Subscribe Today
Request a Clip
Following are excerpts from an interview with Al-Tayyib Mustafa, the leader of the Sudanese "Justice Peace Platform" and uncle of Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir. The interview aired on Al-Jazeera TV on December 22, 2009.
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: I firmly believe that today, the North and South Sudanese want South Sudan to be split from North Sudan, or vice versa. This is because the problem of South Sudan began in 1955, four months before the British withdrawal from Sudan and Sudanese independence.
All the previous solutions and agreements failed dismally in resolving the problem of South Sudan. On the contrary, these solutions played a major role in the perpetuation of the problem. After the outbreak of the rebellion in Torit, and in 13 cities in the far south of South Sudan, the problem spread and encompassed all of Sudan. Most of Sudan's present problems are related to the problem of South Sudan.
Interviewer: From what you are saying, it sounds as if South Sudan has become a cancerous limb in the body of Sudan, and it is necessary to uproot it, in your view.
Al-Tayyeb Mustafa: I don't want to say it as strongly as that, but I will say that the problem of South Sudan is like a cancer, which has spread from the far south to the entire body of Sudan, as a result of the negligence of politicians from the north and the south alike...
Interviewer: A cancer?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: That's right.
Interviewer: So what should we do about this cancer?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: Separation. We must separate [North Sudan from the South]. Let me tell you, Mr. Faysal, that the issue of the unity of South Sudan with the North was not a decision made by the South Sudanese or North Sudanese. The decision was made by British colonialism, when it decided to annex the South to the North, despite the absence of the right conditions – in terms of religion, culture, language, customs, and sentiment. Sentiments are very important. In what sense? There is great mutual abhorrence between the Northern and Southern Sudanese, especially on the part o the South Sudanese vis-à-vis the North Sudanese. Therefore, the [British] created a unity that was artificial and totally arbitrary, just like somebody who weds a cat to a mouse, oil to fire, or day to night.
Interviewer: As bad as that?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: Yes.
[...]
Interviewer: Don't you think that separating the South and acceptance of the separation of the South will arouse the appetites of the rest of the Sudanese provinces? Tomorrow, they will say in Darfur: We want to act like the South Sudanese. In the East, they will say the same thing.
You will be opening the gates of Hell for all Africa and the Arab neighbors. Tomorrow, they will say in Egypt: We want parts of Egypt to become independent, just like the South Sudanese. You are opening the Pandora box of Hell. How do you respond to these claims?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: Comparing the problem of the South to the problems of other parts of Sudan is like comparing a headache to cancer. That's what I'd like to tell you. Why? Because there is no room for comparison.
Interviewer: The presence of the South within Sudan is a cancer?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: It's like comparing cancer to a headache. That's what I said. Take Darfur, for example. You are familiar with the Abuja Agreement. Did they demand self-determination? No, they didn't, while in the Nifasha [Agreement], the South Sudanese demanded self-determination, which enables separation. Therefore, there is no room whatsoever for comparison.
From another perspective, let me return to efforts of other countries, which split from one another. When Ethiopia split from Eritrea, for example, did other countries separate as well? When there was a separation of... In all cases of countries that split from one another, they did not impact [their neighbors]. Why not? Because the act of separation or unity depends upon objective conditions in the region in question, which is considering separation. In the absence of real conditions, no country will ever demand separation.
[...]
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: The idea of partition was raised by the elites in South Sudan even before independence. How come all other peoples choose partitioning, while we remain stuck in this accursed unity?
Interviewer: You are calling the unity of Sudan "accursed unity"?
Al-Tayyib Mustafa: Yes. How come most of the countries that were separated did so without the shedding of a single drop of blood? We are talking about very small countries. Take Serbia and Montenegro. Only 620,000 people live in Montenegro. It is tiny, compared to Khartoum, yet it split away from Serbia, without a single drop of blood being shed. Why do we continue to torment ourselves? Why don't we emerge from this dark tunnel, full of venomous snakes?