|
|
 جون ليث (John Leuth) القائم بالأعمال بسفارة السودان بواشنطون و خلافه مع جون قرنق
|
 
http://visions.isualum.org/fall02/twovoices.asp
2002
TWO VOICES
IN THE LONGEST CIVIL WAR IN THE WORLD
The crowd of 1000 Sudanese and a few Americans packed the Memorial Union's Great Hall and broke into spontaneous song and thunderous applause when their hero -- John Garang -- told them about his vision for southern Sudan.
On March 23, John de Mabior Garang, the founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and its army, and a 1981 graduate of ISU, returned to his alma mater. “The movement is on track,” he told his audience, who had come from throughout the midwest to hear him speak. “We are united at home; you must unite here.”
But one member of his audience – also an ISU graduate, and also a passionate southern Sudanese – disagrees. The movement to liberate southern Sudan from its oppressor is not on track, says John Lueth (M.S. 1983, political science), and his countrymen are far from united. “The movement is in shambles,” he says. “We are not united. We do not have a diplomatic core that can topple the northern regime.”
The two men – once best friends – are separated by their experiences, philosophies, and thousands of miles. Garang leads a guerilla army and an oppressed people. Lueth is a financial advisor for Iowa State. In his spare time, he crisscrosses the United States and Canada, lecturing and lobbying about his homeland – where he has been afraid to return for the past 20 years.
The two men share a love for a country that has become one of the most tragic and terrorized places in the world. The country has been at war for 33 of the past 44 years, and in the last 18 years, the war and accompanying famine have taken 2 million lives. The region has displaced more people than in any other conflict in history: 4.5 million Sudanese have been uprooted from their homes. Starvation and forced inscription of children to the military are rampant. Slavery is the suspected reason for the disappearance of thousands of women and children.
'What kind of independence is this?'
John Lueth traces the country’s long, sad history back to 1947, the year he was born. That year, the British – who had ruled the country for the previous 50 years – gave the country its independence and attempted to unite the northern and southern parts. But the two regions are as different as it is possible for two countries to be. The northern Sudanese are light-skinned, Arabic-speaking, and predominately Muslim.
The southerners practice a variety of indigenous faiths and Christianity; they are dark-skinned Africans who speak English and a variety of tribal languages.
The geography is also different, and helped determine the country’s fate. The flat desert of the north had made it possible for the British to subdue – and subsequently educate and westernize – the northern Sudanese to a greater degree than the south. The mountains and dense, fertile bush of the Nile-rich south had provided safe haven for militant villagers who have historically resisted British rule. The British gladly handed over all education functions of the south to Christian missionaries. Southern economic development was almost non-existent.
It was not surprising then, that when it came time to hand over the reins of power, that the British would hand them to the northerners, who represented less threat and who were more educationally and economically sophisticated. And it was not surprising that the fierce southerners would immediately resist their new rulers – this time northern Sudanese. “The southern people said, ‘What kind of independence is this?’” says Lueth, “and they became mad.” When Lueth was 7 years old, a serious southern mutiny closed all the schools, and initiation to school was postponed for a year. By the time he was in middle school, using or teaching English in the schools was forbidden. “The intensity of the hatred became very bad,” remembers Lueth. The long war had begun in earnest.
The son of an educated Christian missionary, Lueth grew up speaking a number of tribal languages in addition to English. Because his father traveled throughout the country, Lueth and his family did not share the fierce loyal tribalism that defined many of his countrymen. By the time he was 13, Lueth wanted only one thing: to fight northern domination. “I wanted to join the rebels in the bush, but they said, ‘You are too young; go get some education and come back later,’” Lueth remembers.
Lueth did come back later, and by the time he was 17 he was a lieutenant in the movement. He understood guerrilla warfare: how to blow up bridges, how to defend the countryside, how to buy ammunitions, how to attack convoys and take weapons. He became a highly educated and valued leader of the movement, receiving military training in Israel and a master’s degree in military science. He was consistently at the top of his class, and spoke English, French, Lingala, Kiswahili, and Arabic.
Garang had also been pursuing higher education, but in a different way. He had joined the masses of students who fled Sudan in the early ’60s at the height of the religious persecution and had graduated from high school in Tanzania. From there, he went to Iowa’s Grinnell College to work on a B.A. in economics.
The first time John Lueth met John Garang, it was with a great deal of suspicion. Garang was a student from Grinnell College, visiting Lueth’s military camp with a group of journalists, and toting a video camera. Camp officials began their relationship with the young college student by arresting him. “We soon released him and his colleagues,” remembers Lueth. “We said, ‘You are innocent people; why don’t you come and help us?’”
The movement was interrupted by a 1972 peace agreement with the north that would last for 10 tense years. The military forces of the north and south were combined into one military. From the beginning, the provisions of the agreement caused discord. As the southern armed forces were absorbed, its highest-ranking military officers were demoted. One of the few exceptions was John Lueth, whose language and military skills were noted by the northern regime. His rank was raised from 1st lieutenant to a three-star captain, and he became responsible for training and administering examinations to the country’s young soldiers, including John Garang. The two men became friends and colleagues. When Garang returned to Iowa to attend ISU, Lueth helped care for his family.
Lueth was highly valued by the northern regime. When Garang and the late John Timmons, ISU professor of agricultural economics, recruited him to come to ISU in 1981, his U.S. visa was facilitated by no less than the president of Sudan. “Overnight, I found myself at Iowa State,” remembers Lueth.
By then, John Garang had received his Ph.D. in economics from Iowa State and had returned to Sudan, where violence and anger were boiling – threatening to shatter the uneasy peace accord. The southerners had learned that, without their knowledge, the northern administration had secretly signed an agreement with Egypt to dig the Jonglei Canal, which would siphon water from the southern Sudan swamps and send it to the northern desert and to Egypt.
In addition to the canal betrayal, the northerners had begun to forcibly relocate the absorbed southern troops to live and work in the north. “They discovered that if all the southerners stayed in the south, it didn’t look like one country,” said Lueth. “So they tried to mix people up. But the southerners didn’t want to go to the north. They became very angry.
“By the time I left for the United States, I knew that in a short time, people were going to fight again,” says Lueth.
When violence erupted in 1983, the military called upon its most educated officers to help quell the conflict. Because he was a southerner, the administration believed Dr. John Garang would be the most successful officer to quell a mutiny of 500 southern troops in Bor, who were resisting orders to be sent to the north. When Garang arrived in Bor, the troops restrained him, demanding that he stay with them instead of returning to the north. He did not resist. Instead of quelling the rebellion, Garang joined it and encouraged mutinies in other areas. The 10 years of peace were officially at an end; another long, bloody war resumed. Today, Garang is recognized as the founder and chairman of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement. He is the commander-in-chief of its army, which has grown to a force of more than 70,000.
The years that followed have been catastrophic, with southerners fighting not only against the northerners, but among themselves as well. “A power struggle began almost immediately after John Garang took over,” says Lueth. Many educated southern officers were executed by the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). “John found himself the only literate person, and it was hard to organize the movement. They became preoccupied with security. Before others could join, it had become a one-man organization. Educated people were not welcome; they were seen as a threat.”
Lueth, studying political science at ISU, learned that his country was coming unraveled under the command of his friend. “All of my colleagues got killed in a very short time. Not by Arabs, but by the SPLA. So when I wanted to go back to the movement, people who loved me and cared for me said, ‘Don’t come. You will not make a difference.’”
‘A guerilla fighter is like a fish in water, and the water is the people.’
The suddenness of the revolution, and what Lueth sees as Garang’s lack of experience and readiness to be its leader, are only partial reasons for southern Sudan’s lack of unity. “We – southern Sudan – have never been a nation,” says Lueth. “Our nationalities are our tribes.” While the northerners are united by their language and religion – Arabic and Islam – and by the shared experience of their education, the southerners’ loyalties and experiences are fragmented. Tribes speak different languages. Christianity, which is not the majority religion, is not the unifying force that Islam is in the north.
“We must love ourselves as one people with things we cherish among ourselves, and which make us a nation,” says Lueth.
In the 19 years since the SPLA was born, it has gained a reputation for disregarding human rights with dozens of human rights organizations, as well as with the U.S. State Department. While subjugation by the northern army is the root cause of the war, there are many charges that Garang’s SPLA has been responsible for killing southern Sudanese villagers, taking slaves (of a differing, insubordinate tribe), diverting food meant to alleviate the suffering and starvation of southerners for military purposes, and kidnapping children to use as soldiers. In its 279-page study titled “Civilian Devastation: Abuses by all Parties in the War in Southern Sudan,” Human Rights Watch/Africa devotes 169 pages to “SPLA violations of the rules of war.”
“The leadership of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement has committed itself repeatedly to eliminating these problems,” reports a 2001 U.S. State Department report on human rights practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. “However, in practice it appears unable to impose consistently those commitments in the field.”
“Garang’s military is irresponsible and undisciplined,” says Lueth. “When I was in the early guerilla movement, we followed the teachings of Mao, who said, ‘A guerilla fighter is like a fish in water, and the water is the people.’ If you don’t have the trust of the people, you are lost. The SPLA has robbed and killed the very people it must depend on.”
Garang bristles at the suggestion that there is any problem in Sudan other than northern oppression. “If someone sits on my shoulders and holds me down, who is the problem?” he asked in a VISIONS interview. “The person sitting on me, or I – who am being sat on?
“The north has used the issue of tribalism to divide and rule. It’s not a new strategy,” says Garang. “When people concentrate only on what they call the south/south conflict, they miss the point. They don’t see the big picture.”
Responding to questions about human rights abuses by the SPLA, Garang answers, “We are a human rights movement. We went to the bush in 1983 to fight for human rights and human dignity. We cannot violate the rights of fellow citizens while it is their rights that are violated by Khartoum (the capital of northern Sudan).
“There have been incidents of human rights abuses in the movement – we are commanding an army of 70,000, and have been in this war for 19 years. It would not be strange for such abuses to occur. Do we have mechanisms to correct such abuses? Yes we do.”
Changing the equations of power: Sept. 11 and oil
If Garang and Lueth are divided in their analysis of the health of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and its army, they also disagree about strategies that will free their country. Both men are well aware of two developments that have dramatically altered equations of power between Sudan and the rest of the world: the potentially positive effects of Sept. 11 and the horrific effects of stepped-up oil production.
Sept. 11: A window of opportunity
Garang’s stop at ISU in March was sandwiched between meetings with high-ranking U.S. officials – including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Defense Secretary Colin Powell – and dignitaries in London, Brussels, and Oslo. The purpose of the world tour was to take advantage of what he calls “a window of opportunity” created by Sept. 11.
Suddenly, there are new, compelling reasons for northern Sudan to enter the good graces of the United States. After Sept. 11, being identified as an extremist Muslim nation meant also potentially becoming a target of the United States’ war on terrorism. “Khartoum was afraid that they might be treated like the Taliban,” says Garang. “They started to cooperate with the United States and provide information about Bin Ladin and the al-Qaida.”
The United States can use northern Sudan’s conciliatory, post-Sept. 11 attitude to broker peace between the south and the north, says Garang. Also, if the north backs away from its identity as an extremist Islamic regime, this may also translate into relief from religious persecution for Christians in the south.
Oil production results in genocide
The fairly recent development and production of southern oil reserves in the Upper Nile by the north has also changed the equation of power. In the last few years, the north has developed a “scorched earth” policy, wiping out whole villages that stand in the way of oil development. In the past year, approximately 400,000 Nuer (a southern tribe) have been displaced and thousands more have been killed. The “blood oil” is being purchased by the west, including the United States, because one of the developers is on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Millions of dollars of oil revenues have allowed the north to acquire sophisticated weapons, which have been used to exterminate whole villages.
The atrocities resulting from the blood oil have helped prompt warring southern tribes to unite against an enemy that is growing stronger. “People who have been adversaries are realizing they are one people,” says Lueth.
‘We will never be one people’
In spite of Garang’s dislike and distrust of the northern regime, he believes negotiation is possible. “The government in Khartoum has not changed and will not change. But that not withstanding, we are willing to negotiate,” he says. Garang believes that international pressures and the strength of the popular uprising will prompt the north to negotiate, in much the same way that the former white government of South Africa negotiated with Mandela.
But the nature of the peace Garang is negotiating worries Lueth. One of Garang’s plans, for example, involves forming a national democratic alliance between the north and south, with a certain amount of “self determination” for the south (including religious freedom) rather like the relationship between the state governments of the United States and the U.S. federal government. Eventually, the country would vote on complete separation of the two regions.
But Lueth does not believe that a democratic vote would ever result in southern succession – the only solution he believes is viable. “It is in the interest of the north [for Sudan] to continue to be one country, because the south is rich with water and oil; they will never vote for two countries,” says Lueth. “No constitution will ever secure our rights, because the legislature is controlled by the northerners. We will never be one people; there is no fit. Our values are too different. The north will enforce the language of Arabic and the religion of Islam on us, because they are the majority, and the majority rules.“The integrity and nationality of the southern people can be preserved only by having an independent southern Sudan.”
But specialists on the subject of Sudan say that the likelihood of Lueth’s dream of two Sudans becoming reality is slim. “It’s unlikely that the U.S. would support two [Sudanese] states,” says Jemera Rone, counsel with Human Rights Watch/Africa. Egypt is an influential force in the world and in the United States, says Rone. Egypt will always resist splitting the two countries, because the country needs the water from the Nile of the southern region, and the African southerners are more difficult to negotiate with than the Arabic northerners.
And so the two men – who love the same country – go their separate ways. Garang has returned home to Sudan after his world tour, where he says he is beginning to build schools. “Our children cannot wait for peace. They must go to school now.”
But Garang’s nation-building process has come too late, says Lueth. “The power of the movement is concentrated in just one man, who is afraid to relinquish his power. He is preoccupied with his position, and that’s not how a leader should be.”
Over the years, John Lueth has asked his friend John Garang if there were a place for him in the movement. His questions have been met with silence.
“I don’t give up,” says Lueth. “All of these years, I’m believing that maybe next year I’ll go home. I dream that maybe one day things will change. But dreams are not the things of a leader.”
Lueth has made his own place in the movement, from his unlikely vantage point in Ames, Iowa, lobbying against Sudanese blood oil in which U.S. citizens unknowingly invest. He has been called upon to testify before congressional hearings, and is a popular speaker with college students and church groups.
He still considers John Garang his friend. The two men care about each other’s families, and their history binds them together. But Lueth has serious doubts that the course Garang has taken will free their people.
“Somebody has to wither away in order for the rest to succeed. If this movement continues this way for another two or three years, the whole movement will wither away.
“If I got a call from my people, saying, ‘We need you, John,’ then I would go home.”
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: جون ليث (John Leuth) القائم بالأعمال بسفارة السودان بواشنطون و خلافه مع جون قرنق (Re: Kostawi)
|
Interview: Sudan’s U.S. Ambassador Says Darfur Crisis Exaggerated
Interviewee: John Ukec Lueth Ukec
Interviewer: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor
The Council on Foreign Relations
June 5, 2007
Sudan’s ambassador to the United States, John Ukec Lueth Ukec, was a member of the rebellion in his country’s South until the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 ended decades of civil war. Now, as part of the National Unity Government created in the deal, Ukec defends Khartoum’s policy in Darfur. Ukec denies his government supports militias that continue to attack civilians in Darfur, says the splintering of rebel groups complicates the peace process, and that added U.S. and other sanctions only hamper the government’s efforts to prepare for crucial national elections at the end of next year.
QUESTION: What are the prospects for the deployment of a hybrid UN-AU force in Darfur in the near future?
According to my government’s stance on this issue, we have already agreed that a support group of about three thousand [international peacekeeping personnel] is going to go to Darfur. That is a given. It is already done. What remains is for the UN and the African Union to get involved, so that member countries provide the necessary [logistical help]. I don’t think that there is any argument over what we have already agreed.
QUESTION: This is the heavy support package that was discussed…
This is part of the heavy support package. After that, there is the third phase whereby the maximum number of troops would be allowed in.
QUESTION: Your government agreed to that back in April and we’re in June now. It’s not clear when this package or this initial force will deploy. What is holding up the deployment?
It is not the Sudanese job to go to neighboring friends and countries of the African Union and the UN asking for the troops to be brought. It is the system of the UN and the African Union who are responsible for asking their member countries to contribute troops which they then deploy. I believe I read in one of the papers that the UN was talking about four to six months. Just to provide this three thousand. So it is not our fault the troops have not been deployed. There are no orders from my governments preventing the deployment. After all, these guys, these troops are coming in as support. They are coming to support the African Union peacekeeping force, and if Sudan goes around asking individual countries to be the one, then it will be considered biased. It is up to the UN to do the job, it is not us.
QUESTION: On announcing new sanctions, U.S. officials said it is not only a question of this UN hybrid force, but also government moves to help disarm the Janjaweed, to not attack rebel groups trying to help set up peace talks, to help ease the space in which humanitarian groups can operate. They say that Sudan has not shown good faith in any of these areas. How do you reply to that?
I think it is not true. We are working hard. It is not easy to disarm the rebels. The Janjaweed [Arab militias] are rebels and they are bandits, they are not part of the government of national unity. We do not have full control of them, just like we know in the United States they have not been able to stop the violence from the rebels and the militias in Iraq. We have the same problem, too.
It’s not easy to disarm a group of war rebels. It’s not easy. We are trying our best, and we are trying it politically. It is not any different from 170,000 troops which are in Iraq. Have they been able to disarm those people in the last four years?
QUESTION: At the same time there were some reports emerging from the UN that Sudanese government aircraft were directly delivering arms to militias that were carrying out attacks in Darfur.
That is a blatant lie. It has never happened. It’s not true. These are exaggerations or things which are being made up just so that Sudan looks bad so that sanctions get applied. There are a lot of lies going around. The Sudan government does not have the opportunity to continue with escalation of war. We have been in every capital in our neighboring countries—Chad, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea—all countries that can bring a dialogue between us and the rebels. We know that no number of arms will ever resolve these things. We are the first to know that. And that’s why my government agreed with the South and established the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). My government has also gone forward and made peace with those in the East who are fighting us, and the largest group of the rebels in Darfur. We already made peace with them. We are in a process of peace. These developments have not been seen by the media and the rest of the world.
QUESTION: A number of experts say there’s concern that the peace with the South, the CPA, could itself be adversely affected by the Darfur situation. They say that perhaps it would be helpful to revisit the CPA to include some power-sharing that involves the Darfur factions. What is your stance on that?
I don’t think that the CPA needs to be revisited. If we go back and open the door again on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, that is going to be a disaster. The problem now is a tiny problem in the west, which has [been involved in conflict for] four years, is overshadowing a war that lasted fifty years, with meaningful differences between North and South [a conflict pitting the Muslim North against a population in the South that was mostly Christian and animist]. The people in Darfur are Muslims, they speak Arabic, they have Arab culture, they are dedicated to all the ways Arabs do things. There is no reason why that is comparable to the South. To open this Comprehensive Peace Agreement is a disaster. Five million people died in the South, ten million displaced, fifty years of war—are these comparable to four years?
QUESTION: The fact is that Darfur is starting to approach the numbers that you had in the South. 2.5 million people have been displaced or are refugees, and there are concerns about violence spreading across the border to Chad and the Central African Republic. This is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. It’s because of what has been described as “scorched earth” policy involving numerous villages. So it is still, even by Sudanese standards, quite a big crisis.
I do not say that there is no suffering in Darfur. I never said that. I do not say that nobody dies in Darfur. I didn’t say that no rape is taking place in Darfur. All these things happened in the South, and I saw it by myself when I was there. But I am saying the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is the only way of solving problems all over Sudan. And it is being undermined now by the sanctions on Sudan.
QUESTION: So let me get this straight. You’re saying that the CPA should be seen as the basis for pacifying the rest of Sudan. You’re saying Darfur should be handled by a separate peace agreement?
No. I say Darfur, if we abide by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, [the] Darfur situation will be automatically resolved. And let me say why. First of all, this year the CPA says we have a census. Next year, by the end of next year, by the time the United States is having its presidential election, we are also about to have our [national and regional] elections. When those elections come up, there will be free elections. These free elections will give the people of Darfur the right to have a choice. Choose the right person to rule them—they will have their local, states, elections. If they want to be a region, they will have an alliance among themselves, the three states. All the potentials of democracy are in this Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Now if we say, okay, let us put sanctions on the Khartoum government, or the government of National Unity, how will government of national unity be able to [organize] the entire country, to make unity attractive, when you tie up their hands, and at the same time you say they will perform? It is not going to happen.
QUESTION: Is the government interested at this point in pursuing talks with the rebel factions in Darfur?
We are. We are, and you know, in the last two weeks alone, how many places have my [country’s] leadership gone? The minister of foreign affairs, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, the president of Sudan, Omar Bashir, they have been to Saudi Arabia, they have been to Yemen, they have been to Chad, they have been to Tripoli—the last one, they left yesterday [June 3] from Tripoli. There have been so many initiatives. And they have never refused to meet with those people. The first vice president and the president of Southern Sudan, his Excellency Salva Kiir Miyardit, has been working day and night. He has also appointed an envoy to meet with those rebels. But there is this splintering. As early as last year there were only three major groups. Now there are fifteen or more. Sometimes people say nineteen. Every night there is another splinter group coming out. When we made the agreement with the government of Sudan, we had one leader, one voice agreed upon. How can you make peace with people who are like that?
QUESTION: You described a chaotic situation with the rebels and the Janjaweed. We heard last night [June 3] the Democratic presidential candidates, a number of them saying they would support a no-fly zone over Darfur. What about that kind of approach to rein in these groups that are apparently becoming increasingly lawless and disrupting a peace process?
A no-fly zone is a bad recipe. I was a rebel, and you know, the planes that flew over my camps or shot never did anything to us because we would go to bunkers, hide, and you know the type of planes that Sudan has are all old Antonovs that you can hear over long distances—the warning, and everybody is in the shelter. The flying is not an issue because the war which is being fought is only being fought with small arms. It’s not with planes. The Sudanese Army doesn’t have any planes. Why would people be talking about that?
•
QUESTION: Well, helicopter gunships, things like that.
We have never been applying helicopter gunships, because it is a waste of resources. You can kill a helicopter with a small bullet rather than a bazooka. And no one can be searching guerillas with a helicopter gunship, it is not possible. Helicopters are very vulnerable to weapons like anti-aircraft and things like that. We don’t need to do that. We are really not on the offensive. We are only on the defensive. Those who are fighting now are the rebels. We have no reason to fight, you know, we are only at self-defense. They attack our garrisons, they attack convoys, they attack innocent civilians, and they intimidate everybody.
You have been nicknamed “Khartoum Karl” by the Washington Post.
That is very unfortunate that they call me that. I am involved in building peace. Now I don’t know why somebody who comes here to build relationships between the United States and Sudan would be called Karl of Khartoum. I am not a terrorist. I am not. I am here for peaceful solutions of problems.
•
QUESTION: Who do you talk to in the US government? Do you talk to members of Congress?
I am limited to talk to the Sudan desk [of the State Department]. I have asked to talk to [Deputy Secretary of State John] Negroponte. He has not accepted talking to me. I have asked to see the [congressional] Black Caucus leader, [Rep.] Donald Payne, (D-NJ), who was one of our friends when we were working on the Sudan Peace Act. I used to come and stay in his office. I remember so many times when television crews came and taped my word from his office. He cannot see me because I am an officer of the government of national unity. I do not understand these people.
•
QUESTION: A number of analysts say that the government of Sudan—Khartoum, the Bashir government—only responds after consistent regular pressure. And isn’t that in fact what you say in the South, dealing with the South-North conflict? That eventually, pressure yields action.
Well, during the South-North conflict, the North was, in its own way, trying to prevent any war in the entire country. It is not comparable to now. This is exactly that point which is missed by most of the people. And that is the one that perplexed me. It perplexes me because we have a government of national unity. That government of national unity, of thirty or more ministers, at least half of them—they are not from a National Congress Party. These people in the government, the SPLM alone, have eight senior ministers in the government of national unity.
The rest of the world is still working three years ago. They think the Sudan of nowadays is still the Sudan of Bashir without us joining the movement.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: جون ليث (John Leuth) القائم بالأعمال بسفارة السودان بواشنطون و خلافه مع جون قرنق (Re: Kostawi)
|
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070608/news_1m8b2briefs.html
SAN DIEGO: About 30 people protested yesterday's appearance of Sudan's ambassador to the United States, who has riled human rights watchers with comments that genocide was not happening in Darfur.
“This guy is so far removed from reality it's amazing,” said Aaron Coleman, who stood outside the Shelter Island hotel where John Ukec Leuth Ukec spoke.
Ukec, in yesterday's speech before the San Diego World Affairs Council, defended his recent statements that came after the United States announced it was placing new economic sanctions on Sudan.
The U.S. and international watchdog groups claim the Sudanese government is backing a militia that has caused 400,000 deaths and as many as 2 million people to flee Darfur.
Ukec said his government is working toward a peaceful solution and that sanctions hurt ordinary people. “We know better than people from the outside,” Ukec said.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: جون ليث (John Leuth) القائم بالأعمال بسفارة السودان بواشنطون و خلافه مع جون قرنق (Re: Kostawi)
|
الاخ كوستاوي.
الدكتور جون لوث أكيج يعتبر أحد الابطال الجنوبين الذين شاركوا في حركة أنيانيا الاولى, وهو معروف وسط ذلك الجيل بأنه القائد العسكري المحنك.
ولقد كان الشخص الوحيد الذي يستطيع أن يقوم بأدخال الاسلحة للسودان من الدول المجاورة رغم صغر سنه ورتبته في ذلك الزمن.
هذا هي السمعة التي يتمتع بها الدكتور جون أكويج وسط الجنوبين.
أنا أعتقد أن حواره مع القائد الراحل جون قرنق كان حوار مهم جدا وينصب في صالح القضية الجنوبية. وبالمناسبة مثل هذا النقاش أو الحوار أنا حضرت وشاركت في لقائات أو كما تسميها لقائات خاصة كتيرة مشابهة كان يتم النقاش فيها بنفس الطريقة.
دينق.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Kostawi
Deng
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست