Commitment to unity: the vision of a new Sudan

Unity in diversity

Historical diversity

Contemporary diversity

Sudan's problem, not the South's problem

Religion and state

The need for the survival of a national state (nation-state)

Unity in diversity

I would like to present our vision, the vision of the SPLM and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the path that we believe will lead us forward. I think it is the same trend as the NDA. We called this vision the vision of the new Sudan. It is based on a scientific analysis of the situation and is based on a coherent evaluation of it in both our historical and contemporary reality. I am not making these things up, they are facts. This is what actually exists, and the new Sudan must be founded on reality and not on imagination. In 1983, we met in the forest, after the incidents of Bor, Pibor, Fachla, and Ayot, and the question that faced us was: Are we fighting for what? What is our goal?...From day one - and we indicated this in the movement’s manifesto - we stood with the unity of our country. However, there was confusion, as it seemed strange to us at the time for a movement emanating from South Sudan to call for the unity of the country. Southerners were confused as they wondered: But how do we unite with the Northerners? Understand the problem. While the northerners wondered: How does liberation come from the south? We say why not? Northerners also doubted the meaning of this liberation, liberation from “from whom?” We, in turn, responded to this: It is not liberation from whom, but rather liberation from what. “From what?” Therefore, I would like to stress from the beginning that the movement has remained steadfast in its goals for the past fourteen years, despite the turmoil that occurs from time to time as a result of the confusion caused by those who deviate from these goals.

The unity that we are talking about in the SPLM, and I hope that this is what we are moving towards in the National Democratic Rally, is a new type of unity. It is not possible for us to have taken up arms and entered the bush in 1983 to bring a unit that would persecute us. This is not normal, and it was not possible for us to do that. The unity that we call for is completely different, and it is not the same unity that others talk about. Here lies the source of confusion and confusion. Flam Akol, for example, when he spoke to BBC Radio and asked a rhetorical question (he asked it just to influence people, not to get an answer): “John Garang talks about unity and Al-Bashir talks about unity, so what is the difference between them?” We say to him: There is a world of difference between the two. The unity we mean is based on two realities, the first of which I call historical reality or historical diversity, and the second I call contemporary diversity or contemporary reality. These two diversities or realities represent the elements of our formation and formation, and unity must be established on them. The first basis for unity is historical diversity. The books of ancient times, including the Bible, are full of mentions of Sudan, whether under the name Kush, Sudan, or Egypt, and I am not making these things up.

Historical diversity

This is the Holy Bible, and it is in my hands and not in my head, in the Book of Genesis, the second chapter, God in His infinite wisdom created everything, “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east and put there Adam whom he had formed, and a river came out of Eden to water the garden and from there it divided and became four heads. The name of the one is Pishon, and it surrounds all the land of Havilah where there is gold, and the gold of that land is good, there is the onyx stone (rare perfumes and precious stones). And the name of the second river is Pishon. Gihon, which surrounds all the land of Kush, and the name of the third river is Hadakal, which flows east of Assyria, and the fourth river is the Euphrates. People have a simplified idea of ​​the Garden of Eden, as they believe that it is a small piece of land. In fact, the Garden of Eden is a large and extended area of ​​land - it extends from Qahion (Qahion) in the south to the Euphrates in the north. The Fehun and Pishon, which flow in the land of Kush, are the White Nile and the Blue Nile. Kush, according to the explanation of one of the footnotes, is located in Sudan. Sudan is literally mentioned in the Bible, while Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi believes that Sudan’s history did not begin until 1989 when it seized power.

Sudan was also mentioned in the Second Book of Kings, chapter nineteen, “So Rishakeh returned and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, because he heard that he had departed from Lachish, and he heard word of Taharqa, king of Sudan, that he had gone out to fight against you as the commander of the army of the Egyptians, so he returned and sent messengers to Hezekiah king of Judah.” We note here the depth of the historical ties between Egypt and Sudan and that they were one country. The Second Book of Chronicles, the fourteenth chapter, mentions that a war took place between the Israelites and their neighbors, and the Sudan was one of these neighbors, “And King Asa had an army carrying shields and spears, of Judah, three hundred thousand, and of Benjamin, who carried shields and drawn bows, two hundred and eighty thousand. All these were mighty men of valor. So Zerah the Sudanese went out to them with an army of a thousand thousand and with chariots of three hundred, and he came to Mareshah, and Asa went out. To meet him, they lined up to fight in the Valley of Zephatha near Mareshah. Asa called upon the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, it does not matter to you to help the many and those who have no strength.” Zareh Sudanese

It is clear from this that we had a ruler called Zerah who was able to raise an army of one million men. So, when Al-Bashir declares that he will prepare an army of one million fighters, he will not be the first Sudanese to do so, as this is what was done thousands of years ago. Also, in the Book of Zechariah, chapter eighteen, as many of you know, it says that God will punish Sudan, and it seems that this punishment has already fallen upon us. This is our history and this is what we are made of. We must return to the past in order to realize the present and pave the way to the future. The Kush civilizations, Pharaonic Egypt, and medieval kingdoms flourished thousands of years BC. Then, with the beginning of the Christian era, powerful civilizations emerged in Sudan, represented by the Christian kingdoms of Nubia, which lasted for more than seven hundred years. This was followed, with the emergence of Islam and the influx of immigrants from the Arabian Peninsula, the establishment of powerful Islamic kingdoms. Then came the Turkish-Egyptian rule, then the Mahdism, then the Anglo-Egyptian dual rule until Sudan gained its independence in 1956. This is what I call historical diversity, and it is part of us. The people mentioned in the Bible, who invaded Judah with an army of one million, from their descendants, are present among you here. Where do you think they have gone? The earth did not open to swallow them, but they are present in Sudan. Likewise, those who established the Christian Nubian kingdoms, and those who also established the Islamic kingdoms, are present in Sudan. All of this continues to this day, shaping us and being part of our identity. We must be proud of our history and we must pass it on to our children. It must also be included in educational curricula and taught to students so that they become aware of our culture and the richness of our past. History did not begin with Dr. Earthy, but it goes back a very long time. This is the diversity I mean.

Contemporary diversity

Another form of diversity is contemporary diversity. Sudan consists of multiple nationalities, multiple ethnic groups, more than 500 groups that speak more than a hundred different languages, and many tribes. This is what exists and I did not make it up. The Danakla still spoke “Danglawi,” and the Beja still spoke “Bejawi.” A strange thing happened to me when I went to eastern Sudan, in the Hamashkorib area, to inspect our forces there. I was addressing the youth of Beja, and they do not know Arabic, but only speak Beja. I am coming from the south and I speak to them in Arabic, so I had to seek the help of a translator, such as Dr. Al-Wathiq, who is with me now, to translate my speech from Arabic to Beja. This is contemporary diversity. We find many tribes in the south, such as the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, Zande, Latoka, Fertit, Murle and other tribes. In the north there are also many non-Arab tribes. There are the Nuba, the Fur, the Zaghawa, the Masalit, and many Arab tribes such as the Baggara, the Kababish, the Rizeiqat, the Ja’aliyin and others. We have all these tribes and others. This is diversity, and it is also there and I did not create it. We have different religions. There are Muslims, there are Christians and those with noble African beliefs. The concept of one God is common regardless of the individual’s religion. The Dinka, for example, believe in one god they call Nyalag, and the concept of one god is also common among all other tribes, as this applies to the Nuer and Shilluk as it applies to other tribes in southern Sudan. So, we have different religions that have all coexisted for a long time, in short, Islam, Christianity, and traditional African religions.

Thus, this contemporary diversity, “national”, ethnic, cultural and religious, forms part of, and as I see you before me now, you are different but you are one, and the challenge facing us in Sudan is to fuse all the elements of historical and contemporary diversity in order to create a Sudanese nation, creating a national bond that goes beyond these “localities” and benefits from them without negating any of these components. So, the unity of our country, the unity we are talking about, must take these two components of our reality into consideration in order for us to develop a social-political bond that has its own specificity and is based on these two types of diversity, a social-political bond that we feel includes us all, a unity that I am proud to belong to, and that I am proud to defend. I must admit that I am not proud of the unity we experienced in the past, and that is why we rebelled against it. So, we need a new unity, a unity that includes all of us, regardless of race, tribe, or religion, so that if anyone comes to Khartoum, whether he is coming from El Geneina, from Kadugli, from Juba, or from Nimuli, he is a Sudanese citizen who came to the capital. “And it happened one time while I was coming from Juba to Khartoum, and in the General Command, and I was then a colonel and lecturer at the University of Khartoum, Faculty of Agriculture, that my colleague in the General Command asked me: John, when did you come to Sudan? For him, Sudan is Khartoum.”

Sudan's problem, not the South's problem

We view Sudan as a country that will remain united and whose identity is based on these two types of diversity, historical and contemporary. Thus, since 1983, when we founded the movement, we have made these analyzes and put forward this conviction, and then we set out far from the traditional struggle in the south for independence. This has always been the case since 1955, when the Anyanya Movement war began, which declared that its goal was the independence of South Sudan. This, although this goal was not achieved as it was settled in 1972 in the Addis Ababa Agreement, which granted autonomy to South Sudan. We have moved away from the perspective of the “problem of the south” and the solution to the “problem of the south” and what we give to the southerners. Thus, the southern Sudanese is seen as if he is a different person from other Sudanese and has a special problem. The concept of “the problem of the south” that politicians and observers used to use means - even implicitly - that the people of the south are the only ones who have the problem, and this is not true. The Sudanese have a problem everywhere, in the west, the east, the center and the far north.

So defining the problem as if it were only a “problem of the South” is an attempt to marginalize some people. The southerners, in turn, fell into this trap and began repeating, “We have a problem,” the problem of “South Sudan,” and from here begins the search for solutions and what is presented to them so that they remain silent. We departed from this proposal and said that Sudan belongs to all of us equally and that we must all participate in determining its fate. Our call for the unity of the country was based on this foundation, and this was a surprise to many in the south and north alike. In the south, people say, "It is ridiculous to fight for unity, because how can we fight for a unity to which we do not belong?" Logically speaking, it is unnatural for anyone to expect me to fight for a unit to which I do not belong.

Thus, we mean a new unity based on what I called “historical diversity” and “contemporary diversity.” We believe that the successive governments in Khartoum since 1956 have established the country's unity and development on narrow foundations and on an incomplete definition of Sudan that excludes basic facts in the reality of our country. This exclusion is what caused the war. Sudan, as we know, since 1956, has been based on ethnic and religious chauvinism, and any form of chauvinism leads to fascism everywhere. For example, racist Aryan chauvinism in Nazi Germany, fascism in Italy, ethnic chauvinism in South Africa in the form of apartheid, and so on. It is always the case that any form of chauvinism leads to fascism, and this is what happened in Sudan. The phenomenon of the Islamic Front is not separate from what preceded it.

Here I am reminded of a funny incident related to this topic. When I climbed to the top of the pyramid and descended, the accompanying guide said to me: “The pyramids are one of the seven wonders of the world,” and I said to him, “There are eight wonders of the world, and the eighth miracle we have is in Sudan.” So he asked me: “What is it?” I replied, “A crazy man named Al-Turabi.” This man believes that he is something outside this world, but our circumstances are what produced him. He is the result of the accumulation and culmination of what happened before him. And so this is our vision. We are fighting for the unity of our country, and we see this unity as inclusive of all, all the nationalities of our country, Arabs and Africans, all religions, including Islam, Christianity, and African beliefs, until we create a specifically Sudanese social and political bond that benefits from other civilizations.

For those who lean towards a mathematical approach, if I wanted to know Sudan, I would present it in the form of a simple mathematical equation as follows: x = (a + b + c), where (x) is Sudan or the Sudanese identity, and it is a function linked to the variables a, b, and c. A represents historical diversity, B represents contemporary diversity, and C represents the influences of other civilizations on us. We do not live on an isolated island, but rather in a human society. As for the fixed variable (S), which represents Sudanese identity, it is the final result of these variables or components.

The mistake we made in the past was to restrict and confine these components, which led to distorting and hindering our natural growth and pushing us towards fascism. In this case, Al-Turabi’s fascism in Sudan takes the name of Islamic fundamentalism. We need to empower this unity in order to become a great country, a great people and a great civilization, and to communicate with other civilizations, and with other peoples, especially the peoples of the Nile Valley, with whom we have had historical ties since time immemorial. The world is getting closer together, and it is being formed by markets and blocs such as the European Union, which the Europeans now call the “European House.” In the United States and South America, they are creating a wide market, and the same thing they are doing in the countries of Asia. Even those who have nothing in common are getting closer to each other in order to create for themselves a competitive force in the global field, and we in the Nile Valley enjoy better opportunities, due to the historical ties between us that allow us to establish a welcoming society. But in order for us to have a share in building this model, it is necessary for us in Sudan to put our house in order from the inside first, as it is not possible, without that, to contribute while our house is in a state of turmoil.

This is our commitment to unity. We said that in 1983, and we say it now, as we said it in 1991 while we were going through difficult circumstances when a group of people defected from the movement, Riek Machar and others, and the government in Khartoum exploited them for its own benefit. These people raised slogans of the secession and independence of the South, and to emphasize the matter, they formed an organization called the “South Sudan Independence Movement.” The Islamic Front opportunistically exploited this situation and tried to pull the rug from under our feet by winning over the southern Sudanese by suggesting to them that it was ready to grant them everything they asked for, including independence. Thus, we are now living in an anomalous situation. While we, the unionists, are in a clash with the NDF government, we find the separatists, the “South Sudan Independence Movement,” in an alliance with the government in Khartoum. This is the reality of our situation, and our rules became confused, which forced us to call for a national conference in which we discussed and debated the fate of our movement for a period that lasted several days. After long deliberations, we reached a decision in which we affirmed the unity of our country. Therefore, when I speak about the unity of Sudan, I am not only speaking from conviction, but from the mandate of our bases in the first national conference that we held in 1994. [Arkamani: It is worth noting that Riek Machar, after discovering the lack of seriousness of the Islamic Front government, returned to being convinced of the validity of the movement’s unitary line, so the agreement was signed in Nairobi on May 28, 2001 with the Popular Movement in the name of his new organization, which became known as the “Sudanese Popular Front.” for democracy"].

This is the unity we are fighting for. It was very difficult for many, in 1983, to understand our meaning. This was difficult because minds had been conditioned according to the past, according to tradition and according to what was known at the time. However, if we want to build a great Sudan and a great society, this requires us to have new thinking. We cannot continue to think in the same old way. We gained our independence in 1956, that is, forty-one years ago. This period witnessed two wars, the First Anyanya War and the Second Anyanya War, in addition to the current war of the SPLM and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, to which the rest of the factions of the National Democratic Rally joined. The first war lasted for seventeen years, and the current war is entering its fifteenth year. Thus, we are waging a war with ourselves for thirty-one years of our forty-one year of independence. This is extremely miserable, as it is not reasonable for a people to expose themselves to something like this unless there are crucial issues that are threatened by imminent danger. Thus, this form of Sudan, based on injustice, injustice and slavery, is what produced the current crisis. Chauvinism, and establishing the unity of Sudan on limited foundations and components, is what led us into the apartheid regime of the Islamic Front that our people are living in now. One can imagine and visualize in one's mind's eye that if we had followed the right direction in 1956, and our development had been normal over the past forty-one years, we would have a different situation now, especially with the water, mineral, agricultural, and oil resources we have. With a correct system of governance, with our acceptance of ourselves as Sudanese, with the creation of this Sudanese social and political association, and with forty-one years of development, we could have now become in the ranks of the East Asian Tigers. But we have limited ourselves and stunted our growth by basing our unity on enslavement and isolation.

Religion and state

Let us be open, because any society based on premature components cannot endure or live for long. This is what the history of humanity tells us. An open society that includes and accommodates all its citizens is capable of life and growth and is able to adapt easily and draw strength for its continuity and survival. There are small things that divide us, things for which it is not difficult to find solutions. We can also address the big issues. There is, for example, the issue of the relationship between religion and the state, which has led to cracks in the fabric of Sudanese society. Al-Turabi and those with him insist that the state have a religion, and we say, in light of our diversity, that this is not permissible, and we cannot be united on this approach, as not all Sudanese are Muslims, and even among Muslims themselves there is no agreement on the model of “Sharia” that Numeiri imposed in 1983. How is it permissible for “Numeiri’s Sharia” to represent, in any way, something sacred?

Our concept in the Popular Movement and the People's Army is that man is by nature spiritual, and we all have beliefs, even if their form differs, whether we are Muslims or Christians or believe in the one God, then this is spirituality. Thus, religions cannot be banned from any society, as they are part of the human makeup. Therefore, the issue boils down to how we can relate religion to other structures of society.

We say that religion is a relationship between a person and his Creator and that this relationship is governed by religious legislation. While the relationship between a person and the things he made with his hands, such as the car, the hotel, and the state, is different. This is because the state is a social and political institution that we created. God did not create it, but God created us. The relationship, then, between ourselves and what we created is different from the relationship between us and the One who created us, which is God. These are two distinct relationships.

Let us verify this by giving some logical examples. I have never seen a state - the state I describe as a social institution - just an entity, that goes to church on Sunday, so the individual is the one who goes to church on Sunday. Likewise, I have never seen a country go to the mosque on Friday, as it is the individual who does that. I have never seen a country go to Mecca to perform the Hajj. Individuals are the ones who perform the Hajj. When we die and meet the Creator, it is the individual who stands before his Lord and is judged according to the actions he committed in this world and not according to what the state did. So, why do we immerse ourselves in mixing topics and divide our people as a result? Al-Turabi and the Islamic Front insist that Sharia and custom be the source of legislation, while we say that in a democratic society - and we in the assembly seek to establish a democratic society - the source of legislation must be the constitution, not religion, and it must be a democratic constitution. This is a very simple matter. Let us adopt a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, so that we devote a section to religion and custom. The constitution will include a chapter on basic rights, which will include freedom of religion and worship. A person can have anything he desires. Everyone will be welcomed, whether they are Muslims, Christians, or believe in another belief. This is what is happening in the areas of New Sudan. Commander Yusuf Kawa (may God have mercy on him - Arkamani), for example, is a Muslim and married to a Christian woman, and he is not a single or unique example.

The need to build a national state (nation - state)

So let us agree that our goal is the unity of the country and that this unity must be based on the facts of reality, as any unity other than that is inapplicable and we do not lack proof. That is why we have been fighting each other for thirty-one years out of the forty-one years of independence. It is important to realize this, as there is dissatisfaction in the south and some, of course, express it by saying: “Dr. John, your unit is not working, the group is the (Northerners), we cannot sit with them.” This was common talk in 1983, as it is common now. There are two criticisms directed at us. The southerners say: Why are we fighting for all of Sudan? “What is our fault? Let us remove this south of ours, that’s it, that’s enough.” While the northerners say: "How can the southerners liberate us?" But this is like looking at things rigidly, as if things do not change, and things do not change. My answer was always frank. We told the southerners in 1983, and many of you may have heard this on SPLA Radio at the time, “As long as you are fighting - for the southerners - for all of Sudan, for a unified country, and you started from the south and you are advancing north, and you started from Nimule, you took over Nimule, and Yei, and Juba, and you, this separatist, fought alongside me until you reached what you think is the southern border and then stop there.” The borders. As for the rest of us who believe in the unity of our country, we will continue fighting until we seize Khartoum and establish a new Sudan.

There are also those who say: Why do we go and die in the north, why do we fight for a unity to which we do not belong? ...Again, this is a rigid and static view of things. Then I say: When the war moves to the north, it will involve the northerners themselves, who will fight for their freedom, and not you (the southerners) who will fight in the north, and this is what is happening now. Thus, Yusuf Kawa's army in the Nuba Mountains is mostly made up of Nuba, and Malik Haqar's army in the south of the Blue Nile is made up of the people of the Anqasna region. We have formed a new structure that we called the “New Sudan Brigade,” which is completely consistent with the description of the melting pot in which all Sudanese nationalities melt. This is how we develop our situations. Now all factions of the National Democratic Rally bear arms, as I mentioned above. There is the Umma Liberation Army affiliated with the Umma Party (whose leadership was recently withdrawn after abandoning the group and returning to Khartoum - Arkamani), the Fatah Forces affiliated with the Democratic Unionist Party, the Sudanese Alliance Forces, the Beja Forces, the Federal Alliance Forces and other forces, all of which will be integrated into the new Sudanese army. Thus, our approach to the issues is not rigid. It guarantees the rights of all: the rights of the southerners, the people of the centre, the people of the west, the people of the east and the northerners. This is because all of these will participate in the change that occurs, as there is no one who will liberate the Sudanese people other than the Sudanese people themselves. Thus, we believe that our vision is scientific because it is based on scientific facts. It is not based on preparations, fantasies, or opportunism, but is based on reality, and this is the way forward. We must fight for the unity of our country and we must radically change the situation in our country. I am confident that we will do that, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am determined to prove to you that we will prevail.

We are not unique in this, as nations are formed as a result of the historical movements of human beings. People move and move for various reasons. They move to search for better economic opportunities, they move to escape religious persecution, or even out of curiosity to know what lies beyond the hill or the ocean. In the end, they find themselves in a specific geographical space in which they live, so life must go on. These human groups interact in the economic field, in the social field, in the political field, and in the spiritual field... and with the passage of time, a social and political bond is established between them that has its own peculiarity.

This is what happened here in Egypt, what happened in America and what happened everywhere in the world. You Egyptians here in Egypt, for example, became Egyptians in the first place, before you became anything else. You are Egyptians first and last. When I visited the Panorama yesterday, I saw documentation of the October War, in which you all participated as Egyptians, whether you were Muslims or Christians. You enjoy unity, within the framework of a national state that you fight for and are proud of. I miss this nation-state of Sudan. The old Sudan, which gained its independence in 1956, marginalized others, so why should I fight for that Sudan? Thus, our mission, and our duty, is to create a Sudan to which we all belong, a social and political association to which we all belong and to which we owe complete loyalty, regardless of race, religion, tribe, or gender, so that one can contribute effectively. This is the Sudan that the Popular Movement aims to establish, and we appeal to the Sudanese people to be aware that this is the direction of the future. In order to become a great nation and a great people, we must follow this path.

Francis and the social structure of the Dinka