sudan. This is strange indeed. It could be that one sees a speck in the other’s eye but not in one’s own.

When Sadiq el Mahdi was the Prime Minister of Sudan from 1986 to 1989 how different was he from the rest of the Sudanese leaders before and after him. He glorified the Arab and Islamic face of Sudan as did and do other Sudanese leaders. Sadiq el Mahdi armed militias he inherited form Nimeiri who caused havoc in the South. The militias were later also inherited and bolstered by Omar Bashir in his vain effort to defeat the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Sadiq el Mahdi never abolished Islamic sharia after taking office in 1986 despite denouncing Nimeiri for imposing Islamic sharia but instead enforced it stringently while he is now telling us that forcing an Islamic programme on the Sudan causes polarisation. Let’s hope that this is not a sign of double standards. In contrast Nimeiri and Bashir were brave men who concluded agreements to end costly wars in the interest of peace while Sadiq el Mahdi was dithering and is now trying to exonerate himself from indecision by claiming he wanted a national consensus. That was nothing but a lame excuse characteristic of weakness. Sadiq el Mahdi should be strongly reminded of what had become of the round table conference convened on 16 March 1965 and the subsequent twelve men committee to address the so called southern problem when all the political parties were assembled together to reach a national consensus on a solution to the problem. Surely Sadiq el Mahdi should have been aware that all the political parties and organisations in the North and the South were represented in the round table conference and in the twelve men committee. He should tell us whether by assembling all the political parties made the conference a success. After ten days of heated debate the round table conference was abruptly brought to an end failing to reach any political, constitutional and administrative settlement of the so called southern problem.

After the collapse of the conference a twelve men committee was formed to study and recommend constitutional, administrative and financial relations between the South and the central government in Khartoum. However, the committee was wrecked with disagreements as the northern political representatives tried to dictate to the southern representatives their concepts of the solution to the problem. The northern political parties wanted the Sudan united by all means whether the southern representatives liked it or not. It was to take another seven years of war and suffering in Southern Sudan until Nimeiri, a man of courage and decisiveness made the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement of 1972 to take place. If Nimeiri had dithered like Sadiq el Mahdi the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement would not have probably taken place that ended 17 years of bloodshed in Southern Sudan. There are times when a leader has to lead from the front to make things happen in a deteriorating situation. Nimeiri did precisely that while Sadiq el Mahdi would have failed.

Immediately after independence in 1956 the northern political parties consolidated their grip on power and promptly promoted the image of Sudan as an Arab state. It is worth noting that 35 per cent of the population of Sudan think they are Arabs. This suggests that the majority are Black Africans. If the majority Black Africans had a voice probably things would have been different and the Sudan might not have got engulfed in the mess it is in today. However, the colour of skin may not be a big issue. There are some Black Sudanese especially those from the North who in their heads think they are Arabs. These are people who have been Arabised for centuries and are some of the noisiest in asserting their Arabness in contrast to the lighter skin Middle Eastern Arabs who seem not to be very loud about them. To make matters worse the minority Arabs through their political parties committed themselves to an Arab Islamic state in Sudan. Sadiq el Mahdi who now seems to claim to be secular was a lead architect in the commitment to an Arab Islamic state. With this commitment to an Islamic state came with it the problem of marginalisation and dehumanisation of the majority Black Africans. The on-going destructive war in the Darfur region of Sudan may offer some explanation.

There has never been a referendum at least after independence on whether to apply Islamic sharia in the Sudan. The application of Islamic sharia has always been through the barrel of the gun. Before Numeiri introduced Islamic sharia in 1983 Sudanese were liberal and secular in their orientation. Alcohol was available in public places and women could make local brew to satisfy the need of those in low income bracket. Alcohol was in abundance in both public places and in private homes. When Numeiri came to power through the barrel of the gun at first he was liberal and secular, and probably might have enjoyed a pint of Camel’s beer, the Sudanese brand or a tot of whisky. However, with Turabi, the Islamic ideologue and the closest of advisors Nimeiri could not escape the strong influence of Turabi to apply strict Islamic sharia. All of a sudden alcohol was banned and brewing it became a crime. Probably consuming alcohol became also a crime. The application of Islamic sharia was claimed to be on the basis that Sudan had a Muslim majority and so Islam should be established as the source of law. However, this claim is flaw. Some people just unceremoniously installed themselves as God representatives on earth through the use of gun and assumed they were serving God’s best interest as prosecutors and judges at the same time. It is most likely that if the issue of Islamic sharia were put to a referendum the Sudan would have been a secular state. Turabi the NIF leader couldn’t even make his party a victor in successive elections. The NIF never won an election to form a government in order to apply Islamic sharia in the Sudan. As a clever man Turabi could only manipulate the Sudanese army from Nimeiri to Bashir to implement his Islamic programme where he boasts his Islamic ideology will succeed where others may fail.

Through democratic means Turabi always finds himself languishing behind in elections despite his impressive Islamic credentials. This clearly shows that as people of liberal and secular orientation the Sudanese through their own free will wouldn’t vote for an Islamic ideology to divide the country by making Islam a state religion. As Sadiq el Mahdi has acknowledged that the Sudan has several religions and cultures after tasting the bitterness of political wilderness it is just common sense that religion should be the domain of the individual in his private self in relating to his or her Creator. In contrast Southern Sudanese are the most liberal and secular of the Sudanese. Religion has never been a divisive issue in Southern Sudan. It is the Islamists from the North who are desperately trying to export their divisive religious bigotry to the South. In Southern Sudan a household may have Muslims and Christians and those who neither visit a mosque nor a church yet they are very happy living together in harmony as members of the same family sharing from the same pot. The application of Islamic sharia in the North where the poor are subjected to flogging for brewing alcohol or risk prison terms and amputation of limbs for petty theft is not the way forward. Poverty is not eradicated by flogging and amputation of limbs of the poor. Poverty eradication is through sustainable development, training for skills and employment for income for self-reliance. Alternatively the poor should have access to social security to satisfy their basic needs instead of flogging and amputating limbs. This may make people to associate this cruelty and inhumanity to a cruel and unforgiving God which, however, may be contrary to what holy books tell us about God.

The CPA is a legitimate agreement between the NCP and the SPLM. There is nowhere something is 100 per cent perfect. There will always be room for improvement. At least the CPA is something better than nothing and when implemented may make the difference. To decry the CPA as nothing but a worthless agreement fit for the dustbin is the problem of those who look at the glass as half empty where a glass can also be looked at as half full. Those who want to use any loophole in the CPA to discredit it may better consult with Bashir for an assignment to earn a living or be rehabilitated from political wilderness. The implementation of what is in hand will make the difference instead of wasting time in political gamesmanship. The experience of the round table conference and the defunct twelve men committee in 1965 shows that the NCP and the SPLM did the right thing by taking the bold step in striking a deal in the interest of peace in our country. The challenge is on people of good will to make the CPA workable.

The suggestion of Sadiq el Mahdi to revisit the CPA with the main objective of refining it is nothing but a strategy to torpedo the CPA. He had represented his Umma Party in the round table conference of 1965 but sadly contributed to the collapse of the conference by insisting that all members of parties at the conference should commit themselves to the unity of Sudan and to denounce the use of force by the Anyanya but not the destruction of the South by the northern army because an army that massacres its own innocent citizens in cold blood cannot be perceived as a national army. In fact the CPA defines the Sudanese army as a northern army. So the northern army was the army of occupation in the South. The military overthrow of Sadiq el Mahdi could have been a blessing in disguise because he was dithering too much that he couldn’t be effective in a turbulent situation .When a leader has a mandate from the electorate and has the constitutional right to lead tough decision may have to be made for good or bad in addressing a national crisis. For Sadiq el Mahdi he had to wait for decisions from other political parties which could have been even saboteurs to his plan of reaching a settlement with the SPLM.

Many people tend to worry about whether the South will remain united with the North or break away to become an independent state. People seem to have stopped worrying about how to make unity attractive. The NCP and the SPLM which should be making unity attractive appear to be very busy with other issues. The NCP has given up making unity attractive altogether probably for fear of losing its Islamic grip of the North. The image of the SPLM making unity attractive is not encouraging. Services in areas where the SPLM is the dominant force are hardly in existence. People do not see much in terms of development. The question to ask is how unity will be attractive in a situation of acute poor services. The NCP and the SPLM may need to redouble their efforts because it is not yet too late to make unity attractive as only two years of the six years interim period have been lost.

Unity of Sudan is only problematic because the Sudanese are never serious about nation building. They take refuge in religious bigotry as an easy way out of the difficulties of building a secular and democratic nation. Religious, cultural and ethnic diversities are offered lip sevice with no serious attempt to address the issues that tend to divide people in nation building. Dr John Garang de Mabior has offered us a vision of New Sudan in building a nation that is inclusive and in which one can identify with. The question is that can John Garang’s vision of New Sudan be acceptable to the Sudanese. It is difficult to tell unless it is tested through an election. We know that Islamic sharia couldn’t have been implemented without the use of the barrel of the gun. In democratic elections the NIF couldn’t win to form a government in its own right to apply its agenda of Islamic sharia. We will only know that the vision of New Sudan is popular when the SPLM will get an overwhelming majority in the next election scheduled for 2009.

Another question to ask is that can Sudanese live together in a united Sudan. My answer is in the affirmative. Who could have imagined that the entrenched white minority in South Africa could have acquiesced to give up power which they assumed was God given to live in harmony with their Black compatriots after long bitter decades of ugly confrontations. The French and English Canadians are living in harmony in a united Canada. The Brazilians are living together as Indians, Blacks and Portuguese. We in Sudan can make it if there is the will in realising the vision of New Sudan. John Garang’s vision of New Sudan offers a rare opportunity for the Sudan to remain a strong united country. However, the main danger of the Sudan disintegrating is posed by the Islamists. They are the main obstacle of the New Sudan vision because of their dangerous and wild imagination that they are ordained by God to be the enforcers of the divine law on earth The new Sudan vision is therefore perceived as an impediment to the Islamists grand programme for the Sudan. Also the Islamists interest in controlling businesses may make them very reluctant to participate in the realisation of the vision of New Sudan. The Islamists will not let go their prestigious religious positions and the economic hegemony they enjoy for a liberal and secular Sudan for the simple fact that they will find themselves out of power and in the cold.

The imposition of Islamic sharia is obviously to close off the highest political offices to non-Muslims unlike in a secular constitution where the leader of the country may belong to any other religion. Once Islamic sharia is imposed as Nimeiri did through the instigation of Turabi it might be very difficult to revoke. Sawara Dahab and Dizuli when they took over from Nimeiri in 1985 couldn’t revoke the Islamic sharia imposed by Nimeiri and neither could Sadiq el Mahdi after becoming the Prime Minister in 1986 despite denouncing Nimeiri’s Islamic laws. This could have been for fear of being accused of apostasy.

When Bashir took over from Sadiq el Mahdi he vigorously pursued the implementation of Islamic sharia making the realisation of a secure state in the Sudan a distant probability hence the unity of Sudan was and is in limbo. In fact the Islamists claimed they were willing to offer the South independence in exchange for a free hand to implement Islamic sharia in the Muslim North but John Garang insisted on a secular constitution for the whole of Sudan. John Garang insistence on a secular constitution was intolerable to the Islamists who argued that in an Islamic society government had no other purpose than to impose Islamic sharia. It is clear that when the Sudan disintegrates southerners shouldn’t be blamed for the disintegration of Sudan. The Islamists should carry the blame.

For John Garang’s vision of New Sudan it is an anathema to the Islamists. In fact in an interview an ardent Islamist said everything was on the table except sharia and that if Garang wanted the South he could have it but should not want to be the supreme leader of Sudan for the politics of the country would never allow him to be the supreme leader such as that Jesse Jackson would never be the supreme leader of the USA. The implication is far reaching. The same Islamist drew a horizontal line across the map of Sudan but the line drawn did not follow the old boundary between North and South along the Bahr el Arab and Bahr el Gazal rivers. It was a couple of inches south of the old boundary, just below the southern oil fields. The message is very clear. Religious bigotry and greed are the twin enemies of unity of Sudan. Unless the SPLM has an overwhelming victory in the forthcoming election in 2009 to form a government that will be capable in realising the vision of New Sudan only a miracle may save the unity of Sudan.

*The author is a researcher and can be reached at jklupai@yahoo.co.uk

[sahal80]

Its irrelivent to compare south sudan with somaliland, they both have different idelogies, one is asking a total integration and the other a total seperation. The funny thing is that there is a total social, religious, political integration between the somalis. According to 4.5 a dir/isaaq can be a president, al shabaab leader is an isaaq, ex al itahad leader sh ciise was isaaq, 3 or 4 isaaq pms since the independence like cigaal,xawaadle madar, cumar carte. In 1969 SYL candidate for the presidency was cigaal.

[original dervish]

the green tooth aint going nowhere period.

[X.Playa]

First of all the pharse "somaliland getting independence from somalia" is a non sense rubbish, somalia and somaliland formed a union , somaliland was not a province in Moqdisho so you need to fix your langauge at least before you debate this comples issue , tow regions that formed a union can disolve the union not grant independence to the other.