SHRO-Quarterly

THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION

ABDON AGAW- SHRO-CAIRO

Published in Sudanese Human Rights Quarterly, Issue No. 2, January 1996

Three decades ago, the cause of the right to self-determination (RSD) was so conservatively dealt with, especially by the Southerners who most often faced difficulties in that respect. The reason was that the RSD had been closely linked up with separation. This was extended to the time of the first military dictatorship of the Abboud Regime (1958-1969), as well as a proportionate part of the democratic rule during 1964-1969.

With the signature of Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972, RSD did not surface any more as Southerners had been convinced with the Agreement. Again with the development of Sudanese political life, RSD was not a sentimental issue any longer.

RSD is simply a right of a human being, individual or group, to decide upon his/her fate in cultural, political or economic terms. It is a fundamental human right that is hardly disputable within such a definition. Is RSD only limited to peoples colonized by foreign domination or could be extended beyond that to peoples living within the same homeland?

Despite all different opinions on this matter, all Sudanese political parties, except the ruling NIF party, agreed that RSD is a genuine human right with respect to the agreements and conventions of Geneva.

In the past, a group of political parties used to oppose the application of this right on any group existing in the Sudan. Such stances are no more available in the light of the drastic change occurring in the country. Nonetheless, no one should ignore the viewpoints of those who are still opposed to RSD. There are essays written by Taha Ibrahim and other writers on RSD in which they explained that RSD is only applicable to the cases of colonized peoples who are descendants of the same race or ethnicity.

It is true the domination of foreign groups over peoples with whom they had no shared blood relations would indicate the presence of colonization. And yet, the concept of colonization is centered on a state of discontent of the colonized party, notwithstanding any ethnic or color differences between them. Hence, black people might occupy the land of other black people or colonize them; an Arab might colonize another Arab. There is a strong evidence of this statement in history. Were it that every particular ethnic group should have to stay with its own counterpart, the whole Gulf States would have been one state. Had it not been for RSD, so many nationalities wouldn’t have been able to establish an independent state. Egypt and North Africa might have been united as one state. In the Sudan, there are many Nilotic tribes with relations in Kenya and Uganda such as Acholi, Nuer, the Anwak, etc. The old dispute about the issue and concept of RSD with regard to race and ethnicity is not a problem any more, except for some people who still have a narrow perspective.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) adopted RSD at the Asmara Conference this last June (1995) for the South and the other marginalized areas as RSD is a human and democratic right. This recognition stimulated certain fears of some people, mostly in the North, as well as parts of the South. They believe that, guaranteeing the South RSD would definitely lead to separation from the North, or that the Nuba Mountains would be separated from the North. Such fears are justified when seen within the existing internal conditions oft the Sudan that might motivate a great majority of the population of the marginalized areas to vote for separation. This is attributed to the policies and practices of the NIF of which there is a forcible Islamization.

In spite of the NIF claim that the South is exempted from Islamization policies, that claim is not true. There is a stark discrimination against the non-Muslim Southerners all over the country. These ill practices led to the occurrence of many other abuses and atrocities versus human rights of the people who have been strongly critical of these NIF practices, which might disintegrate unity of the homeland. These same policies produced a great bitterness that, in turn, might take the victims to prefer separation to unity whenever RSD would be available.

Added to the NIF practices, the issue of imposing an identity on people is equally important. In every place of this world, not only Sudan, every person who respects himself/herself is proud of his/her own identity. No one who lacks an identity could still possess anything in life without having an identification that is as important as a person’s own name. The NIF policies on Sudan identity polarized the country by identifying Sudan as an Arab country. This aborted the rights of citizens, for many do not accept any uprooting of their own identifications. Even if the cause of religion is set apart, the problem of identification would push people to take arms to fight the regime.

It would have been impossible for the major parties of the North and SPLM in the South to resolve the problem after the downfall of the second military dictatorship of General Nimeiri (1969-1985) before the advent of the NIF rule. The rule of democratic parties that lasted for 4 years and a half was enough to put the charters and conventions in force with regard to the possible and acceptable resolutions of problems of the South. The increasing activities of the regional and international human rights’ movement raised awareness on human rights. The external world started to care for the smallest minorities of the states suffering persecution and ill treatment.

A question repeatedly posed during democratic rule was what is it that Southerners really want? Do they want equality in distribution of wealth and political equity?

This question is disturbing and is short sighted. As for whether RSD might mean a separation of any part of the South, the Nuba Mountains, Ingessana, etc., from the remaining pats of Sudan, the answer could be yes or no. it would be Yes if such decisions would be undertaken in conditions like those existing today as devoted by the NIF. The same answer could also be applicable on other parts of the Sudan when granted RSD. The answer would be No for a region such as the Nuba Mountains or the Ingessana would not have been pursuing separation under another political system than that of the NIF.

The answer depends on practices of the upcoming transitional government during the transitional period. Much of the popular reactions depend on the occurrence of certain events, as one particular event might shortly change peoples’ direction. If all opportunities would be fully granted for all Sudanese citizens on the basis of no-discrimination so that they would feel their common and equal intimacy with Sudan under rule of a government satisfactory for all political forces, assuredly RSD will not be a necessity.

The Manifesto of the SPLM in 1983 was based on unity, yet it has been subjected to pressures in the course of time that changed SPLM stance to a calling for RSD. The principles of SPLM called for equity and justice in the framework of a secular state. These were based on accurate calculations for SPLM believed that, if equity and justice would be granted for the South then there would be no reason for fears on its part from the North. The South has adequate potentialities to keep pace with the North. The upcoming transitional period would play a significant role in shaping up future of the country.

The assumption of some people that, if South would be separated from the North, the South would be a subject for tribal cleavages as happened clearly during 1991. There are tribal cleavages in the South. But in 1972 with the enforcement of Addis Ababa Agreement, many people predicted that the South would not succeed in regional autonomous rule. They anticipated quick collapse of that system of rule in the South so that every thing would be set back as before, according to some northern politicians.

The experience of the South in self-rule proved that during 11 years from 1972 to 1983 all tribes realized, in spite of their diversity, that what ought to be done was to stay together in one entity. So when the South cracked with division during 1981, the people knew later on that it had been a wrong idea to stay apart from each other.

All those who had already supported the division of South converted into supporters of unity of the South since they knew that the South must continue as one body. Small minorities are less beneficial than the larger ones that are satisfactory to people. The factors that encourage people to stay together as one state interplay in the case of the South if the authorities of the next transitional period would apply wise policies for the sake of all people.

The South overflows with huge potentialities in agricultural resources, minerals, water, etc. But the abundance of resources is not the only decisive factor for economic flourishing as many other factors also come into play such as external contacts. So, if the South would be separated from the North, it would be a closed area with no access to seaports. The South must have to decide whether it would want to stay with the North to have access to ports such as Port Sudan, or that it would want to be a separate state that would lately negotiate with the North to take advantage of Port Sudan.

What about South and North cultures?

Had the North been committed to equality with the South so many problems of the day might have been earlier solved. According to my own experience, cultures of the North and their southern counterparts are closer to each other than cultures of the neighboring countries. A believer in Arab descent in Sudan knows that his brother in the South is much closer to him than any Arab of another country, even if he has been accustomed to look down upon the former of to fight against him. An ideal usage of these cultures and their backgrounds during transitional period might affect positively attitudes of people of the South.

On means of transportation and commerce, there would continue to be a very strong contact between North and South. I have to criticize the extremist policies of the NIF that hindered development of such close relations. The NIF drove us so many years backward.

In my early childhood, Northern merchants used to visit the South with “birsh” (a hand-made Sudanese carpet) that would be taken for sale in any village, as they liked. A merchant would be cordially met and would be married to a Southerner woman without any difficulty. That was going on since there was no component of Islamic missionary or any other kind of activity. The sole aim of the merchant was to manufacture his goods. Many of these people played a role in spreading about Islam without necessarily being missionaries. Their role was positive while some of them acted negatively, especially in the time of Abboud regime and the subsequent regimes since they had been abetting the army to fight citizens for personal and foolish reasons.

Regarding the usage of Arab language in the South, no one in the South could possibly deny the right to use Arabic language that had been widely spread over by merchants every where. Even inside SPLM, the language is Arabic in all fields of communication. You are in no need to use a tank to force people to adopt a specific language as languages normally compete with each other. That of them that actually prevails spontaneously with the evolution of society would become mostly used in transactions between people.