Weblog nr 31
August 10, 2006
A year ago Sudan lost a great son: John Garang, Vice President of Sudan and President of Southern Sudan since only three weeks. He died in a helicopter accident, flying from Uganda, where he had met President Museveni, to Rumbek, at that time still the capital of Southern Sudan. He had led the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement through a long and arduous war. He had called the shots during the peace negotiations in Naivasha and Nairobi, which had lasted more than three years. He had signed the peace agreement on 8 January 2005, after having sat together with the main negotiator sent by Khartoum, Vice President Taha, in the final phase of these negotiations. No single paragraph of the agreement had been concluded without these two agreeing. The two opponents had started to understand and trust each other. They had shared a common vision: peace in a New Sudan, one country, two systems. Both were ahead of their constituencies, which themselves had been internally divided. On both sides some groups had wanted to continue the armed struggle. On both sides there were groups in favor of secession. On either side there were people in favor of the unity of Sudan, but often on different terms. The solution had been to postpone a definitive decision and to hold a referendum, six years after the signing of a peace agreement.
Both leaders had had their difficulties to convince their constituencies. Garang had traveled trough his Southern Sudan, from village to village, from town to town, in order to explain to his people that there was no other option than peace, unity and a two systems approach, leaving a great deal of autonomy to the South. The South would not be granted full autonomy, but Sudan wide decisions would have to be taken by a Government of National Unity in which the Southerners would participate, although on a minority basis. However, if after a couple of years the Southerners would come to the conclusion that this was not a good deal, they would be free to decide by referendum in favor of secession. North Sudan would commit itself to respect such an outcome. The international community would see to it that the agreement would be kept. To this end the UN would send an international peace keeping force, while the Security Council would regularly review and assess the implementation of the agreement and eventually sanction violation or non-implementation of the agreement. Garang was proud that he had been able to convince his people. They saw in him a hero, a unique person, the only one who would be able to guide the country towards a sustainable peace. Not only had his followers in the South been convinced. Also the nearly millions Southerners who had lived for two decades as displaced people around Khartoum and elsewhere in the North, or as refugees across the border in Kenia and Uganda. But many Northerners had the same opinion: whether there would be peace in Sudan would be dependent on one person: John Garang.
When he died also many Northerners mourned. In one night, many Sudanese, throughout the country, lost their hope and confidence in a better future. In Khartoum people reacted by rioting. The capital had always been an oasis of calm, despite decades of war. The street fighting between Africans and Arabs that erupted after Garangs death seemed to bring, for the first time in the recent history of Sudan, the war to the capital. Over hundred people were killed. There after Khartoum has changed. Many people remained cautious or fearful, many others became suspicious or cynical or even desperate, because the only person who, as they had believed would have been able to improve their lot had died.
Had he died in an accident or had he been murdered? Many still believe that the latter is the case, despite a convincing report of an expert investigation which had been called for by the governments of Sudan, Southern Sudan and Uganda. However, at the commemorative ceremony in Juba, last weekend, one year after the death of Garang, his widow Rebecca demanded the continuation of the investigation, casting doubt upon the way in which it had been conducted so far. Others, including Pagan Amun, the Secretary-General of the SPLM, had made similar statements. In Sudan the death of John Garang will get the same status as the death of John Kennedy in the US: an explanation convincing everybody will never be found.
Rebecca Garang is very popular in Southern Sudan. Since the death of her husband she shares in his wide popularity. She is a strong personality, and has been able to attract support from many people who have invested all their hope in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which had brought an end to the war. In her speech at the funeral, one year ago, Rebecca had said this herself in unmistakable terms: my husband has not died, he is still alive and lives with us though his legacy, the CPA. She had called for implementation of the CPA, in letter and spirit and in full. She had spoken about the values underlying peace, paid tribute to the warriors who had fought for victory and given their lives for freedom, she had praised the common people who had suffered during the war, she had called for development and poverty eradication and she had warned against creeping corruption of leaders attracted by power and greed, betraying their people. In short: she had spoken as earlier John Garang himself.
Garang was a ‘vision man’. I remember how, in a discussion which I had with him in the early ninety- nineties, he enthusiastically sketched his ideas concerning the future governance system of Sudan and illustrated his views by presenting some drawings. I was rather skeptical, but I must admit that fifteen years later he was able to translate these drawings into the principles underlying the CPA. During these years he led the discussions on the ‘New Sudan’. His posture was that of a man who did not doubt that the negotiations, yet far from completed, would result in peace and who was more interested in a debate about what would have to be done thereafter. Months before the signing of the peace agreement he focused on the need to make peace sustainable, to develop his country and to abate poverty. He had seen how in many African countries urban development had resulted in a lack of balance between the modern big cities with huge shantytowns and a deficient rural economy in a neglected country side. “Do not bring the people to the towns, but bring the towns to the people”, was his favorite theme. He advocated economic and social development of existing small towns, well connected by rural roads, sustaining a broad domestic market characterized by a steady increase of purchasing power, evenly spread throughout the country.
So far, reality is different. The CPA has been signed, but its implementation is going slow. Reconstruction is hardly taking place, economic development has yet to take off and poverty is blatant and widely spread. Three days ago, traveling from Torit to Juba we spoke to a group of several hundreds of villagers. They complained: “There is a no school, no water, no food and no hospital”. It was heart breaking. On the market in Torit itself, a small town which has been occupied several times by different armies, we saw only few products and a meager assortment of foodstuffs. The town of Nassir, which I visited a month earlier, is nothing more than a large village slump. In nearly every town scars of the war are visible. Nowhere demolished buildings or infrastructure are reconstructed. Rural development and food security are impeded by a lack of water points, lots of mines, too much cattle and multiple violence.
Yet the people of Southern Sudan dream about progress, based on peace. The ceremony to commemorate Garang was turned into a call for a full and speedy implementation of the CPA and an outcry against obstruction by Khartoum. The bishops referred to this in their sermon and their prayers, Rebecca Garang, Abel Alier and Salve Kiir in their speeches. There was no better occasion to renew the claim for unity - not between the North and the South, but within the South itself - than this memorial. The people of Juba, Malakal, Torit, Nassir, Bor and all other towns and villages in Southern Sudan and the three areas Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan know: Garang was the CPA, the CPA is Garang. At the memorial which was held at the same day in Khartoum the same feeling was expressed: Garang’s heritage has to be kept, guarded and executed.
That can be done only in cooperation with the North. However, more and more Northern opinion leaders and policy makers seem to distance themselves from a full and speedy implementation of the comprehensive agreement which brought peace to their country. As Alfred Taban recently wrote in his newspaper, the Khartoum Times, “the spirit of the CPA is unity in equality, not the unity between the rider and his horse”. Many Northerners want to ride the Southern horse, to manipulate its course, to destabilize its trek and to exploit its riches. In meetings of institutions with a political mandate to solve political problems concerning the implementation of the CPA a legalistic attitude prevails: how to defend the status quo rather than how to achieve a common objective.
Garang and Taha had defined a common objective. They came from a different background. Both were restrained by their own political class and their own constituency, with such diverging views on the future of the Sudanese society. However, both were willing to take a political risk, show leadership, cross frontiers and confront opposition within their own circles. In the end they were rewarded because they had convincingly made clear: ‘all of us in Sudan, we are in the same boat; there is no alternative’.
The power of this message seems to fade away. That is only natural in politics. Those who gave birth to something new and believe in their creation gradually have to give way to others: a new elite, a new generation, a new administration, people who witnessed the new beginning without owning it. Such an attitude is bound to generate distance, to slow the pace, to lessen ambition, to divert attention and to lose drive.
The memorial ceremonies in Juba and Khartoum were meant to counter this. The message was: reconfirm the common objective of all Sudanese, unite in peace, strengthen the vigor of a common endeavor, speed up the implementation of what has been agreed and meet the aspirations of the people. In short: live up to the teachings of Garang: have a dream, stay with the people, see to it that they stay with you and don’t give up.
Both leaders had had their difficulties to convince their constituencies. Garang had traveled trough his Southern Sudan, from village to village, from town to town, in order to explain to his people that there was no other option than peace, unity and a two systems approach, leaving a great deal of autonomy to the South. The South would not be granted full autonomy, but Sudan wide decisions would have to be taken by a Government of National Unity in which the Southerners would participate, although on a minority basis. However, if after a couple of years the Southerners would come to the conclusion that this was not a good deal, they would be free to decide by referendum in favor of secession. North Sudan would commit itself to respect such an outcome. The international community would see to it that the agreement would be kept. To this end the UN would send an international peace keeping force, while the Security Council would regularly review and assess the implementation of the agreement and eventually sanction violation or non-implementation of the agreement. Garang was proud that he had been able to convince his people. They saw in him a hero, a unique person, the only one who would be able to guide the country towards a sustainable peace. Not only had his followers in the South been convinced. Also the nearly millions Southerners who had lived for two decades as displaced people around Khartoum and elsewhere in the North, or as refugees across the border in Kenia and Uganda. But many Northerners had the same opinion: whether there would be peace in Sudan would be dependent on one person: John Garang.
When he died also many Northerners mourned. In one night, many Sudanese, throughout the country, lost their hope and confidence in a better future. In Khartoum people reacted by rioting. The capital had always been an oasis of calm, despite decades of war. The street fighting between Africans and Arabs that erupted after Garangs death seemed to bring, for the first time in the recent history of Sudan, the war to the capital. Over hundred people were killed. There after Khartoum has changed. Many people remained cautious or fearful, many others became suspicious or cynical or even desperate, because the only person who, as they had believed would have been able to improve their lot had died.
Had he died in an accident or had he been murdered? Many still believe that the latter is the case, despite a convincing report of an expert investigation which had been called for by the governments of Sudan, Southern Sudan and Uganda. However, at the commemorative ceremony in Juba, last weekend, one year after the death of Garang, his widow Rebecca demanded the continuation of the investigation, casting doubt upon the way in which it had been conducted so far. Others, including Pagan Amun, the Secretary-General of the SPLM, had made similar statements. In Sudan the death of John Garang will get the same status as the death of John Kennedy in the US: an explanation convincing everybody will never be found.
Rebecca Garang is very popular in Southern Sudan. Since the death of her husband she shares in his wide popularity. She is a strong personality, and has been able to attract support from many people who have invested all their hope in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which had brought an end to the war. In her speech at the funeral, one year ago, Rebecca had said this herself in unmistakable terms: my husband has not died, he is still alive and lives with us though his legacy, the CPA. She had called for implementation of the CPA, in letter and spirit and in full. She had spoken about the values underlying peace, paid tribute to the warriors who had fought for victory and given their lives for freedom, she had praised the common people who had suffered during the war, she had called for development and poverty eradication and she had warned against creeping corruption of leaders attracted by power and greed, betraying their people. In short: she had spoken as earlier John Garang himself.
Garang was a ‘vision man’. I remember how, in a discussion which I had with him in the early ninety- nineties, he enthusiastically sketched his ideas concerning the future governance system of Sudan and illustrated his views by presenting some drawings. I was rather skeptical, but I must admit that fifteen years later he was able to translate these drawings into the principles underlying the CPA. During these years he led the discussions on the ‘New Sudan’. His posture was that of a man who did not doubt that the negotiations, yet far from completed, would result in peace and who was more interested in a debate about what would have to be done thereafter. Months before the signing of the peace agreement he focused on the need to make peace sustainable, to develop his country and to abate poverty. He had seen how in many African countries urban development had resulted in a lack of balance between the modern big cities with huge shantytowns and a deficient rural economy in a neglected country side. “Do not bring the people to the towns, but bring the towns to the people”, was his favorite theme. He advocated economic and social development of existing small towns, well connected by rural roads, sustaining a broad domestic market characterized by a steady increase of purchasing power, evenly spread throughout the country.
So far, reality is different. The CPA has been signed, but its implementation is going slow. Reconstruction is hardly taking place, economic development has yet to take off and poverty is blatant and widely spread. Three days ago, traveling from Torit to Juba we spoke to a group of several hundreds of villagers. They complained: “There is a no school, no water, no food and no hospital”. It was heart breaking. On the market in Torit itself, a small town which has been occupied several times by different armies, we saw only few products and a meager assortment of foodstuffs. The town of Nassir, which I visited a month earlier, is nothing more than a large village slump. In nearly every town scars of the war are visible. Nowhere demolished buildings or infrastructure are reconstructed. Rural development and food security are impeded by a lack of water points, lots of mines, too much cattle and multiple violence.
Yet the people of Southern Sudan dream about progress, based on peace. The ceremony to commemorate Garang was turned into a call for a full and speedy implementation of the CPA and an outcry against obstruction by Khartoum. The bishops referred to this in their sermon and their prayers, Rebecca Garang, Abel Alier and Salve Kiir in their speeches. There was no better occasion to renew the claim for unity - not between the North and the South, but within the South itself - than this memorial. The people of Juba, Malakal, Torit, Nassir, Bor and all other towns and villages in Southern Sudan and the three areas Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan know: Garang was the CPA, the CPA is Garang. At the memorial which was held at the same day in Khartoum the same feeling was expressed: Garang’s heritage has to be kept, guarded and executed.
That can be done only in cooperation with the North. However, more and more Northern opinion leaders and policy makers seem to distance themselves from a full and speedy implementation of the comprehensive agreement which brought peace to their country. As Alfred Taban recently wrote in his newspaper, the Khartoum Times, “the spirit of the CPA is unity in equality, not the unity between the rider and his horse”. Many Northerners want to ride the Southern horse, to manipulate its course, to destabilize its trek and to exploit its riches. In meetings of institutions with a political mandate to solve political problems concerning the implementation of the CPA a legalistic attitude prevails: how to defend the status quo rather than how to achieve a common objective.
Garang and Taha had defined a common objective. They came from a different background. Both were restrained by their own political class and their own constituency, with such diverging views on the future of the Sudanese society. However, both were willing to take a political risk, show leadership, cross frontiers and confront opposition within their own circles. In the end they were rewarded because they had convincingly made clear: ‘all of us in Sudan, we are in the same boat; there is no alternative’.
The power of this message seems to fade away. That is only natural in politics. Those who gave birth to something new and believe in their creation gradually have to give way to others: a new elite, a new generation, a new administration, people who witnessed the new beginning without owning it. Such an attitude is bound to generate distance, to slow the pace, to lessen ambition, to divert attention and to lose drive.
The memorial ceremonies in Juba and Khartoum were meant to counter this. The message was: reconfirm the common objective of all Sudanese, unite in peace, strengthen the vigor of a common endeavor, speed up the implementation of what has been agreed and meet the aspirations of the people. In short: live up to the teachings of Garang: have a dream, stay with the people, see to it that they stay with you and don’t give up.