Quote: “Our destiny is not written for us but written by us, we must take our future into our own hands,” U.S. President Obama; 10/2008   

When Dr. John Garang, as the supreme leader of the SPLM/A in our long war against the Jellaba Arab North in 1983, outrageously declared that we the southerners, would instead be fighting for a ‘New Sudan,’ and not for south Sudan freedom, he permanently complicated the political equation for the southerners.

Thus, even at this eleventh hour of the CPA now, many southerners remain simply confused.

Garang is gone but his legacy has left many with an uneasy sense of second guessing as to what is best for the south-- for many southerners and their leaders.

How preposterous and unthinkable have southerners degenerated in the confusion that a delegation from the south Sudan parliament had to go to Egypt only to beg them to advice the Jellaba northerners to "work on making unity attractive."

Given the persisting and conflicting stance and rhetoric of our southern leaders on the choice of either separation or unity for the south, the fate of our people as enshrined in the CPA, remains in limbo.

On the 4^th anniversary of Dr. Garang’s death in June 30, 2005, and the on-going implementation impasse of the CPA, we must seriously revise, re-examine and completely bury Garang’s hitherto unopposed and detrimental proclamation of ‘New Sudan.’

As realists and the people now left to face the dilemma, we must accept the fact that Garang’s ‘new Sudan’ alternative, which was literally forced on us at gun-point, was totally unpopular in the south and totally unattractive also outside the south.

Many believed that given Garang’s bloated ego and the international support he got, Garang aspired for a greater role in the ‘united’ Sudan while intending to keep firmly a tight grip on an autonomous south.

Unfortunately, the current SPLM leadership that followed Garang has evinced unacceptable political incapacitation to adapt to the new complexities engendered by the futility of the New Sudan grandiosity of Garang.

Furthermore, the new leader in Juba, President Kiir, who is very much dwarfed intellectually and politically, unlike Dr John Garang, has further exacerbated our anxiety and apprehension by his poor comprehension of the intricately confusing and convoluted CPA.

As a consequence, south Sudanese expectations and perceptions of the CPA are emerging to be completely opposite to the realities that they are now confronting.

Primarily, the CPA was expedited by a host of local and international mediators with various vested interests, and was cynically exploited by Jellaba Khartoum to buy time for the intensifying Darfur war as the world’s attention focused on the peace process.

In the end, the CPA encompassed and incorporated Garang’s bifocal New Sudan Vision.

First, for the southerners, it stipulated the ‘self-determination’ referendum which is actually to hide the much anathematized ‘separation’ that is frowned upon in Africa and the world generally, but yet is desired by the majority of southerners.

Second, for the others, the so-called marginalized areas, it promised them an elusive ‘paradise of New Sudan’ in national unity where there will be justice and equality but without clear mechanisms or modalities of how they can realize this lofty dream.

These two goals are diametrically opposite.

Perhaps the negotiators and their mediators were so much mesmerized by Garang’s delusions of grandiosity that they overlooked the incongruity and incompatibility of secession and unity.

Another blunder in hindsight is the six year timeline agreed upon in the CPA before the anticipated referendum is accomplished.

Given Jellaba Arab North callousness and propensity to dishonesty, this period is simply too long for the Jellaba to espouse excuses to impede the implementation and to renounce the CPA in part or in total.

Although Garang is no more, his current progeny of SPLM leaders should have been absolutely wary of Jellaba Khartoum Islamists obfuscation.

As well, there was the likelihood of the diminishing interest of the international community in the south as soon as the ink dried on the CPA.

What the SPLM must do now is to efficaciously separate the basic interest of the south from that of the other regions, blocks or parties previously aligned to them or currently ingratiating themselves with the SPLM.

While the US has propitiously jumped in to reinvigorate the almost moribund CPA, Kiir and cahoots must be highly circumspect about American intentions.

Whatsoever, they cannot and must not allow the ultimate goal of independence of the south to be sacrificed for the sake of US rapprochement with the Arab World.

Notwithstanding President Kiir Mayardit’s gamut of ineffectualness and losing streak against Beshir’s NCP, like the Census or Khartoum being anointed as the Referendum Headquarters, the SPLM must recognize that separation/south Sudan independence remains the only plausible objective.

Finally, a return to war is presently unfathomable if the SPLM leaders diligently honor the wish of the majority southerners.

 SSN Editor Comment...Click Here