(First Readings on Sudanese Identity (8
Comprehensive Peace Agreement and Personal Assassination Sudan
Hatem Babeker Awad Al - Karim
Some observers see the results of the peace negotiations as a result of the balance of weakness and their patronage by regional forces with an interest in weakening the Sudan, because it is the means to achieve safety from the integration of Sudanese-led regional forces capable of influencing Central and East Africa and capable of building security in the Red West and forming an economic, social and political bloc. Peace Agreement is seen by some observers as a step by the Sudanese forces to self-destruct because it is devoted to the fragmentation and subjugation of the Sudanese land, nation and personality of Sudan. What is the reality of the agreement that ended the war?
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) or the Naivasha Agreement is the agreement that the civil war in southern Sudan was signed by the government of Sudan led by the Sudanese National Congress Party led by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and the other side is the Sudan People's Liberation Movement led by John Garang. Did the agreement achieve peace and ended the wars? Emptied of any content and content leading to the continued existence of the Sudanese nation and the cohesion of the Sudanese personality and contribute to the dismantling of smaller units? Has the peace agreement ended the war between the north and the south and ignited in both of them more terrible and bloody wars targeting people on the basis of ethnic, religious, regional and tribal identities? Is the framework of the Machakos Protocol signed in Kenya on July 20, 2002, where both sides agreed that it is the framework for their negotiation, laying down principles of governance that will lead to democratic transformation, stability and building an effective and developed society? Is the process of transition established to the values of building and development or is it equivalent to warlords here and there? And the structures of government that were created were capable of building a real state and did I benefit from the Sudanese people's agreement? Is the right to self-determination for the people of southern Sudan sufficient to decide above the elite of warlords here? Is the issue of religion and state is the core issue of the Sudanese people and is it a popular issue or an intellectual luxury for the elite and the ignorant? Did IGAD deal with the root causes of the conflict reflect the facts or the special agenda of the Sudanese parties and neighboring countries with an interest in dismantling Sudan? Did Procol Machakos establish a deal between the two parties that conducted the hideous civil war on the basis of confronting the identities and dismantling and assassinating the Sudanese character?
What are the special circumstances of the two sides of the civil war in southern Sudan, which led them to sign the peace agreement - the SPLM and the National Congress? What is the legitimacy on the basis of which the SPLM and the National Congress signed the six agreements on behalf of the people of Sudan, especially that the SPLM was established by the legitimacy of the guerrilla war - the armed revolution - on 15 May 1983 and the National Congress was created by a military coup ideological on 30 June 1989, A democratic mandate to disrupt the Sudan and stop the growth of the Sudanese nation and the assassination of the Sudanese personality?
The agreements signed between the National Congress and the SPLM known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement are: The Machakos Protocol: signed in Machakos, Kenya, on 20 July 2002 and the Security Arrangements Protocol signed in Naivasha, Kenya, on 25 September 2003. And the Wealth Sharing Protocol: signed in Naivasha, Kenya, on 7 January 2004. And Power Sharing Protocol: signed in Naivasha, Kenya, on 26 May 2004. Protocol for the resolution of the conflict in South Kordofan / Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State: signed in Naivasha, Kenya, on 26 May 2004. And Abyei Dispute Resolution Protocol: signed in Naivasha, Kenya, on 26 May 2004. A mechanism for the implementation of these protocols has resulted in three agreements that the parties to the agreement envisage will lead to a comprehensive peace: the first: permanent ceasefire arrangements; and the second: on the implementation of all protocols signed and the conclusion of the agreement on permanent cease-fire arrangements , And the third convention: on international / regional safeguards .. It is true that the parties to the agreement faithfully implemented the transitional period and divided power, wealth and governance they and their allies of the political forces, but they insisted on the rule that they conducted the armed conflict against the will of the people of Sudan Arab-Islamic identity in the face of non-Islamic African identity. A constitution was promulgated in 2005 without the people taking any action and taking the initiative. Some have spoken of the misapplication of peace agreements. We are opposed to this perception because we believe that the misrepresentation of the conflict and the nature of its administration is the real problem. The public prosecution's perception of the legitimacy of the use of force to impose a unilateral vision does not legitimize negotiation on behalf of the Sudanese people unless we imagine the coup in Khartoum and carrying arms in the forests of the south. The people of Sudan and the abolition of the people of Sudan, but made him enslaved hostage by the parties do what they want and here lies the problem that the parties have their own agenda to dismantle the Sudan for the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), a governmental body expressed countries with geo-strategic conflicts with Undoubtedly, it has an interest in dismantling the Sudan into several weaker countries and units in order to impose its agenda against the interests of the Sudanese people and the first to assassinate the establishment of this vision to deal with Sudan's civil war,
It is difficult to launch quick and effective final provisions for the cause of war and peace in the Sudan in view of the settlement sponsored by the IGAD countries, but in view of the results and effects of the Sudanese personality, they destroyed the historical torment of the coexistence of the components of Sudan's population which worked through the ages through the common deniers of coexistence and nation building, Is the appropriate answer to the cause of war and peace
Sudan, on the contrary, is completely the conspiracy against the Sudanese man, his history and his future, but the agreement leaders to assassinate the Sudanese Sudanese character by proposing the wrong solution according to the vision of Jafari Tamri, which works to eliminate the existence of Sudan and to prevent clashes between its population components in the North and the South. This was not a comprehensive peace agreement as they claimed. In the north of Sudan and South Sudan and between the two countries has established the Convention of the total chaos and the dismantling of the African continent because the entrance was a sinner rooting for the conflict of the Ethiopians in all the land of Sudan and kills the Sudanese identity and supports terrorism and extremism.
We continue
Comments
Post a Comment