Archive for October 9, 2011

Written by Agereb Leek Chol

“Riek Machar has a very strange way of interpreting his collaboration with the NIF regime. He believes that unless the SPLA and Dr. John were defeated there could never be peace in South Sudan. According to him, therefore, it was justified to use any means, including collaborating with NIF regime, to achieve that objective. Once Garang and his army were out of the way, Riek would resume the task of liberating South Sudan”. P. A. Nyaba

Sunday, 09 October, 2011

(Worcester, MA, USA)-Dr. Riek Machar Teny, a Vice President of the Republic of South Sudan (RSS) is perhaps known by those who either have a vague knowledge about the liberation of the South as the man who fought for “self-determination” after a failed coup to rid Dr. Garang de Mabior as the chairman and the commander in-chief of the SPLM/A in 1991. I find this amusing. Indeed, he fought with the SPLM/A when he was a Zonal Commander in Western Upper Nile in 1986. There is no doubt Dr. Riek Machar was victorious in his assignments.

However, I am baffled when Dr. Riek Machar credited himself with the title of “self-determination” without mentioning other leaders. According to Nyaba, “the Nasir adventure was a political and military move carefully calculated to snatch the leadership from Dr. John Garang at one of the weakest movements in the Movement’s history. The movement had just retreated back into the country from its bases in Ethiopia following the demise of the Mengistu regime. Many SPLA units had not reached their destination inside the Sudan and the Movement was still in a state of reorganization and consolidating its positions in the liberated areas” (Nyaba p. 79).

I find this insulting to all the heroes who joined the struggle to fight for self-determination, and now Riek Machar seems comfortable with this tittle. Dr. Riek Machar is proud about this title in his Movement’s manifesto, South Sudan: A History of Political Domination- a Case of Self- Determination. How egotistic can Dr. Riek be to champion this tittle? This slogan didn’t start with the formation of “South Sudan Independent Movement” (SSIM) in 1991. This was the dream Southerners had when they formed Anya Anya 1

Why Dr. Garang did not assert the “self-determination” movement

It is necessary to teach the history of our liberation correctly. Dr. Garang de Mabior and his comrades had two visions to bring self-determination. The first strategy was to fight for the “united Sudan”. Secondly, if the “united Sudan” wasn’t achieved then the South could opt for self-determination. Dr. Garang didn’t preach the slogan of “self-determination” because all Southerners knew they didn’t need to be treated as second class citizens in their own country.

To paint a bigger picture, the survival of the SPLM/A within the Sudan, and East Africa was Dr.Garang’s first choice. The name Sudanese People Liberation Movement/ Army (SPLM/A) was the reason why Sudanese Muslims in Nuba Mountains joined the SPLM/A to fight the National Islamic Front (NIF). This was the reason Cdr Yusuf Kuwa and his comrades joined the SPLM/A. If Dr. Garang would have choose to form his Movement as “South Sudan Independence Movement” (SSIM), the survival of the SPLM/A would have been choked immediately.

Secondly, this strategy benefited the SPLM/A with Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam’s regime. If Dr. Garang would have preached the slogan of “self-determination”, I doubt Mengistu would have supported the SPLM/A in the first place. Mengistu’s regime was a great ally of the SPLM/A until he was overthrown by the current government. On the other hand, the Eritreans were fighting Mengistu’s regime to be a separate country. How can Mengistu support “self-determination” for southerners, and not for the Eritreans? Omar Bashir was also adamant about the South becoming a separate country from the North. This is why it took Southerners decades to gain their independence. Riek’s and Lam claims of “self-determination” after the split are bogus!

After a failed coup to ousted Dr. Garang, who became Riek’s ally? Did Nasir faction fought side by side with SPLM/A as two separate Movements against their common enemy or did Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol conspire with the Khartoum government to destroy the SPLM/A? According to Nyaba, “before announcing the coup, Riek Machar made sure first to send commander James Biel Jok to Malakal garrison, Mr. Gatluak Deng, to brief the NIF governor for Upper Nile State and the commander of Malakal garrison about the plan and to get assurances of the NIF support. The NIF government accepted to supply military logistics in form of ammunition” (Nyaba p. 92). After making these arrangements with the common enemy, how can Dr. Riek and Dr. Lam claimed the title of “self-determination”?

Let’s judge our leaders based on their actions. All leaders in the government represent all tribes in the Republic of South Sudan. Unless the Republic of South Sudan (RSS) adopted what Paanluel Wel called, Tribocracy: The New Political Philosophy for the New Country. Otherwise, Dr. Riek Machar’s crimes are his own and the Nuer tribe shouldn’t be blamed for his mistakes. Dr. Riek Machar doesn’t represent the Nuer tribe nor does his name “Riek Machar Teny” represent the Nuer tribe. However, I am ashame at those individuals who are quick to bring up “tribe” especially when citizens criticized their leaders. Riek’s name is not a nickname for the Nuer tribe nor does President Kiir mayardit and Lam Akol represent the Dinka or Shilluk tribe. This thinking is absurd!

The Nuer fought for self-determination like all other tribes in the South. Riek’s crimes against humanity in Bor in 1991 are his own actions because he was the leader who commanded those forces to massacre innocent civilians. In fact, majority of his forces were from the Nuer tribe, but that shouldn’t give anyone a reason to generalize all Nuer as collaborators. Only forces under his command were responsible for killing civilians in Bor. Riek acted on his own to weaken his opponent by killing Dr. Garang’s tribesman.

Dr. Riek Machar’s interview spoke for him. In this interview, Dr. Riek says, “I was not physically there, but I am the commander of the armed forces. They were in touch with me, and they had specific instructions”. According to the Amnesty International report, “fighters aligned with Machar massacred more than 2000 Dinka Bor. (). Ironically, Bor was the birth place of Dr. Garang de Mabior.

An interview given by Riek right after the split, he says, “Garang didn’t like semblance of institutions of structures of democracy within the movement. He is interested in running the Movement as his personal property”. I wonder what exactly Dr. Garang was running as his “personal property”. According to Nyaba, “the internecine fighting between the SPLM/A mainstream and the Nasir faction that followed the split played well into the hands of the NIF regime which regained initiative on the military front, recapturing from the SPLA such as strategic towns like Pochalla (Aprill 1992), Kapoeta (June 1992), Torit (1993) among others” (Nyaba p. 78). Thousands of the SPLA soldiers died when these towns were first captured, but with Riek’s idea of “self-determination”, the NIF recaptured these towns without resistance.

According to Nyaba, “the only beneficiary of the fighting between mainstream SPLA and the Nasir faction was the NIF government which took advantage of the situation to regain territory in the Juba-Nimuli axis unleashing a new wave of human displacement and suffering. These NIF successes, reversing the liberation process, could not have come about without his strategic collaboration with the Nasir traitors”. (Nyaba p.101). This decision by Dr. Riek and Dr. Lam not only cost many lives, but it weakened the Movement tremendously.

Understanding 1991 Split and the return of Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol to power

In Nyaba’s book, The Politics of liberation in South Sudan, he says, “there is a basic fault with Riek Machar’s logic. The objective of the coup was to wrest the leadership of the SPLM/A from Dr. Garang. That meant that the survival of the movement was equally important to Riek Machar. But, having failed to oust Garang, he then turned around to work with the common enemy for the destruction of the SPLM/A” (Nyaba P. 100). Given the actions taken by Riek Machar in this critical time of our struggle, I find myself laughing when I saw the headlines in Sudan Tribune that Dr. Riek apologized to Bor community, and not to the entire country.

The trick of his apology is that there is no direct quote from Dr. Riek Machar instead of a single noun, “apology”. Perhaps Dr. Riek Machar doesn’t want to be quoted later in the future. Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. lam Akol broke away to form their movement, which did affect the Dinka Bor, but it ultimately brought the SPLM/A to its knees in 1991. According to Nyaba, “even so, there are times when national interest takes precedence over narrow party objectives. It was more pertinent in the situation where the immediate military confrontation with the NIF regime had not yet been resolved” (Nyaba, p.100). Despite what was on our plate, Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol choose to resolve the so-called “democracy” militarily, and not politically.

The people of South Sudan should be careful not to put their trust in Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol. You would think these individuals would return to the Movement immediately after a failed coup to fight their common enemy, but instead they continue to wage war for years. Is this the man we call our Vice President or is this a title? How can we hold citizens accountable if Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol are not accountable for their crimes? Perhaps this is why President Kiir has too many amnesties in the South. Let’s not mix up Bor Massacre and 1991 coup. These are two separate crimes. Perhaps Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol should apologize for the coup. Riek’s apology was unwise and he needs to reconsider his apology. Perhaps he should start his campaign of apologies in Nasir.

Apology by Dr. Riak Machar to Bor Community in Juba

Riek’s apology came as a surprise to all South Sudanese since it took him 20 years to accept Bor’s massacre. Why now? Why the Dinka Bor and not the whole country? The Dinka Bor was not the only sub clan of Dinka who suffered during the split. All tribes from the South paid in blood. According to Sudantribune, “Riek Machar has apologized to the Dinka Bor community by acknowledging his responsibility for an incident in 1991 which resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives in the community”. According to Sudantribune, “the officer in charge of the SPLA information department, Malak Ayuen Ajok, revealed on the official South Sudan TV that Machar acknowledged his responsibility of the 1991 incidence in Bor following his defection on 28 August 1991 from late John Garang’s leadership”. (Sudantribune).

It makes one wonder why there is no direct quote from Dr. Riek Machar. Dr. Riek should have gone to the grass roots where the massacre took place so the widows and orphans can hear his apology. How can the victims forgive him if they don’t hear it from Dr. Riek? The Dinka Bor, the Nuer, and the entire country deserve a genuine apology. The massacring of civilians is not equivalent to an “apology”, for war crimes.

The relationship between Dinka and Nuer

The Nuer tribe and the Dinka have lived for generations without massacring one another until Riek became an intellectual in Nuer Community. They have lived side by side and even intermarried. Although there were small disputes about cattle and water rights, these issues were easily solved by tribal chiefs. However, the coming of Dr. Riek as an intellectual in Nuer Community, he made everything Nuer vs. Dinka. The setback Dr. Riek had cost the people of South Sudan is not compensated by an indirect apology.

Early Campaign for Dr. Riek Marchar

Escaping Bor Massacre at gun point in 1991, I never forgot who Dr. Riek Machar was and what he’s capable of. Dr. Riek Machar apology is a political campaign because it was given by a government official. Dr. Riek Machar is a genius because he wants to lessen his war crimes .The Dinka Bor weren’t the only tribe affected by the coup. First, he needs to start his apology in Nuer because the Nuer sons died in vein as a result of his greed. We were at the point of victory when Dr. Riek made this decision.

Gordon Buay, the former Secretary of the South Sudan Democratic Party sounded like an idiot when he made this statement to Sudan Tribune, “I was completely shocked that a man like Riek Machar could apologize for 1991 Nasir Declaration which brought the right to self-determination to fore. It very sad indeed that Riek Machar should reduce himself to the level of Peter Gadet”. I wonder where this man was when the NIF almost defeated the SPLM/A in 1991 in the name of “self-determination”. It’s sad to hear Wurnyang in his voice. Even Emma MacCune can attest to this statement. It took Dr. Riek Machar 20 years to surprise everyone with his apology.

Dr. Riek Machar is our Vice President, but let’s not forgets who he is. Dr. Riek Machar is not a changed person if everyone thinks his mistakes are history. Let’s not be fooled by Riek’s education attainment. Dr. Riek Machar is psychological engrossed by Ngundeng’s prophecies. Ngundeng was a self-proclaimed prophet in the 1900s in the South. By comparison, he’s like Lirpiou in Dinka and Nyikang in Shilluk. Apparently, Ngundeng hasn’t revealed himself to Riek yet.

Peace and Reconciliation among South Sudanese

In order to allow peace and reconciliation in the South, we shouldn’t be offended when we criticized those who betrayed us. How can we make our leaders accountable if we can’t point out their mistakes? Don’t take this article as an attack on the Vice President, but a reminder that 1991 coup is still vivid in our minds. This topic is sensitive to all of us, but when is the time to bring up these issues? Dr Riek Machar is my Vice President and I deserve the right to criticize his actions.

My article is also a reminder to those kids who were born during the war and may not know who their Vice President is. Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol only cares about their political ambition, they don’t care about anyone else. Yes, they are educated, but their education serves no purpose. How many times did Dr. Lam Akol left and return to the Movement?


Hence, I urge the youths in the South not to judge their leaders based on tribal lines, but what they represent to the public. If we want development then we shouldn’t be afraid to point out mistakes. I am optimistic that South Sudan will not be a failed state as Bona Malual stated in his retirement article. He says, “South Sudan will be divided into countries of tribes”. I believe we have to forgive Dr. Riek Machar, but we will never forget what he did.

Agereb leek Chol is a graduate student at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. He can be reach at kushrepublic.

Dr.Riek political apology.pdf

Hudson woman organizes shipments to newly independent South Sudan

Posted: October 9, 2011 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

by Tim Troglen | Reporter

Hudson — A group of men once known by the title "Lost Boys of the Sudan" recently helped recapture their identities by giving back to the country they were forced to leave.

Members of the once lost boys joined with the non-profit MedWish International Sept. 30 in Cleveland to begin the "Save South Sudan" campaign by loading and sending a 40-foot shipping container with more than five tons of medical supplies and equipment.

"The Lost Boys" were young Sudanese boys who fled the Sudanese civil wars by the thousands, leaving their families and walking thousands of miles to the safety of Ethiopia, according to MedWish International.

This was just the first shipment to be sent to the war-torn African country, according to Tish Dahlby, executive director of MedWish International.

"This first shipment is only scratching the surface," said Dahlby, a Hudson resident. "Their needs are overwhelming and MedWish International is committed to supporting these relief efforts."

The supplies were donated by hospitals, medical vendors and individuals throughout Northeast Ohio, Dahlby said. Supplies included examination tables, beds, stretchers, diagnostic tools and basic first aid supplies.

"Conditions are very basic at many of the clinics, with no electricity or running water in many facilities," Dahlby explained. "Therefore the selected contents of the shipment were all basic in nature, such as manual versus electric beds."

This was the first humanitarian aid shipment from Northeast Ohio to South Sudan in history, said Matthew Fieldman, director of development for MedWish International.

Most of the former "Lost Boys" who live in the Cleveland area have never been back to see the families they left behind, Fieldman said.

"This shipment was the first chance they have had in nearly 20 years to reconnect with their loved ones and homeland," he said.

South Sudan declared independence July 9, Fieldman said.

"For the first time, it is possible to provide humanitarian aid to this new nation of 8 million people who face significant health challenges," he said.

South Sudan is in an "ongoing humanitarian crises," with an infant mortality rate of 11 percent, one out of 50 women dying of childbirth complications and one in seven children dying before the age of 5, Dahlby said.

From 1985 to 2005, Sudan was torn apart by the Second Sudanese Civil War, she said.

"More than 4 million people in Southern Sudan were displaced as a result of the war and, from 2003 to 2005, Sudanese government forces committed genocide in the Darfur region," Dahlby said.

There are about 20 "Sudanese Lost Boys — refugees from the Second Sudanese Civil War" who live in the Cleveland area and support large families financially back in Africa, according to Dahlby.

"Now that there is peace in that region, an opportunity has finally arisen to help the victims of years of genocide and civil wars," she added. "There is already a significant connection already established between Northeast Ohio and Southern Sudan, and now we have a real chance to save lives for these beleaguered people."

MedWish International ships equipment to a variety of locations across the globe, Dahlby said.

"There is a great need for even the most basic of medical care around the world. MedWish serves as a safety net for many of these countries," she added. "Too often well-trained healthcare providers are forced to stand by helplessly and watch their patients suffer, not because they lack the knowledge to treat their patients, but because they lack the medical supplies to deliver the care."

MedWish bridges the gap, "empowering healthcare providers to save lives," she said.

Dahlby said more shipments will be made to the people of South Sudan.

"MedWish’s International’s preference is to always continue to provide ongoing aid when needed," Dahlby said. "Their needs are overwhelming and MedWish International is committed to supported these relief efforts."

MedWish International accepts donations of money and supplies, she said.

"Financial contributions help to defray the cost of building humanitarian aid shipments," she said.

MedWish International is a not-for-profit organization committed to re-purposing medical supplies and equipment discarded by the healthcare industry with the objectives of providing humanitarian aid in developing countries to save lives and reducing waste to save the environment. For more information on making donations, visit or call 216-692-1685.

Email: ttroglen

Phone: 330-688-0088 ext. 3146

Leaders of Sudan and South Sudan Agree to End Disputes

Posted: October 9, 2011 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (R) listens as his South Sudanese counterpart Salva Kiir speaks during a joint news conference, before Kiir's departure at Khartoum Airport October 9, 2011. Photo: Reuters
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (R) listens as his South Sudanese counterpart Salva Kiir speaks during a joint news conference, before Kiir’s departure at Khartoum Airport October 9, 2011.

The president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, has ended a two day visit to Khartoum where he and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir discussed issues that continue to produce tensions between the two countries.

Unresolved since South Sudan became independent in early July are the future of the disputed oil-rich border region of Abyei and how to share oil revenue which is the life-line of both nations.

During a session with reporters on Sunday, the two leaders said committees are being formed in an attempt to end the disputes which have led to fears of a return to civil war. Kiir said his government is ready to discuss solutions “to all outstanding issues.” Bashir said deadlines have been established. But he did not provide further details.

South Sudan has most of the oil production but needs Sudan’s Red Sea export facilities.

Diplomats say the fact that the two leaders agreed to meet is a positive sign.

Also causing tensions between Sudan and South Sudan is fighting in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, both regions located within Sudan’s borders. Since South Sudan has withdrawn its troops from Abyei the fighting there has ended. But Sudan has refused to pull out its forces until all the 4,200 Ethiopian peacekeepers designated for the region arrive. Only half of them are currently stationed there.

Presidents of Sudan, South Sudan vow to resolve issues with talks, not war

By Isma’il Kushkush, For CNN
updated 5:46 PM EST, Sun October 9, 2011
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, right, and South Sudanese President Salva Kiir hold a joint press conference on Sunday.
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, right, and South Sudanese President Salva Kiir hold a joint press conference on Sunday.
  • South Sudan President Salva Kiir visits Sudan for the first time since independence
  • He says his government “is ready to discuss and reach final solutions”
  • Sudan President Omar al-Bashir says new committees will have a timetable
  • South Sudan became independent from Sudan in July, after years of strife

Khartoum, Sudan (CNN) — On his first visit to Khartoum since his fledgling nation declared independence, South Sudanese President Salva Kiir agreed with his Sudanese counterpart to hold talks to “reach final solutions” to address continuing differences between their countries.

“My government is ready to discuss and reach final solutions on all outstanding issues — mainly the economy, security, borders and Abyei status,” Kiir told reporters Sunday.

“We shall work on all these outstanding issues and make sure we sign a final agreement on all of them as soon as possible.”

After years of violent strife and a January referendum paving the way for a new state, South Sudan separated from Sudan in July.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said then that he wanted “brotherly relations” with his new neighbor, though the two countries remain at odds on a host of issues including borders, how to share oil revenues and the status of the disputed oil-rich border district of Abyei.

During the press conference Sunday, al-Bashir elaborated on current efforts to hash out any differences by pointing to committees that have been established by both sides to negotiate.

“It has been agreed on to establish committees with a timetable to reach final solutions,” he said.

The Sudanese Media Center, a semi-official news agency, reported that five such committees had been created. They each have a different focus: external relations, economic issues, higher education, humanitarian affairs, and security and borders.

Tensions between the two countries have risen lately, following conflicts in the border provinces of South Kordofan and Blue Nile that have spurred fears about a renewed conflict.

Both presidents, however, affirmed their commitment to resolving issues peacefully.

“If we lost unity, then we cannot afford anything less than gaining peace, stability and development,” al-Bashir said in an earlier meeting.

Added Kir, the South Sudanese president, “There may be some elements on both sides that would like to take us back to where we come from — that is war.

“War is not the solution to whatever problems we have. The solution is sitting together and solving the problems.”

Sudan, South Sudan say to settle disputes jointly

KHARTOUM – Sudan and South Sudan on Sunday agreed to form joint committees to settle all the outstanding issues between them according to specific time frame.

“We have agreed to form joint committees to reach solutions to all the outstanding issues within a specific time ceiling,” said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir at a joint press conference with South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit here Sunday.

“We expect to reach satisfactory solutions very soon. There is a joint will to overcome all standing barriers,” he added.

Al-Bashir further described Kiir’s visit to Khartoum as a new beginning for the ties between the two countries, pointing to the historical bonds linking the two peoples.

Kiir, for his part, said his government was ready to reach solutions to all the outstanding issues between the two countries, including the security, economic and border issues as well as disputes regarding the Abyei area.

He expressed confidence that the two sides would resolve all the issues and sign a final agreement very soon.

Kiir arrived in Khartoum Saturday on his first visit to Sudan since the independence of South Sudan in July this year.

He discussed with al-Bashir a number of outstanding issues between the two countries, including oil revenues sharing, border demarcation and disputed Abyei issues.

Sudan and South Sudan earlier agreed to open 10 passages on their joint border to facilitate the movement of citizens after the border was closed before the declaration of South Sudan’s independence.

North, South Sudan need more time to settle disputes

KHARTOUM | Sun Oct 9, 2011 8:45am EDT

KHARTOUM (Reuters) – North and South Sudan ended their first talks since the south gained independence three months ago and said more negotiations would be held to try to settle their disputes ranging from sharing oil revenues to ending violence in a border area.

Southern President Salva Kiir held two days of talks with Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to ease tensions that have grown since South Sudan became independent in July as part of a peace agreement in 2005.

A diplomat said the talks were a positive sign that both sides wanted to improve ties but more time was needed to sort out their complicated disputes.

At a joint news conference both leaders said more negotiations would be held.

“My government is ready to discuss solutions for all pending issues,” Kiir said before leaving Khartoum. “I return today to Juba to ensure that we reach solutions to all pending issues. Lets sign an agreement as soon as possible.”

Bashir said committees would work out solutions for all disputes in a set timeframe. He did not elaborate.

The African Union and former South African President Thabo Mbeki have tried to mediate but little has been resolved.

A lack of a joint banking system and trade agreements is hampering cross-border commerce between north and south.

The United States has urged both sides to speed up talks to reach especially a deal on how to divide oil revenues — the dominant source of revenue for both states. Juba took most of the oil but need to pay a fee to use northern export facilities both sides have failed to agree upon.

(Reporting by Khalid Abdelaziz and Ulf Laessing)

Sudan, South Sudan say to settle disputes peacefully

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir welcomes his South Sudanese counterpart Salva Kiir during his arrival at Khartoum Airport October 8,2011 for his first visit since southern secession to discuss key unresolved issues, including Abyei and oil, that have undermined north-south relations. REUTERS/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir welcomes his South Sudanese counterpart Salva Kiir during his arrival at Khartoum Airport October 8,2011 for his first visit since southern secession to discuss key unresolved issues, including Abyei and oil, that have undermined north-south relations.

Credit: Reuters/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah

KHARTOUM | Sun Oct 9, 2011 8:56am IST

KHARTOUM (Reuters) – Sudan and South Sudan will resolve their disagreements through dialogue, Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and southern counterpart Salva Kiir said, but gave no hint of any progress after several meetings on Saturday.

Kiir arrived on Saturday in Khartoum on his first visit since South Sudan seceded in July from its former civil war foe.

Diplomats hoped Kiir’s two-day visit would ease tensions that have grown since the split and end a stalemate in talks.

The two countries have failed to agree how to share oil revenues and other assets, divide up debt, calm the joint border area and agree what to do about the disputed region of Abyei.

“We confirm the principle not to go back to war but to be good neighbours and leave the bitterness of the past behind,” Bashir said at a reception open to the media.

Khartoum wants to develop trade relations and will keep its Red Sea port of Port Sudan and Nile river access open for exports from the landlocked south, he said, citing agriculture as example of cross-border cooperation.

Kiir said the era of war had ended with the 2005 peace deal.

“We are committed as you are committed not to go back to war,” he said in a speech. “We are committed to find solutions.”

Both countries set up five committees to strengthen ties, especially on trade cooperation, according to the Sudanese Media Centre (SMC), a news website linked to the northern government.

North and south also want to discuss Sudan’s external debt, northern finance minister Ali Mahmood told SMC. Juba has refused to take $38 billion debt incurred when the country was united.

The two sides reached an agreement last month to facilitate travel and trade after much of the joint border was closed in the run-up to southern independence.

But talks over how to share oil revenues, the lifeline for both economies, have been stalled for months. South Sudan took most of the country’s oil production but needs northern export facilities and Red Sea access.

Juba will need to pay a transit fee but has not paid anything since July, in the absence of an agreement, diplomats say. Both countries have been hit hard by an economic crisis with inflation spiralling.

The African Union and former South African President Thabo Mbeki have tried to mediate but little has been resolved.

Khartoum has accused Juba of supporting armed opposition groups fighting the army in northern border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, a charge South Sudan denies.

(Reporting by Khalid Abdelaziz; Writing by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Louise Ireland)

KHARTOUM, Oct. 8 (Xinhua) — Sudan and South Sudan on Saturday reiterated their commitment to resolve outstanding issues between them and not to return to war again no matter what the reasons were.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and President of South Sudan Salva Kiir Mayardit on Saturday held joint talks in Khartoum to reach solutions for the outstanding issues between the two countries.

“We reiterate our commitment not to return to the war square. We will work together to enhance peace and establish good relations on bases of good neighborliness and mutual respect,” said al-Bashir in the talks, quoted by local media.

“Realization of security and stability is associated with defusing the conflicts and preventing foreign intervention in our affairs. We should depend on our self-abilities and work together to establish a good relationship on bases of the historical ties between our peoples,” he added.

He went on saying that “if we lost unity, at least we should win the peace. The international law abides us to observe the good neighborliness. It is important that we work together to secure our borders and make them flexible to facilitate the movement of the citizens and commodities.”

The Sudanese president further called on the experts from the two countries to work out a formula for strategic cooperation in the field of petroleum according to the international standards and in a manner that achieves the interests of the two peoples.

South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit, for his part, said that “we are committed to no going back to war again. This is a station that we left a long time ago since 2005 when the Naivasha agreement was signed.”

“Now if it happened that there are any elements that are taking us back to that square, I think all of us should then take such people as the enemies of our peoples,” he added.

He reiterated the importance of finding settlements for all the outstanding issues between the two countries, saying that any mistake, even if slight, could lead to a disaster.

Kiir arrived in Khartoum on Saturday in his first visit to Sudan since the independence of South Sudan on July this year.

The two countries are discussing outstanding issues between them including oil revenues sharing, border demarcation and disputed Abyei issues.

Sudan and South Sudan earlier agreed to open 10 passages on their joint border to facilitate the movement of citizens after the border was closed before the declaration of South Sudan independence.

Khartoum accused the newly born South Sudan of supporting the rebels in the Blue Nile and South Kordofan areas which have witnessed armed clashes between the Sudanese army and fighters of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement.

Khartoum – Anyanya
Negotiation: Guidelines.

The General Headquarters
Anyanya National Armed Forces
South Sudan
January 24, 1972

The Commander in chief
Anyanya National Armed Forces
Leader of the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement
Members of the Anyanya SSLM Negotiation Committee

Dear compatriots:

That we are strong, growing in force and power to be reckoned with in Sudanese politics. Status and future is evidenced by the fact that the Khartoum administration is now interested in negotiating a peace settlement directly with the Anyanya.

We must take a firm stand all the way in the coming talks. The Numeiry regime is a sick administration ripe to collapse any time. We must not be tricked into committing suicide to lay down our instruments of liberation, arms, by a withering and dying regime just for the purpose of lengthening its own days of breath or just that some opportunistic Southerners find a means of employment in the blood of our people.

We are already at war and we are growing stronger everyday while sooner or later the Numeiry regime will go, but nothing will ever defeat us if we persist in the war. Let no one among you or among the enemy have the mistaken and opportunist’s view that these talks are the last chance of peace for Southern Sudanese people. Let no one have incorrect view that if these talks collapse and fail war will break out. We are already at war for the last nine to seventeen years. The Anyanya and Southern Sudanese people are capable and ready to fight on for another nine years or more if no correct and acceptable solution is found.

Any solution within the context of a New United Sudan must first and foremost recognize the Anyanya as the legitimate army of the Southern Sudanese people. The implementation of whatever degree of merging agreed by the negotiating armies and administrations to the United New Sudan must take not less then ten years ; during this time the two armies and administrations must maintain separate identities while conditions for their gradual merging into United New Sudan are being created by both sides. This is the only procedure that guarantees the future and interests of the Southern Sudanese people in a United New Sudan and the objective indication that both sides are sincere in seeking the cessation of belligerency, peaceful settlement and life in a United Sudan.

Following is a more comprehensive presentation of guidelines to the spirit, objectives and strategy which should be adopted at the talks and which, if followed, could possibly lead to a solution acceptable to the rank-and-file of the Anyanya and the Southern Sudanese People.


  1. The Central Problem in the Sudanese war is the dominance of Arab Nationalism. It is historically a universal law that in whatever multi-nationality country where one of the nationalities is economically and politically (and therefore socially and culturally) dominant over other nationalities, that country is pregnant with instability, discontent and crisis eventually erupting in warfare. Such has been the case in the Sudan.
  1. The Southern Sudanese people, in conformity with historical necessity, took up arms against the glaring oppression and neglect meted on them by the forces of Arab Nationalism, an oppression and neglect which were as glaring as they were cruel, rackless and raking as they were arrogant. It was only after the virtual exhaustion of all peaceful constitutional possibilities of multi-national coexistence with a United Progressive Sudan that the disaffection and indignation of the Southern Sudanese People reached their human boundaries and war broke out, war had to break out.
  1. Constitutional guarantees against exactions and barbarities of Arab Nationalism, accommodations and adjustments to the mal-practices of Arab Chauvinism have all failed the past to be respected and to meet the aspirations of the Southern Sudanese People. This is why war had to break out in the first place.
  1. There is no reason, absolutely no objective reason for clearheaded Southerners and Northerners alike to believe after eight years and more of continuous warfare and the repeated failures of some forms of constitutional guarantees that paper constitutional guarantees are now going to solve the war in the Sudan. Any Southerner who holds the mistaken view that Arab Nationalism now sincere, now means good business, now gives the South local autonomy in good faith and that this autonomy will be guaranteed by a few phrases scribbled on some sheets of paper stapled and bound together and christened “ The Constitution”, that Southerner either suffers from acute historical myopia or else advocates the treasonable stand of opportunism, national subjugation and continued Arab Chauvinism and domination; in short, such Southerner calls for surrender in a camouflaged form.
  1. It is historically evident that unless a correct consistent Social Democratic solution is found to the Central Question, i.e., to the problem of economic and political domination of Arab Nationalism over other nationalities, then, any attempts at solving the war in Sudan, no matter how refined and logical on paper, will always end in certain failure.
  1. There is no objective indication that the Khartoum-based Arab nationalist administration are capable of concluding a consistent social democratic solution to the National Question in the Sudan. Arab Nationalism in the Sudan, consistent with its predatory nature, proposes and declares solutions such as “local autonomy” within the context of a United Arab Sudan. Such muddle-headedness returns us back to 1963 and 1955 and is an objective indication that the necessary mutation which would enable ruling Northerners to face up to the objective realities of the Sudan has not yet taken root.
  1. There are only two possible ways for resolving the Sudanese crises: The birth of two nation-states out of the present (geographical) Sudan or political autonomy for both the South and the North (and/or any other part that so demands) in a federated United New Sudan. Political Autonomy in this usage means that the autonomous regions have adequate political power, in terms of armed forces, to protect the region against the encroachment by the federation or by one of the regions in the federation, and, furthermore, that a region retains the right to secede from the federation if its interests are not adequately served by the federation.(It must be clear to Southerners that the retention of the right to secede from such a federation must be guaranteed by the federal constitution and by the existence of a physical Southern Armed Forces.)
  1. We can not dwell on the status of matters regarding the super-structure such as judicial system, fundamental rights and freedoms, personal liberty, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of minority to use their language and develop their culture, education, tele-communications, census , etc, etc.(all contained in Mading de Garang’s proposed constitution for the democratic republic of Sudan). The status of these and others will ultimately depend on either the solution is two nation-states or political autonomy (as defined above) for the two regions (or more) in a federated (NEW) Sudan. These peripheral issues must not be allowed to detract the deliberations of the talks, nota bene para VII above.


It is imperative that the basis and necessary conditions be created and for these basis and conditions to be developed and mature so as to objectively arrive at a United (NEW) and lasting peace. This approach is to start from the objective realities of the Sudan. It is chauvinistic and naive to start with assumption of a United (ARAB) Sudan and then turn around and try to force the contradictory objective realities to conform to the subjective naïve assumption and wishes of a United Arab Sudan. Hence it follows from the objective facts in section (A) that for a United New Sudan the following conditions must be met:

  1. Arab Nationalism in the Sudan must be categorically renounced. This concretely means that Arab Nationalism must no longer be neither an internal (therefore) nor an external policy and practice in the United New Sudan.
  1. There at present two armies, the Anyanya and the army of the Khartoum administration; these armies are now at war in the Sudan. This point we hope is recognized by all as an objective existence for that is precisely why there are negotiations. Well, if the Sudan is to be a one United Country, if this is the interests of both Northerners and Southerners, then, which of these two warring armies will be the army of the New Sudan the Anyanya, the army of the Khartoum administration or both and how and/or why?
  1. The Anyanya thus must firstly be accepted by the Khartoum administration as the arm of the South Sudan. Failure to recognize the Anyanya the legitimate army of the South would amount to denial or refusal to admit a physical existence, and the result of such naïveté would be the inevitable collapse of the negotiations and the continuation of the war whether anybody likes it or not.
  1. The solution to the war and for the United NEW Sudan must be viewed as a synthesis of two armies (the Anyanya and the army of the Khartoum rulers) and the formation of a new type of army consistent with the particularity of the NEW Sudan. The solution must not be looked at or hoped to be (as is always the case) the ABSORPTION of one army the Anyanya into other (the army of the Khartoum Arab Administration), but rather as we said as a SYNTHESIS of two warring armies. Whether such synthesis is possible depends on whether the necessary mutation within the forces of the Arab Nationalism and within the Anyanya exists. I am not aware that there has been such an objective necessary mutation, but I am only assuming its implied existence for otherwise there would be no objective grounds for the negotiations! And the originators of these negotiations could legitimately be charged with treasonable political scheming and racketeering against the beloved people.
  1. A minimum period of five years must initially be allowed for the creation and maturation of necessary conditions and mutations required by the merging of the two belligerent armies and administrations into the New Sudan divorced of belligerency and of the basic cause of belligerence, Arab Nationalism. The armies and administrations of the Anyanya and of the Khartoum dictatorship must maintain separate identities during these five years of groundwork of conditions for Unity.
  1. After the first initial five years of groundwork another minimum period of five years must be allowed for the actualization of the agreed degree of merging by the two armies and administrations. Merging and the actual objective formation of the NEW Sudan will be rapid in the second five years period, since the necessary conditions and mutations for a United NEW Sudan will have been created in the first five years of groundwork.
  1. We have made the above recommendations (guidelines) after a brief presentation of the objective political realities of the Sudan, not a bene Section (A) above. We have made these recommendations without fear of intimidation and with sincerity, objectivity and to the best interests of the Peoples of South Sudan, Africa and the world. We strongly believe that a United NEW Sudan and lasting peace and progress can be arrived at only through ACTION and not through PAPER declarations, resolutions and mechanical scheming. If the solution is sought within the spirit and logic of the above facts and recommendations, then, peace, progress and a United (NEW) Sudan are possible objectives to realize. But if, on the contrary hand, a solution is sought within the spirit of Arab Nationalism and the context of a United Arab Sudan, then, gentlemen of the negotiations, instability, crisis and continued warfare are the only invited options and the Anyanya consistent with its historical and historic task of African liberation will take these options so mercilessly and mercifully placed upon its shoulders by blood thirsty Arab Chauvinism.

    Captain John Garang de Mabior

    The General Headquarters
    Anyanya National Armed Forces
    South Sudan
    January 24, 1972