Abdelbagi Jibril, director of the Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre, compares South Africa's economic and trade relations with China and the Arab Gulf states and its defence of the Khartoum regime with its indifference towards the tragedy of the people of Darfur, which, he concludes, is tantamount to the genocide of Africans.

The South African government is playing an increasingly important role in the political and economic affairs of the African continent. South Africa’s increasing political role is directly linked to its economic might. Its economy accounts for about 45 per cent of Africa’s GDP, equivalent of three times the size of the second biggest economy in Africa (Egypt). South Africa's economic interest and importance are the driving forces behind its political stands on some of the crucial situations facing Africa today, including Darfur. Within the African Union (AU), South Africa is a member of the influential Peace and Security Council, where vital measures affecting peace and security in Africa are discussed and acted on. At the international level, South Africa is currently a member of the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council.

South Africa and Sudan, south Sudan

South Africa has developed a special relationship with Sudan, especially after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005. The two countries collaborate in various economic and commercial fields. They have growing cooperation in the energy sector, as well as in security and military fields. Immediately following the signing of the CPA, South Africa decided to establish a diplomatic mission in Sudan, which opened soon after. President Thabo Mbeki was the only African head of state outside of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to attend all the concluding sessions of the important phases of the political negotiations between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/A) and Khartoum that ended in Nairobi with the signing of the CPA on 9 January 2005. He was also among the few African heads of state to attend the coronation of the late Dr John Garang as the first Vice-President of Sudan in July 2005.

After the defeat of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic nation in 1994, the ANC government made a strategic decision to support the people of south Sudan and their representative organisation the SPLM/A. A number of SPLM/A cadres received training and education in South Africa. Cooperation in this field continues through the Pretoria-based Centre for African Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa. A considerable contingent of scholars and students from south Sudan are now attending South African universities. Following the increase in the production of commercially viable quantities of Sudanese crude oil and the establishment of the autonomous Government of South Sudan, the relationship between the two countries has been further strengthened and consolidated. The struggle of the people of south Sudan for justice and equality was the cornerstone of South Africa’s interest.

It has been observed that some SPLM/A supporters, especially those who participated in the Inter-Sudanese Peace Talks on Darfur, hold unusual enmity towards the insurgent movements and people of Darfur. These cadres have aggressively rejected the demands of the people of Darfur for a proportionate share in the economic and political life of the country, on the grounds that such demands will affect the CPA. Some of them even claim that the people of Darfur instigated the destruction of their region in order to sabotage the peace agreement. Since then, some SPLM/A elements have launched a sinister campaign against the demands of Darfurians for justice and equality. This campaign has reached many parts of east, west and southern Africa.

South Africa and China

South Africa has strong trade and economic ties with China. There are political and ideological affinities, inherited from the era of black South Africa’s revolution against the oppressive apartheid regime. This relationship has created a complicated dynamic, especially at international decision-making fora. Both China and South Africa are currently members of the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council. At the international level we have observed that South Africa and China assume similar positions on some issues in the area of international peace, security and human rights, in particular on the situation in Darfur.

South Africa and the Arab Gulf states

South Africa has strong trade and economic relationships with countries in the Arabian Gulf region. In fact, the Gulf region is becoming an important trade zone and It holds great potential for South Africa, not only as an export market and a source of energy, but also as a strategic source of foreign direct investment. During the past few years, the oil-rich Arab Gulf states have invested billions of US dollars from surplus oil revenue in real estate, private equity investment, infrastructure development, tourism and other related business affairs in South Africa. Sudan represents a special area of geopolitical interest for the Gulf States. Protecting the Arab-centric government of General El Bashir is one of the main factors, which bring together all members of the League of Arab States in their support of Khartoum. On the other hand, it is clear that most states in sub-Saharan Africa have yet to understand the full ramifications of the crisis in Darfur: which is largely driven by the quest for encroachment on the land owned by indigenous African tribes.

South Africa and Darfur

The position of the government of South Africa vis-à-vis the situation in Darfur is characterised by indifference to the suffering of the victims of this human tragedy. Although South Africa participated in the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS), and has sent some military and police forces to Darfur, the effectiveness of its contribution remains disproportionate to the role of political leadership that it actively pursues in relation to the Dafurian situation.

Out of the total AMIS authorised troops of 6,171 military and 1,560 police personnel, South Africa has contributed some 600 individuals. Recently, we have observed that the government of South Africa increasingly supports the Khartoum government in its handling of Darfur. South Africa continues to use its membership of the AU Peace and Security Council to back the position assumed by Sudan and its north and east African allies within AU institutions. At the international level the country follows a similar policy. On no less than a dozen occasions, South Africa has used its membership of the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council to oppose and water down projects and resolutions which could have helped provide the victims of the armed conflict in Darfur with protection and relief. Below are some examples of South Africa’s callous position on Darfur.

On 12 July 2007, three members of the UN Security Council, Britain, France and Ghana, submitted a draft resolution for consideration and action by other members of the council. Because of the gravity of the situation on the ground, the resolution was tabled under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The draft text approved the 'hybrid' African Union-United Nations force. Although the text was reasonably prepared, it ran into strong opposition from some council members, in particular China and South Africa took the lead.

South Africa's ambassador to the UN in New York, Dumisani Kumalo, labelled the draft resolution as 'totally unacceptable'. He further accused the sponsors, including Ghana, of 'throwing everything into the kitchen sink'. He strongly supported the position of the Sudanese government that the resolution should be 'more Sudan friendly'; and that it should drop 'irrelevant' and 'alien' issues, like the threat of 'other measures', usually meaning sanctions. Ambassador Kumalo has been consistent on this position. In March 2007, when he was President of the Security Council, he said that 'the UN can't send troops into Darfur without the permission of the Sudanese Government…[the] UN can't just order the marines into a country'. This assertion is irrelevant and misleading about UN peacekeepers being drawn from the US marines.

The irony is that the government of South Africa seems to be blindly supporting Khartoum. On 17 June 2007, at a press conference given by the UN Security Council delegation following a meeting in Khartoum with Sudan’s president, Ambassador Kumalo was quoted as saying 'I can tell you that the Foreign Minister told us in no uncertain terms that the Government of Sudan accepted the hybrid operation without any conditionality. The President himself just confirmed the same thing to us'. Indeed, Sudan’s president did not miss out on the opportunity to declare that '…no Western European soldier will touch Sudan’s soil', thus belying Kumalo’s statement.

At the High Level Meeting held in New York, Sudan, supported by South Africa and other AU members, formally objected to the deployment in Darfur of infantry contingents from Uruguay and Thailand. They also objected to the deployment of a military engineering unit from Norway. These objections are clear violations of the AU agreement with the UN on the UN/AU hybrid military presence in Darfur. They disregard completely the letter and the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1769 (2007), which authorised the UN/AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID).

At the fifth session of the UN Human Rights Council held in Geneva, 12–30 March 2007, many human rights activists were shocked when the South African delegation stood fast in support of the Sudanese government. Together with Algeria, they endorsed a weak resolution text that praised Sudan’s militaristic policy in Darfur. This occurred despite the almost unanimous opinion among delegates from sub-Saharan Africa, including SADC countries, that they could no longer extend unconditional backing to the government of Sudan for its crimes in Darfur. When their efforts failed, the delegation of South Africa used all kinds of tactics to water down the resolution, introduced by the EU, on the situation in Sudan.

The position of the ANC government in South Africa vis-à-vis the situation in Darfur is disappointing. Providing unconditional political and diplomatic support to the government of Sudan amounts to certain complicity. Moreover, efforts of the government of South Africa to abort robust regional and international plans to protect the defenceless civilian population in Darfur betray the ideals of justice, human dignity, equality, liberty and peaceful coexistence, for which the South African masses fought an heroic rebellion against the racist apartheid regime. Because of such a glorious history, the position of the ANC government in South Africa, in support of the the crimes the Sudanese government continues to commit in Darfur, disturbs the victims of this tragedy more than the positions of China, Egypt, Algeria, Russia and other friends of Sudan. External observers too could easily point out that if Africans themselves don’t give a hang about African victims of the Darfur tragedy, why should the rest of the world care?

In 2010, South Africa is expected to host the Football World Cup. This important global manifestation will focus the world’s attention on South Africa as a preferred destination for tourism, trade and investment. Hosting this prestigious global tournament should place a certain moral responsibility on the host nation regarding the values of solidarity, friendship, peace, justice and human dignity. What we see in South Africa’s policy towards Darfur is the antithesis of these high moral values. It should be rejected by all peace-loving people. The world should know that by protecting the government of Sudan over Darfur, South Africa has tainted its hands. It supports a killer regime that actively pursues a policy of imposing living conditions that will eventually lead to the destruction, in whole or in part, of a specific group of people because of their ethnic or tribal background. Dafur is tantamount to the genocide of Africans.

* Abdelbagi Jibril is Executive Director of the Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Violent clashes have resulted in at least one hundred deaths in Sudan’s capital Khartoum, following news that the head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and newly appointed vice president of the country John Garang had died in a helicopter crash. Who was John Garang? Would a fledgling peace process that ended one of Africa’s longest wars survive his death? And what does his death mean for the crisis in Darfur. Abdelbagi Jibril provides some answers.

Dr. John Garang de Mabior was born on 23rd June 1945 into a poor family in Wagkulei village, near Bor in the Upper Nile region of South Sudan. He belongs to the Dinka tribe, which is the largest ethnic group in the Sudan that accounts for about 12 per cent of the country’s entire population. He died on Saturday 30th July 2005 barely three weeks after he was sworn into office as the President of Southern Sudan and as the first-ever Southern Sudanese First Vice-President of the Republic of Sudan.

Garang was a nationalist statesman, visionary son of Africa and a man of special qualities and talents. His legacy will be a radical change in Sudan’s political structure and power relations, whether the people of his home region decide to remain part of a unified country or choose to go their own way and create a new African flag and nation when they exercise their right to self-determination in 2011. Garang’s name will be imprinted on Sudan’s and Africa’s collective memory as one of the country’s greatest politicians and social justice campaigners, only comparable to - if not superseding - Imam Mohammed Ahmed Al Mahadi, who unified Sudan and liberated its people from Turko-Egyptian colonial rule and established the Mahadist State in the 1880s as one of the first modern states on the continent ruled by Africans themselves.

Garang lived a life of revolt and rebellion against injustice and marginalization. During his early adulthood in the 1960s he joined the first Southern guerrilla movement known as the Anyanya One, which was led by General Joseph Lago. After the Addis Ababa Accord that granted Southern Sudan wide regional autonomy on internal matters and ended the first civil war in the South in 1972, Garang joined the Sudanese military as a junior officer. He soon climbed the military ladder to the rank of Colonel. He was a successful army officer and established an academic record which was crowned with a PHD degree in agricultural economics from Iowa State University (USA).

In May 1983 Garang defected from the Sudanese army, established the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and Movement (SPLA/M) and started the second civil war in Southern Sudan, which became one of the longest lasting and deadliest wars of the later 20th century. Garang’s decision to establish the SPLA/M was a reaction to the attempts of the then military ruler of Sudan Marshal Gaffar Nimeri to abrogate the Addis Ababa Accord. It is estimated that at least 2.5 million civilians perished in this war either because of fighting or as a result of war-induced famine and disease. As such the death toll in this war was one of the highest of any other war since WW II. It is also estimated that more than four million were forced to flee their homes in Southern Sudan and settle in other parts of the country or cross international borders as refugees. The SPLA/M can accurately be described as a continuation of the Anyanya Movement that instigated the first civil war in Southern Sudan from 1955 to 1972. However, the SPLA/M has added a new dimension to the North-South conflict in the country by espousing a nationalist vision that called for a new and democratic Sudan where all its citizens were accorded equal treatment without discrimination. The SPLA/M was opposed to religious and cultural domination of the country by elites of the north and called for a new Sudan free from the ills and social injustices inherited from its history and replete with the legacy of slavery and exploitation.

Garang was a pan-Africanist, charismatic, independent-minded and a well-informed leader. He successfully led a guerrilla movement for more than 20 years since May 1983 and survived numerous moments of serious trouble including threats to his life, challenges to his leadership and secessionist elements within the SPLA/M. Some of his strong points were his pragmatism, independent mind, unshakeable conviction about the unity of the country and relentless resistance to attempts to transform Sudan into a Muslim and Arab-centric state. His resilience conferred on him the respect of his enemies and political opponents in Sudan and the confidence of regional and international observers.

Garang’s untimely death will have serious repercussions for the political future of the country. He was able to resolve serious difficulties within his movement and reconcile diverse, often antagonistic, viewpoints and personalities. This placed him in a unique position of strength and enabled him to reach a well-calculated agreement with the government of Sudan. He played a role in earning regional and international support for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that was signed by the SPLA/M and the government of Sudan in Nairobi on 9th January 2005.

The CPA is a complicated agreement that includes many technical details and it has been said that the Satan always hides in the details. It is clear that full compliance with the provisions of the CPA may not be possible under certain circumstances depending on the political dynamics in the country. Other things like the lack of political will or resistance from elements within the two parties could also complicate things. Here inventive imagination is required to find a way out of such possible hurdles.

It seems that practical difficulties in implementing the CPA started immediately after the arrival of Garang in Khartoum on 9th July 2005. It was reported that heavily armed SPLA/M troops bound for Khartoum from eastern Sudan were stopped by the national army about 1000 km from the city and were not allowed to continue. These troops were supposed to create a joint protection force, with an equal number to be provided by the government. To the great surprise of many observers, this important incident has not developed into a major crisis between the two parties.

The announcement of the death of Garang was followed by sporadic violent clashes that especially targeted people from northern Sudan in the major cities of the country such as Khartoum, Juba, Wau, Bor and Port Sudan. In Khartoum alone it was reported that more than 100 individuals were killed on Monday and thousands of private vehicles were destroyed and shops vandalized. It was also reported that several people from Southern Sudan were killed in Khartoum on Tuesday 2nd August in what seems to be retaliation for the killing of Northerners on Monday. While this feverish reaction was a manifestation of the peoples’ love for Garang - reminiscent of the millions of peace-loving Sudanese people who gathered to greet him upon his arrival in Khartoum on 9th July 2005 - it was also a manifestation of their distrust for the government of Sudan and suspicion that Garang was deliberately assassinated. In the death of Garang, millions of Sudanese have seen the vanishing of their great hope for peace and radical change for a better life in the country.

The demise of Garang has put the implementation of the CPA in peril. There are two options at present: Either the new SPLA/M leadership go ahead and implement the agreement in good faith or they choose to abandon it, which will mean the outbreak of a new war. Judging from media pronouncements made by top SPLA/M leaders as well as the heavy pressure from regional and international powers on the two parties to honour their commitments, the possibility of implementation in good faith is more likely at present. The SPLA/M will gain tremendously from implementation of the agreement. First and foremost is the unprecedented guarantee that the people of Southern Sudan are entitled to exercise the right to self-determination and decide their own fate.

The new SPLA/M leadership is also aware that they were able to achieve through negotiations in two years what they failed to achieve in twenty years of fierce fighting. However, the agreement will inevitably be frozen or collapse altogether if it is proved that Garang’s helicopter crashed because of military attack or sabotage directly or indirectly designed by the government of Sudan, or caused by the Ugandan rebel Lord’s Resistance Army or Garang’s military rivals in the region. The later could instigate an all-round conflict in the South involving government-supported local militia groups which are currently mushrooming in the region, such as the South Sudan Defence Force led by General Faulino Matieb and others. Perhaps the most dangerous scenario after the death of Garang could be a serious split within the SPLA/M ranks that would bring an end to the CPA and embroil the whole region in total collapse and devastation.

The untimely death of Garang is problematic both to the government of Sudan and the SPLA/M. It is especially problematic for people in other trouble spots of Sudan, especially the rebel forces in Darfur and Eastern Sudan who considered him as their mentor and natural ally. He expressed his personal commitment to use his status as First Vice-President of Sudan and help efforts to resolve the crisis in Darfur and other parts of Sudan. The new SPLA/M leadership is aware of the strategic dangers that the conflicts in Darfur and Eastern Sudan pose to successful implementation of the CPA and also for maintaining and preserving peace and security in the South and Sudan in general, yet it is unclear whether they are prepared to assume Garang’s expected role in resolving the crisis in Darfur and Eastern Sudan. The challenge before the government of Sudan and the SPLA/M is that they need to implement the CPA in letter and spirit in the absence of Garang. They need to move fast in order to fill the vacuum created by his death and assure the people of the South and Sudan as a whole about their seriousness to pursue the search for peace and unity with the same vigour and enthusiasm that characterised the late hero.

* Abdelbagi A. M. Jibril is the Executive Director, Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre. He is a Sudanese national currently working as an NGO Expert based in Geneva (Switzerland). He finished his studies at the University of Khartoum, Sudan, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (1986). He has extensive field knowledge of development and human rights issues in Africa and a track record within the international system as a Permanent NGO Representative to the UN Office in Geneva.

* Please send comments to [email protected]