Archive for: November 2014

Machar’s Rebels moot replacing Ladu Gore after fallout with Taban Deng

Featured Published on Saturday, 15 November 2014, Written by The Nation Mirror;

Disagreement between Taban Deng Gai, the SPLM-In-Opposition rebels Chief Negotiator in Peace Talks in Addis Ababa and Alfred Ladu Gore, the Deputy Chairperson of the rebels’ movement is increasingly creating suspicion and tension in the rebels’ camp.

Some quarters within the rebels’ leadership view Gen. Gore as a having the potential to create a splinter rebel faction. “The recent conflict between him (Gore) and Taban Deng Gai, is indicative of Gore’s move to break away from the mighty opposition group,” reads part of the leaked document addressed to the Director of National Security Service SPLM/A-IO in Addis Ababa which The Nation Mirror obtained copy of.

The disagreement started when Alfred Ladu Gore expressed dissatisfaction after Taban Deng sidelined him in the affairs of the SPLM/A-IO while Riek Machar was in South Africa. “He (Gore) charged Taban to be running the affairs of the movement without consultation from him as the deputy chair while Dr. Riek Machar was away on official mission to the Republic of South Africa,” reads part of the leaked document.

The document says that Taban Deng is unhappy that Alfred Ladu was appointed Deputy Chairman of the movement.

Taban argues that the Equatorians are not present in the field therefore don’t deserve the second position in the movement.

“The Internal fight between Alfred and Taban is also being discussed by various circles in the Equatorians and Nuer Community in Kenya and Kampala and we have taken note,” read the document.

The leaked intelligence Memo sent to Director of National Security Service of SPLM/A-IO; REF: 0012/10/2014; alleges that Alfred Ladu Gore is a communist driven by self-interest and should not be trusted.

“Gore had communist ideology of emancipation of human consideration, personal interests of individuals as superior to the state’s interests. This led to his past defection and call for Equatorians’ rebellion against the SPLM/A under Garang,” read part of the document.

(It should be recalled that Dr. John Garang detained and imprisoned Lado Gore for nearly seven years during the liberation war, mainly in Boma and other areas. However, no charges were brought against Lado Gore until he was finally released- Ed).

The document stresses that Gore once led a shortsighted rebellion during the South Sudan struggle against the Khartoum regimes. “It has been noted well that, this shortsighted rebellion of Equatorians under Alfred Lado did not succeed…” reported the leaked document.

“These tendencies are assessed and still exist within Gen. Gore’s thinking in a very extreme and divisive way.”

The document alleges that Equatorians following Gore are unhappy that he supports the Nuer-led rebellion and instead he should join the government.

“Equatorians have strong and extreme views that, Alfred Ladu should just leave and abandon the movement and join the government. According to our sources, there was an Equatorian delegation led by the Governor of Eastern Equatoria State Brig. Gen. Louis Lobong which visited Northern Kenya with their counterparts to discuss peace between Taposa and Turkana and also planned how SPLM-IO plans can be countered between Kenya and South Sudan,” read part of the leaked document.

The same report alleged that Taban Deng might have ignored Ladu Gore on the basis that it is Nuer sons dying each day fighting the Juba Kiir’s government. Equatorians, according to the leaked document, are waiting to earn where they have not worked.

“Well, he has a point to make as the Deputy Chairman but what is the level of Equatorians’ contributions into the current rebellion under him? Taban Deng must have ignored him on the grounds that, Nuer are the ones dying and must have the lion’s share in these rebellions than those who just came to wait for their kingdom to come (overthrow of Kiir’s government). This is a usual issue for Equatorians when it comes to the liberation struggle, they never want to participate in offering one of them to die for freedom but like to get the lion’s share when the mission is accomplished by others,” read part of the leaked security document.

The document recommends that Alfred Ladu Gore should be dismissed or put on deceptive glory as to attract the Equatorians support to the movement.

“We strongly feel that, the conflict between Taban and Gore should be brought to rest by either replacing Gore and let him go or by playing deceptive tactics within to keep him around to lure Equatorians to support the movement as we are now in critical decisive fight against the government of Salva Kiir”, read the document.

Adding, “Critical decision-making issues should not be shared with him or his group in Nairobi and Kampala because such secrets may be leaked to the government,” the document stresses. END

(FROM EDITOR: This article is being widely circulated by the SPLM-DC members and its authenticity can’t be fully confirmed. SouthSudanNation.com decided to publish its only for its readers to decide.)

Disposition of Wani Igga or other positions shouldn’t be redlined

BY: John Adoor Deng, Australia, NOV/15/2014, SSN;

In recent days, the wishers of South Sudan peace saw a glimpse of hope igniting a possible return of lost peace to the dying people of South Sudan. Unlike other peace talks and summits, recent East African leaders, Summit appeared to have yielded considerable fruits. For the very first time, both President Kiir and Dr Machar were seen showing an inch of their white teeth in a cordial smile. Other protagonists known to have red-eyed each other in the previous talks, have shown courage in recent days to mixed warmth of their hands in hands shakes with one another.

Also, the few women who have attended the mini-signing ceremony at Addis-Ababa demonstrated their happiness by giggling and clubbing. The mood at the hall was notable and fervently peace encouraging.

Although other factors such as pressures or call it striking hammer from IGAD countries, AU and UN Security Council, are believed to have precipitated the mood. Arguably, one could still believe that out of pressures, South Sudanese at the peace talks were in one accord to bring peace back to their country.

Surprisingly, we are confused by post-Summit utterances from Juba and from the Rebels side respectively. One notorious example of these utterances is the notion of equating the possible removal of Hon Wani Igga as redline!!

What is redlining in the South Sudanese politics? This phrase ‘red line ‘has been used extensively and inappropriately in the conflict. Correctively, let look at the etymology of the Phrase ‘redline’ before unpacking why it is inappropriate to be used for Hon Wani Igga. The phrase ‘Red line is used, both in Hebrew (קו אדום‎, Kav Adom) and English to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or “a limit past which safety can no longer be guaranteed.”

If this meaning is what is implied by those referring to the removal of Wani Igga as redline, then chances of domesticating peace to South Sudan would be extremely narrow. Truthfully, to make peace long lasting, institutions or factions involved in the peace making must first achieve a balance of powers–an interlocking of mutual.

For example, accommodate demands that would implicitly concede one’s superiority or may make completely unjust demands in the hope that through compromise long lasting peace is achieved. If there is genuine calling or questing for peace, then positions of individuals do not amount to be a hindrance. Peace only comes through readjustments, change of status quo, in other words, peace grows well on a new surface.

I, therefore, think there is nobody’s position is to be above peace in the context of South Sudan. Our dying masses do not want Wani Igga or Riek Machar or even president Kiir Mayardit as substitutes for peace, but they are in their languishing conditions calling for genuine peace for their survival.

Nobody’s position, whether current positions or future positions should be regarded as untouchable or redlined at the expense of peace.

Finally, brothers and Sisters in the peace talks or leadership of both factions, bring genuine peace to South Sudan not for you but for the innocent victims who are now dying of starvation and diseases. Whoever is preventing these innocent to enjoy peace in their country should be redlined Not positions of certain elites.

The Author is John Adoor Deng, director of Civil Society Organization in Australia, Former President of Sudanese community of Queensland INC, & Former Interim President of the Federation of Sudanese Australian communities. He is reachable at: dengjohn780@gmail.com

Causes of Current War: Tribal Politics & Idea of Leadership in South Sudanese Society

BY: MALITH KUR, LONDON, Canada, NOV/14/2014, SSN;

The current state of affairs in South Sudan hasn’t come as a surprise, but it’s a manifestation of the ugly face of the political class in our nation. It’s shown that the idea of leadership in South Sudanese society is the antithesis of political leadership in other nations. It’s out of this conception of leadership that South Sudan has faced this crisis before its third independence anniversary.

What follows identifies the causes of this unfortunate crisis. It also proposes possible steps forward to re-establish peace in South Sudan.

Tribal Politics:
The reason the country is facing this situation is that South Sudanese politicians, and most of us for that matter, define leadership in terms of tribal and regional affiliations. We do not have a national agenda when it comes to politics in the country.

What we have is a glorification of some politicians, which is what most of us take seriously. A politician’s achievement doesn’t matter in South Sudanese politics; what matters is where in the country a politician comes from.

If we take John Garang as our example, we see that he is popular now because he is dead; otherwise, he isn’t a popular leader, given his regional or tribal backgrounds.

Although his political strategies had paved the way for our independence, his contribution would have been irrelevant if he were alive and led the country today.

Throughout the years of the struggle, his leadership was considered as a continuation of Dinka domination, but no one wanted to speak about the number of Dinkas who died fighting for South Sudan’s independence.

In historical reality, however, the so-called Dinka domination remains a political myth if one takes a brief tour of South Sudan’s recent history.

History of Political Leadership in South Sudan
It’s true that tribal political orientation is at the heart of the current crisis. However, this crisis has its roots in the history of political leadership in South Sudan. This history does not go beyond 1955 because South Sudan did not have formal governmental structures then.

Formal leadership began, for instance, when Equatorians led the Anyanya I Movement in Torit in 1955. Nonetheless, when the Addis Ababa Agreement brought peace, Jaafar Numeri appointed Abel Alier to lead the subsequent, tenuous self-rule administration in the then Southern Sudan beginning in 1972-78.

For political reasons, Numeri dismissed Abel Alier and appointed Joseph Lagu, former leader of Anyanya I, in his place in 1978. Alier came back few years later, but he was removed again by presidential degree.

When Alier and Lagu were gone, Joseph James Tambura assumed the leadership in the South.

Following these political changes, the Addis Ababa Agreement was dissolved, and the re-division of the South into three regions occurred under Tambura’s watch in 1982 before the second civil war began in 1983.

When the second civil war started, John Garang emerged as the leader of the SPLM until his demise in 2005. After the death of John Garang, Salva Kiir assumed the leadership of the SPLM. Kiir’s ascension to power followed the hierarchical design of the SPLM leadership.

Now, if you look at this historical sketch of governance in South Sudan since Anyanya I, the communities out of which top leaders emerged are Madi among the Bari speaking groups, Azande, and Dinka.

The historical truth here is that none of these communities made any efforts to help those politicians come to power. Why is this important to mention? It is important because this is where the root causes of the current crisis lie.

Causes of this war
First, no member of Nuer ethnic group has ever taken top position in South Sudan. Therefore, some members of the Nuer community want this to happen now.

The demand for Riek Machar to become South Sudanese president is the real cause of the war, which has nothing to do with the democratization of the SPLM as a political party. The myth of Dinka domination has strengthened this resolve.

Consequently, South Sudanese, who lost their lives in Juba in December 2013, cannot be the cause of this war because most of the dead were soldiers taking part in active combat with the security forces.

Second, one-party dictatorship has developed in South Sudan. SPLM in South Sudan has become like the ANC in South Africa. A politician in South Africa must first become the leader of ANC before dreaming of leading the country. The SPLM has assumed this character.

For this reason, every politician in South wants some association with the SPLM. We now have the SPLM-DC, the SPLM-in-Opposition, the SPLM leaders, and who knows some other funny names of the SPLM may come up later. The role of the SPLM as a source of power is another major cause of the current war in South Sudan.

Third, the other causes of the war are political impunity, corruption, and weak state institutions. These factors are playing a major part in the current crisis. The weak institutions of governance in South Sudan provide fertile grounds for political violence.

None of the politicians leading the current uprising or those who are protecting the regime expect responsibility for their actions. No one will hold them accountable for anything.

Fourth, proxy warfare did not end with the independence of South Sudan. Sudan’s territorial ambitions in relation to disputed areas remain a catalyst of instability in South Sudan.

People who rebel in South Sudan, for whatever reason, will have no shortage of arms coming to them from Sudan. Unstable South Sudan allows Sudan to keep Abyei and Panthou (Heglig, to the Sudan. Ed.).

As long as the political class in South Sudan places its interest in power over the future of the country and the welfare of its citizens, this war will not end.

Fifth, South Sudan has ten states with a population of approximately 12 million people, which means that each state could have an average of 1.2 million inhabitants. However, we are asking for more while we know that the country relies on oil revenues.

This demand has raised a number of questions. What economic energy will those small states have? Where the money is going to come from to fund those states? These are not new questions.

South Sudanese who opposed the decentralization policies of 1980s raised them. They asked these questions because what South Sudan needed then, and still needs now are not more divisions but development. South Sudan needs a way out of this mess.

The Way forward
South Sudan needs unconditional peace now, not tomorrow, and the search for peace must be a people-driven exercise. The people of South Sudan must be the first stakeholders in the decision-making process when it comes to the settlement of the current crisis.

The parties to the conflict who are negotiating in Addis Ababa are not interested in peace, but war to gain power or maintain it. In the end, those who will continue to suffer are South Sudanese, who have nothing to gain in this senseless destruction.

Furthermore, what we can do, as responsible citizens, to avoid unnecessary political troubles is to leave political ambitions in the hands of politicians. Individual political leadership is not a tribal responsibility. Politicians are responsible for their political programmes.

As we search for peace, we need to avoid for two reasons the impression that there is a war between Dinka and Nuer:

First, South Sudan does not belong to Dinka and Nuer. It is a community of different ethnic groups bound to live together in peace and prosperity.

Second, Dinka and Nuer as communities are not responsible for political differences in the government. But if some members of the Nuer community want to fight against the government of South Sudan, that would be their choice that has nothing to do with all Nuers because all South Sudanese are in that government.

Most of the time we blame the political class inside South Sudan, but the Diaspora South Sudanese community needs to avoid incitement of violence. People inside South Sudan do not want war, but the people who are recruiting children to fight on their behalf, children who are supposed to be in school, rely on Diaspora’s political support.

South Sudanese Diaspora communities have become reliable constituents for the opposition forces inside the country. They have become their gateway to promote their destructive cause, but what South Sudan needs is a peaceful change, which promotes co-existence instead of division and killing.

In our collective search for meaningful political change, we need to understand that change is a process. It takes time to build democratic institutions and establish fair political practices. Violent opposition is not a political change but destruction.

In this context, South Sudan needs to discourage the creation of ethnically motivated federal system. It has the potential to cause more problems than solving the ones we already have.

Federalism in South Sudan is not the prerogative of those who are engaged in a power struggle; it is the prerogative of South Sudanese and their elected representatives.

South Sudanese do not need to be told how to be ruled; they must tell the politicians how they should be ruled.

South Sudanese are the principal stakeholders in the debate about federalism. A federal system South Sudanese have sanctioned provides the central government and the state governments with certain responsibilities to manage the affairs of the country within the boundaries of national laws that promote South Sudanese nationalism that transcends ethnicity.

South Sudan as a society should take these steps as part of comprehensive political reforms, constitutional review, and national reconciliatory process, which must lay the foundation for social reconstruction of South Sudanese society.

By Malith Kur (malith_kur@yahoo.ca)
London, Canada

SPLM-IO proposes removal of Vice Pres. Wani Igga, so Machar is next

ADDIS ABABA, RADIO TAMAZUJ, NOV/11/2014, SSN;

Latest BREAKING NEWS: The SPLM-In-Opposition faction led by Riek Machar have dropped their demand for President Salva Kiir to step down but now propose instead the removal of Vice President James Wani Igga as well as the elimination of the vice presidency itself.

Igga was appointed vice president in August 2013, a month after President Salva Kiir sacked his deputy Riek Machar. He belongs to the same party as Kiir but hails from a different region of the country, Central Equatoria.

Now the armed opposition faction SPLM-IO is calling for his removal as part of a power-sharing deal that is being negotiated at peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

“We believe that the positions of the Vice President and the two deputies to the Prime Minister will complicate the working relations between the two principals [Kiir and Machar] and therefore should be expunged from the government structure,” SPLM/A-IO chief negotiator Taban Deng announced on Monday.

Taban argued that SPLM-IO has already made “strategic concessions” on the issue of the powers of the Prime Minister, during the most recent talks held at the IGAD Summit meeting in Addis Ababa late last week.

In particular, SPLM-IO conceded their earlier demands that Riek Machar should be considered head of government and chair the Council of Ministers.

“This means that we have given him [Kiir] everything. He is now the head of state and the head of government. We have nothing to concede more,” said Taban Deng at a press conference in Addis Ababa on Monday.

He noted that Salva Kiir’s negotiators have proposed that the leadership of the transitional government should consist of a president, vice president, prime minister and two or three deputies to the prime minister.

Taban opposed this structure saying it would “lead into confusion,” adding, “too many cooks spoil the broth.”

He called on Kiir’s party to make ‘sacrifices’ to reciprocate SPLM-IO’s concessions and bring peace. He compared the proposal to remove Igga to a Sudanese precedent, in which the vice president in 2005 was demoted in order to bring rebel leader John Garang into the government.

“We have given the example of the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement]: Ali Othman was the First Vice President. But because President Bashir wanted peace in his country and he wanted the war to end he has to make that big sacrifice, removing Ali Othman and putting John Garang in his place.”

Taban Deng suggested that Igga could return to the parliament after his removal from the vice presidency: “The current vice president was the Speaker of the Parliament, and as you know Speaker of Parliament is a very high position.”

It is not yet clear whether Igga’s position is a red line for SPLM-Juba negotiators or instead some might be open to considering the proposal.

Igga was reportedly not Kiir’s first choice for the vice presidency; the current health minister Riek Gai Kok was approached to accept the position but declined.

The vice president has also been in tension with some leading Equatorian politicians. During a dispute within the ruling party in July, involving Equatorian proponents of federalism, Igga was referred to derisively by another very senior Equatorian politician who implied that he was a mere puppet of the president.

Igga is from Central Equatoria but he is not from the state capital Juba, instead hailing from Lobonok Payam south of the city.

The SPLM-Juba faction headed by Salva Kiir is yet to make a public response to the proposal to remove the position of vice president, though Igga himself has previously said he is not willing to stand aside for Riek Machar to take his place.

On a related matter, it is unclear whether the negotiators have yet discussed options for the line of succession for the proposed transitional government. Taban Deng’s proposal did not specify whether, in the absence of a vice president, the Prime Minister would be next in line for the presidency.

Such a line of succession would be unacceptable to the SPLM-Juba negotiators because it would put Riek Machar second in line to the presidency.

Meanwhile, the spokesman for the SPLM-Juba delegation Michael Makuei told press on arrival at Juba Airport yesterday that the two sides made progress in the most recent talks in Addis Ababa.

He said the talks were adjourned until 25 November to allow for further consultations on the proposed structure of the transitional government. In the meantime, a joint security committee will begin meeting to discuss implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement.

Interim government of national unity must exclude Kiir

BY: David Lokosang, South Sudan, NOV/10/2014, SSN;

I don’t understand the logic behind the proposal of the interim government of national unity as being peddled by IGAD. There is nothing called interim government of national unity unless IGAD countries just want to please both sides to the conflict and to hell with innocent civilians who were killed by Kiir’s tribe militias in Juba and those killed in Bor, Malakal, Bentiu and other areas as the result of direct retaliation to what had happened in Juba between 15 – 24 of December 2013.

Without any doubt, an ‘Interim government’ and a ‘Government of national unity’ are two completely different systems of government serving different purposes.

Interim Government
The main difference between an Interim government and the government of national unity is this:
an Interim government normally is formed when a country has gone into and through serious national crises such that the leadership in charge or the government in charge created a mess and is therefore incapable to bring a solution.

In such a situation, therefore, either the president is to resign or the whole government is to resign and then the ‘Interim government’ is formed out of and by a neutral body (preferably technocrats) to clean up the mess and put up a good strategy how to govern the country effectively and efficiently.

The interim period would be normally one and half or two years. The responsibility of the interim government is to run the affairs of the state during the interim period, and includes all the stake-holders who would be tasked to prepare a new constitution, a system of governance, the laws governing political parties, form an electoral body and make necessary arrangement for national election at the end of the interim period.

For instance, when former Sudanese president Nimeiri was ousted in April 1985, Gen. Thowar El dahab formed an interim government for a period of one year. At the end of that period, national election was subsequently conducted and that was how Sadig El Mahde became the prime minister of Sudan for the second time.

The second example is in Ukraine. When the former Ukraine president messed up with the affairs of the state, he was ousted by the people of Ukraine and some one had to be selected to form an interim government and then recently we have seen an election conducted and there is now a newly elected president in that country.

Government of national unity
In contrast, the Government of national unity is normally formed to accommodate other political parties in the country and you can find this type of government mostly in Third world democracy and the main aim is to address certain grievances but in the Western democracy only the winning party occupies all the ministerial position.

Clearly, as an example of the government of national unity is the current government of South Sudan which includes other political parties. Sudan, Iraq, and other countries have governments of national unity that include other political parties in the government.

As a matter of fact, what happened on December 15th is not a coup attempt but it was a failed assassination attempt instigated by the president, Kiir, and his warlords.

All embassies in Juba including the UN have substantial evidence that there was no coup attempt. It is only the dictatorial regime and its supporters that still are dancing about the alleged coup. Even the closest ally to the regime, dictator Museveni, has recently denied the coup rhetoric.

The reason behind the coup attempt rhetoric was to down play the call by the majority members of SPLM Political Bureau and the National Liberation Council to transform SPLM from a national liberation movement to a national political party.

In this regard there are a number of issues that needed to be addressed but the war lords in Juba objected to the proposed changes. They want to clink in power only to serve themselves and their relatives but not for the general good.

Why the conflict within the SPLM party twisted to be a tribal conflict between Dinka and Nuer? It is the work of the inner circle around the president, those of Telar, Paul Malong and others and with an evil advice either from Beshir or Moseveni behind the current crises.

The simple logic behind it is that if you kill innocent Nuer, all the nuer will take arms and rally behind Dr. Riak Machar. Therefore it will be easy to mobilize other tribes to finish the Nuer and in that sense they will rule the country without opposition.

Truth speaks for itself, there is nothing done by the current government of Salva Kiir for the full 9 years since 2005 up to now.

SPLM/A fought the regimes in Khartoum because of social, political, economical, religious, ethnic and cultural discriminations, denial for freedom of expression, lack of democracy yet we still experience those things happening in a government that we thought to be the protector of human rights, freedom of expression and Anti-discrimination.

If our government in Juba does these things then what is the difference between the various regimes that have come and gone in Khartoum with the current government in Juba?

Evil behaviors can not be replaced with evil but with good and honest behaviors. Our visionary leader Cde Dr. Garang once said and I quote: “A colonizer has no colour or tribe, even your own brother can be a colonizer,” and this is exactly what is happening in South Sudan.

Some people believed they are more equal than others and therefore they deserve to run all the apparatus of the state. They enjoy luxurious life while the majority of people are suffering. This is not what we fought for!

We fought to form a democratic system of governance in the new nation. We fought for equal opportunities based on merit. We fought to build infrastructures of the 21st century, take towns to rural areas with all the basic services so that there is no reason for the ordinary citizens to come and look for those basic services in major villages like Juba, Malakal and Wau.

Don’t take my description offensive because for a town to be called a town or a city to be called a city, it is not only the buildings that matter but the town planning that matters. There must be a sewage system, proper roads network, electricity, clean water, modest health system, security of all citizens and proper system of governance.

I profoundly believe that if Salva Kiir (Kin) is still the president of South Sudan, there will never be peace, social economic development, justice, equality and freedom. My belief is based on the fact that he lacks a vision. He lacks wisdom and capabilities to run a nation.

How many times he changed the government? Where is the program of a hundred days? How many zero tolerance ultimatums he issued because of corruption? Has any one seen any progress done in South Sudan accept more rampant corruption and abuse of human rights and powers?

He was there as a second man to Cde Dr. John Garang but he did not benefit any experiences and knowledge from him. He is not even fit to be a commander because he lacks military strategies. The reality is that there is no real government in South Sudan. Those are groups of war lords working to serve themselves and their families and relatives but not the people of South Sudan. Therefore they must go.

In my own opinion for peace to prevail in South Sudan, President Kiir should resign and pave a way for an interim government to be formed, which by the definition above, will exclude Kiir as president. That’s why the proposed IGAD modality of an interim government is unacceptable.

He should not be a party to the interim government but should engage fully to negotiate a way out of current mess and reach a permanent solution. He is the one who recruited the militias from his own region. And it was the current chief of the general staff Paul Malong who was in charge of the killing of the innocent Nuer in Juba and elsewhere in different locations in South Sudan.

President Kiir himself accepted the master plan when he was addressing the New Sudan Youth Gathering on May 16th and I quote: “I order the recruitment of reserve army in case there is a war but some politicians and military personnel refused salaries and weapons to them and now these reserve army are the ones who fought in Juba and are the ones fighting in Bor, Malakal and Bentiu,”

In other words, it is these reserve army who executed the killings of innocent Nuer in Juba on December 15th and will continue killing innocent civilians elsewhere.

Hence, a corrupt and murderous people can not be rewarded by giving them another 2 years to steal more and kill more innocent people. I therefore appeal to all members of the SPLM party wherever they are and all the people of South Sudan to join ranks and work together for regime change as the only way forward for a genuine change in our new nation.

Written by

David Lokosang

19th October 19, 2014

LATEST: NO Peace deal in Addis between Kiir and Machar

From Agencies: NOV/08/2014, SSN;

Leaders of two warring parties in South Sudan have failed to reach a peace deal Saturday, November 8, 2014, in the IGAD mediated talks in Addis Ababa.

The extraordinary summit of five African Heads of State in Ethiopia has failed yet again to hammer out a power-sharing deal between South Sudan President Salva Mayrdit Kiir and his former deputy, Dr Riek Machar, despite earlier reports that a pact was signed under international pressure to end violence soon to enter its second year.

This is even after President Uhuru Kenyatta, who is Chairman of East African Community (EAC) and Ethiopia’€™s Hailemariam Desalegn, who chairs the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), steered two day intensive talks.

The talks, which kicked off on Thursday (November 6) reportedly stretched into the night on Friday and into the wee hours of yesterday (Saturday), with Presidents Kenyatta and Desalegn determined to resolve a power-sharing deal between Kiir and Machar.

The country’s state-run news agency said closed-door talks in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa had seen President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar engaged in two days of intense negotiations, but had boiled down to no agreement.

“In the meeting, Kiir and Machar engaged in a blistering discussion, with President Kiir asking Machar to drop his rebellion and join his government while Machar lectured Kiir on the goodness of federalism and other democratic alternatives that can be utilized to solve the current crisis,” the news agency reported.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional body that was supervising the talks, adjourned the meeting for two weeks, and asked both sides to cease hostility, the agency said.

Earlier reports said that Kiir and Machar had agreed to commit to an unconditional, complete and immediate end to all hostilities, after the UN Security Council and leaders of East African nations threatened to impose economic and travel sanctions on the leaders of the world’s youngest country.

The reports, citing a statement by IGAD, said that any violation of the deal would invite asset freezes and travel bans throughout the East African IGAD member states.

The IGAD members also reserved the right to directly intervene in the violence and to prevent weapons from transiting through their countries to South Sudan.

At some point the efforts of the Kenyan and Ethiopian leaders seemed to pay off, with Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary, Amina Mohamed, even tweeting summarily on Friday night “€œthere is a deal on South Sudan. Parties agree on immediate cessation and on all other issues except one€.”

After the resolutions were released, she again tweeted: “The final communique contains sanctions against violators of the cessation of hostilities, asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargo.”

Before entering into a second straight night of talks to try to bridge the differences between the Kiir and Machar parties, the regional leaders led by Kenyatta and Desalegn affirmed they would not rest until a comprehensive peace deal was reached.

Manoah Esipisu, spokesperson for the Kenyan presidency, was equally optimistic: “€œMy understanding is that the leaders are determined to make progress as they see this as a pivotal stage in the negotiations.”€

“But it is, as expected, a difficult process,”€ he told the press in Addis Ababa.

It would have been the third deal to be reached, since two previous accords have failed to end violence as clashing fighting continued, especially around the country’s oil installations.

South Sudan descended into violence at the end of last year when fighting broke out between soldiers and rebels loyal to Machar and government loyalists backing Kiir.

Nonetheless, Presidents Kenyatta and Desalegn succeeded in getting the South Sudan’€™s political leaders to commit to an unconditional and complete end to hostilities.

IGAD, also accepted the request by both parties for a further 15 days to consult and iron out the remaining outstanding issues.

The Government of South Sudan led by President Kiir and the SPLM/A (in opposition) under former Vice President Machar also agreed to immediately stop recruitment and mobilisation of civilians.

In a communique issued at the end of the 28th Extra-ordinary Summit of IGAD Heads of State and Government, also attended by President Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Omar Bashir (Sudan), Ismail Guelleh (Djibouti) and Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (Somalia), the leaders warned the warring parties that any violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement would invite stern interventions to protect life and restore peace and stability.

Freeze of assets:
The final communique contains sanctions against violators of the cessation of hostilities, asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargo.€ IGAD threatens Kiir, Machar with asset freeze over South Sudan conflict.

The Summit was also attended by Dr Dlamini Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahboub Maalim, Executive Secretary of IGAD, and the IGAD Special Envoys for South Sudan, Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia, Gen Lazaro Sumbeiywo of Kenya and Gen Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa El Dabi of Sudan.

There were also representatives of the United Nations, the People’s Republic of China, Denmark, Japan, the European Union, the Troika (the Governments of Norway, US and United Kingdom) and the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF).

Position of Jieng (Dinka) Council of Elders of the Republic of South Sudan on Peace Negotiations Process in Addis Ababa – Ethiopia

PRESS RELEASE, OCT/30/2014 JUBA: NOV/07/2014), SSN;

We, Jieng (Dinka) Council of Elders of the Republic of South Sudan resident in Jonglei, Lakes, Northern Bahr El Ghazal, Unity, Upper Nile, Warrap and Western Bahr Al Ghazal states, have learnt with grave concern that some member states of the International Community, in collaboration with some of the regional powers are indulging themselves in local national politics of South Sudan by pressuring for a regime change in Juba.

This is viewed as an interference and propaganda against the norms and values of democracy that respect and uphold the will of the majority of people that popularly elect their leaders in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Transitional National Constitution.

Therefore, for the regional and International mediators to encourage and support change of a democratically elected President, Parliaments and governments (National and States Institutions) in the Republic of South Sudan, because some people have revolted, is absurd and an ill-conceived project.

The support for military coups or violent transfer of power is no longer a popular notion in modern world politics. It is contrary to the will of the voters who consciously evaluate and freely choose capable leaders through the transparent electoral system after which power is peacefully transferred.

We, Jieng (Dinka) Elders are extremely saddened by this impression and precedence.

Firstly, the mediators are busy visiting the capitals of Addis Ababa, Kampala, Nairobi, Washington and Juba organizing reconciliatory meetings between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and the Nuer rebel leader Riek Machar Teny.

Furthermore, the mediators are equating that rebel leader with the legitimate Government of South Sudan and the elected President, General Salva Kiir Mayardit.

Will this not set precedence for a disgruntled individual or any South Sudanese ambitious power hungry armed group to stage a violent take-over of power from legitimate Government of South Sudan?

On our part it appears as a deliberate undermining of the mandate of the people of South Sudan, at the time when the end of the mandate of the legitimate Government of Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, is only less than one year.

This is clearly an intended action to deprive the people of the Republic of South Sudan from giving their verdict in the forthcoming 2015 elections. The people of South Sudan are entitled to exercise their Constitutional right to elect from among their sons and daughters a capable person as President to lead the country.

Secondly, we Jieng Elders across the country vehemently detest the machination of the politics of South Sudan by external Powers in their blatant taking of sides against Jieng (Dinka) community as if Jeing had imposed their son Salva Kiir Mayardit into power over the Republic of South Sudan.

Such assertions and negative campaigns against Jieng are not true and misleading! What we want the mediators to know clearly is that attempting to impose on all the people of South Sudan a cosmetic political solution that rewards rebel leader Riek Machar Teny is utterly unacceptable.

Yes, it is absolutely true that Riek Machar Teny and his tribes’ terrorist Nuer white army succeeded to massacre countless number of innocent Jieng people in 1991 and many more after December 15th 2013.

However, make no mistake, the Jieng communities will neither accept nor recognize the anticipated Interim Government. It is a violation of the Constitutional privilege/right to elect our own leaders!

Thirdly, ironically the mediators are blaming the rebellion of Riek Machar Teny on the government as due to weakness in the leadership. But this is a pretext to impose their will on the people of South Sudan.

They are decided to impose punitive actions including sanctions on individuals in the leadership, travel bans, blocking of bank accounts, and on the nation: oil embargo and introducing the oil for food program as infamously done in Iraq.

Due to the high level of illiteracy in South Sudan, the regional and International Community wish to turn South Sudan into another enclave where very few elites are bribed into owning shares in multi-national companies of the western world, while the rest of the masses are left to languish in poverty and disease despite the large oil deposits and other mineral wealth that abound in their country.

There are also others who are aiming to turn South Sudan into another Congo/Zaire in order to remain isolated in jungles without working to realize any development of the abundant resources and communication infrastructure, especially when South Sudan is a land locked country.

South Sudan would be worse than some South American countries that are left without development but to only engage in illegal business enterprises.

By all means, Jieng people of South Sudan will use all means necessary to challenge this calculated humiliation and to oppose any such degradation and subjugation policy.

Fourthly, we know the value of national reconciliation and we have done it before! Rebel leader Riek Machar Teny even after massacring over five thousand in Jonglei and Upper Nile states in 1991, was granted amnesty in 2002; Paulino Matip with all other armed militia groups who fought for decades against the SPLA since 1983 were granted amnesty and were absorbed into SPLA in 2005 and thereafter.

All political parties that opposed the liberation of the South were pardoned because they did not know the joy of freedom and are now participating in the current inclusive government of national unity under President Salva Kiir Mayardit.

Despite these positive far outreach approaches of reconciling our people, in disregard of differences in opinion or ethnic diversity, Riek Machar Teny, and those in opposition have mistakenly construed internal peacemaking, reconciliation and forgiveness to be a weakness on the part of the leadership of President Salva Kiir Mayardit as well as being a simplicity or naivety of Jieng people who allow themselves slaughtered as a price for peace, unity and stability of the country.

Those who care for genuine reconciliation among South Sudanese must listen to all points of view and must follow the traditional ways of reconciliation amongst Jieng and Nuers.

They should not aggressively dictate their own cosmetic unrealistic notion of unworkable inclusive government of national unity. The incumbent Government of President Salva Kiir Mayardit is exemplary and prototype of real national unity.

Finally, In the name of Jieng people of the Republic of South Sudan, we Jieng Elders want to surely inform the regional and International Community that Riek Machar Teny and his “terrorist Nuer white army” cannot and should not be rewarded with power to execute his “ELIMINATIONIST” Policy.

We have learned, from a distance of the horrific and genocidal tragedies of Rwanda in 1994. We will not permit further killings that might result into massacre of our Jieng people.

Although the “terrorist Nuer white army” is getting financial and military support from the neighboring countries and illicit economic and military empowerment, we are capable of defending ourselves.

Africa and the world at large shall not list Jieng as the second majority tribe to be eliminated in the presence of African and International Peace keeping forces as it happened in Rwanda.

By: Jieng Council of Elders The Republic of South Sudan, Juba
October 30th 2014
Section Represented: Name of Representative: Signature

1. Upper Nile State:

1) Abialiang Honourable Deng Chol Deng ………………………..

2) Ager Honourable Akot Dau ………………………

3) Nyiel Honourable Gatwec Nyok ………………………

4) Dongjol Honourable Thon Mum ………………………

5) Ngok [Lual Yak] Mr. Joseph Nyok Abiel ………………………..

6) Marbek Dr. John Sntipas Ayiei ………………………

7) Paweny Mr. William Sunday ………………………

2. Jonglei State:

Bor:

1) Luac (Padang) Honourable Joshua Dau Diu ………………..

2) Hol Honourable Anne Lino Wor Abyei ………………..

3) Nyarweng Honourable Daniel Deng Lual ………………..

4) Twic [Bor] Honourable Deng Dau Deng …………

5) Athoc Honourable Deng-Tiel Ayuen …………………

6) Gok [Bor] Honourable Maker Thiong Maai ………………..

Section Represented: Name of Representative: Signature

3. Unity State:

1) Ruweng (Panaru) Honourable Benjamin Majak Dau ………………

2) Ruweng (Alor) Honourable Battaria Monyror Makuei

………………

4. Lakes State:

1. Yirol:

1) Atuot Honourable Daniel Deng Athorbei ………………..

2) Kiec Honourable Gabriel Daniel Ayoal Makoi …………

3) Aliap Honourable Permana Awerial Aluong ………………..

2.Rumbek:

1) Agar Honourable Chief Daniel Dhieu Matuet …………

2) Pakam Honourable Gabriel Daniel Deng Monydit …………

3) Gok Honourable General Daniel Awet Akot …………

5. Warrap State:

1.Tonj:

1) Rek of Tonj North Ustaz Lewis Anei-Kuendit ………………..

2) Luanyjang Honourable Cauor Adong ………………..

3) Rek of Tonj South Honourable Mawien Akol Aduol ………………..

4) Rekof Tonj East Dr. Riak Gok Majok ………………..

Section Represented: Name of Representative: Signature

2. Gogrial:

1. Rek

1) Aguok and Awan General Agasio Akol Tong ………………..

2) Apuk (GiirThiik) Justice Ambrose Riny Thiik …………………..

3) Kuac ( Nyok) Honourable Joseph Lual Achuil

………………..

2. Twic Mayardit:

1) Twic West Honourable Mayom Kuoc Malek …………………

2) Twic central Honourable Charles Majak Aler

………………..

3) Twic East Honourable Kuany Mayom Deng ………………..

6. Northern Bahr El Ghazal State: [Maging Aweil]

1) Akuang Ayat Honourable Joseph Aguer Alic ………………..

2) Malual Honourable General Albino Akol Akol …………

3) Paliopiny Mr. Cleto Akot Kuel ………………..

4) Paliet Honourable Arthur Akuen Chol ………………..

5) Abiem West Honourable Pio Tem Kuac Ngor …………

6) Abiem Central Honourable Aldo Ajou Deng Akuei …………………

7) Abiem East Honourable Kom Kom Geng ………………..

7. Western Bahr El Ghazal State:

1) Waau of Marialbai Moris Yol Akol Tiit ………………..

[Longar Majok]

Khartoum new sharpest sword: Working with both parties to South Sudan conflict

BY: Garang Atem Ayiik, SOUTH SUDAN, NOV/06/2014, SSN;

Sections of the media reported that former Vice President of South Sudan, Dr Riek went to Khartoum to solicit support for his rebel movement and chief rebel negotiator, Taban Deng was in Heglig directing last week offences against government’s positions in Bentiu.

This week, his President Salva Kiir returned from Khartoum after a two-day working visit to Khartoum. The two presidents of the Sudan are reported to have agreed to resolve the outstanding security issues; stop support and harbor of rebels from both countries, besides they agreed to form a joint committee to seek to cancel Sudan’s foreign debts; and agreed on administration of Abyei.

Between the lines however, there are issues that required detailed attention. As President Kiir planned to visit Sudan, two things happened, an onslaught by Riek’s rebels on government’s positions in Bentiu and an air bombardment in Bar-ghazel area by Sudan; and second increased allegations of diplomatic muscle of rebels in Khartoum by Dr. Riek and Taban Deng to garner support for their movement.

Why would Khartoum show signs of working with the government of the Republic of South Sudan and at the same time with the rebels? Where does Sudan’s love weigh big? This article tries to consider Sudan decision paths, and highlight South Sudan’s key risks.

In the ongoing war between the government and the rebels, Sudan has a choice to choose a real partner modeled along the current Uganda’s role in South Sudan conflict. Sudan has a choice to fully support the government or support rebel but it chooses to be in between.

Middle ground taken by Sudan can be interpreted in two folds; one, to keep the two weak – South Sudan fragmented along tribal lines that will never have capacity to face Sudan head-on: on border issues; Abyei and other outstanding issues; and second, balance her oil interest between the two South Sudan power protagonists, government and rebels.

With Sudan economy relying mainly on oil revenues from South Sudan, Sudan can’t afford not to hedge her economic interest. Her two-path support approach ensures she is partially in good books with the government and rebels. So in reality, no true support but economic conditionality.

My view is that if Sudan truly supports the government of the Republic of South Sudan, it should support and work with the government of South Sudan to liberate Great Upper Nile from the rebels.

This will have two achievements; one, secure Unity State and Tharjath oilfields for production resumption, this will increase both governments’ revenues; and second, this will mark the withering of Machar’s rebellion.

If Sudan truly supports the rebels, it can work with the rebels and cut the economic throat of Republic of South Sudan by disconnecting Paloch oil production. This will put South Sudan economy into coma and truly display Sudan’s enemy status to South Sudan.

From signals coming from Sudan and South Sudan bodies’ languages, I get a feeling that South Sudan is not sure of Sudan’s degree of relationship going by recent accusations. However, as Sudan is a necessary evil, South Sudan has no choice but to turn a blind eye on Sudan’s possible slaps through rebel support.

Sudan has a history and strength of using divide-and-rule power intrigues. South Sudanese can learn from he liberation era challenges. A divided South Sudanese was a cheap source for manipulation and misuse.

With wars of South Sudan self destruction, the outstanding issues will be things of the past, Abyei status will never be resolved, possibly South Sudanese can trade-off her rightful economic things and oil dependency will increase.

The aim of this article was to try to illustrate that Sudan’s interest is not South Sudan’s interest. It is author’s belief that if Sudan supports any party to the conflict, this is designed along her benefits contrary to South Sudanese benefits.

Everything to South Sudanese whether on rebels or government side, is all cosmetic.

As the say experience is the best lesson, SPLM has benefited from its liberation experiences. A divided SPLM along tribal lines, divides the nation along tribal lines as correctly diagnosed by SPLM in Arusha, during SPLM party meeting in Tanzania.

With all ills we have done to ourselves, South Sudanese need peace though not necessarily to hold hands with Khartoum over outstanding issues but for the good of her citizens.

As they say in economics, ‘there is no such thing as free lunch,’ and as such, there is no such thing as free support, it is all cost on South Sudanese and their economy.

Garang Atem Ayiik is an independent South Sudan economic policy commentator who lives in South Sudan and can be reached at garangatemayiik@gmail.com

Minister Aleu Ayieny has abused integrity of Lakes State people

BY: Johnson M. M. Makur, RUMBEK, Lakes State, NOV/02/2014, SSN;

South Sudan’s minister of Interior, Mr Aleu Ayieny Aleu has some bad and good historical attachments to the crisis-hit Lakes State. His wife comes from Lakes State. So, in his children lie a bond of blood between him and Lakes State – and with the Dinka Culture, it’s a powerful bond.

But in his father Ayieny, who worked in the same State for so many years during the old days of the Sudan, lies a different story: a story of a cunning and fishy man who could coin dirty stories to get his critics hanged by the Government that was so much inclined to listen to him.

The older Aleu was alleged to have orchestrated nasty things and planned terrible conspiracies in Lakes State. People got tired of him to an extent that they preferred to offer anything for him to leave Rumbek. And actually upon the news of his transfer, the man started grabbing all he could set his hands on, bringing forth the now popular saying, “Aa ka jiel Ayieny ke.” This means barely ‘whatever it takes for Ayieny to go let him take.’

Now in the younger Aleu, history now repeats itself. How Hon Aleu uses his position in the Government today to advance his devil deeds is akin to all that the older Ayieny used to do against people of Lakes State.

In the general SPLM briefing last month, Hon. Aleu shamelessly and successfully wrapped his own under performance and failures of the Government in Lakes State around the necks of innocent politicians he claims to be in Rumbek and Juba.

He said that the Lakes politicians in Rumbek and Juba are the cause of crisis in Lakes State. How Aleu came to that conclusion only God knows. However, it still costs nothing to the said politicians because people on the ground know the truths. Rather, it is the reputation of the Minister himself that is at stake.

Nonetheless, people know very well that Hon. Aleu has simply become the mouthpiece of the son of Chut Dhuol, the tyrant Governor of Lakes State.

Moreover, accusations remain accusations. While he goes around accusing other people, Aleu also remains accused in the wrangles of Lakes State.

One time, one day, there may be a moment of truth. However, what Aleu should do just now is provide evidence and a complete detail of how and what the politicians did to exacerbate the crisis in Lakes State. Failure to do that will only pronounce him a liar who is on witch-hunt mission to drag the names of innocent people in the mud for self interests.

Otherwise, the people know the crime that might have been committed by Lakes State politicians is calling for the removal of the despotic Governor – but nothing else. People’s wills go beyond imaginations. No any person from Lakes State can buy Aleu’s cooked reports.

Lakes State MPs both in the State and National Legislatures have done their best to bring peace and stability in the State. Peace and reconciliation conferences have been held by MPs around warring state areas.

The State Assembly on many occasions formed committees to establish the root causes of conflict in the State and gave recommendations and possible solutions to the said crisis. But their beautiful work was always frustrated by the Governor.

In the first place, the Governor never had a policy in place to govern that state. Then to make matters worse, he refuses to implement recommendations given to him by all other stakeholders in the state.

Seriously, if Matur boasts in public that he usually turns down the President’s advice then who else in this country will he listen to?

The army general who was simply appointed into politics now has all the guts to humiliate the elected MPs. What the MPs have asked him to do is to arrest culprits, arrange a speedy scheme to settle cases and produce mechanisms through which the state should be peacefully governed.

This became the crimes of which they are detained in unknown locations as if they are Al Qaeda terrorists.

Why Matur does all this quite so freely is because he has been awarded Lakes to manage like his own house. If one has the backing of those of Aleu Ayieny then why not?

However, one can take Lakes State people for fools but in the end it is you that becomes their fool.

So, those of Aleu Ayieny who go around chest-thumping and implicating innocent people including elected MPs must know that, regardless of its current state of crisis, Lakes is still a State of proud people.

Those who put Lakes State in crisis are the same people who now pass around boasting and threatening as if the country is all laid into their hands alone.

Yes, individuals can be threatened, some can be imprisoned or even killed but no one, whatsoever, can kill the spirit of people of Lakes State.

Aleu in his right senses knows that Gen. Matur is a part of problems of Lakes State; he can, therefore, never be part of the solutions of Lakes State.

In Lakes there is what people describe now as Matur virus. The fact that Aleu went to Lakes State and stayed in the same care and company of Matur Chut poised him to the threat of contracting that bad virus.

There is a joke going round that the Aleu that went to Lakes State as a neutral minister doing his job is not the same Aleu that returned to Juba.

The best thing that should have been done about him upon his return to Juba was to put him on quarantine just like a person coming from the Ebola hit Liberia.

Poignantly, he was allowed to address the important SPLM meeting spitting fire and venom on the innocent people.

One should not defend what is not defendable. Or altogether Aleu does not know what he is trying to defend in Matur Chut. Gen. Matur Chut has spread word that those people who are making noise against him in Lakes state are supporters of Chol Tong and Riek Machar.

But Aleu and his friends must come to accept that Matur Chut is the complicate replicate of Chol Tong. The first person Matur met upon his appointment as Governor of Lakes State is none other than Chol Tong.

Did Chol Tong not tell him to remove someone he referred to as ‘marath’ in Arabic, Mabor Achol Kuer?

Ironically, this was the same Mabor of the SPLM– NLC who stood firm and sang songs for Kiir in the Nyakuron meeting a day before the war broke out.

If Chol was an enemy to Matur then how did he end up renting Matur’s house in Juba as the coordination office for Lakes State? If Matur Chut is not what Chol Tong is then why around him are there all the people of former Governor Chol Tong Mayay?

It is important to note that Matur Chut’s current Deputy Governor and some of Advisors, Ministers and commissioners are close and personal friends of the former Governor, Chol Tong Mayay.

It must be noted that Hon. Mayen Kuc, who was the Chairperson of the SPLM Electoral College that gave zeros to Cde Daniel Awet Akot, now a powerful minister, is the brain behind Gen. Matur’s decisions.

Lakes State is not being managed from what its people want. It has lost its direction and so it should be managed as a sub–state under Warrap State and be led by its daughter and the Great Governor Nyandeng Malek.

It might do all sides a great favor as jieng or Bahr el Ghazal region. Otherwise, it will be hard for people of Lakes State to kneel down and beg other people to accept what they want to be done about their state.

The general belief on the ground, which is seemingly a reality, is that Matur is no different from the armed youths carrying guns in our society. There is no symbol of government in Lakes State, and it might what it should be for as long as Matur Chut continues to be the Governor.

As for Aleu Ayieny Aleu, many of us who celebrated his appointment now regret. I personally regret authoring an article published in Khartoum Monitor in his favor during his dark days after he was ousted out of SPLM in 2007.

That time I read an appealing open letter written by Mr Aleu Ayieny Aleu to Pagan Amuom. I never knew this was going to be the Aleu of today.

In the piece I read, Aleu referred to Pagan as “the haunted lamb of yesterday who turned a vicious wolf directing salvo of his vengeance guns against wrong comrades.”

Now at a time Aleu is a powerful minister it is what is left of the people of Lakes State to say. They are not only haunted but are also being hunted now by the powerful wolves of today for pointing at mistakes of their leader.

The way Aleu Ayeny felt pain, suffering and injustice in 2007 is the way the people of Lakes State feel in 2014.

From the hearts of people of Lakes we need Aleu to leave our elders alone and stop distorting facts about Lakes state.

We have kept our resolve and stayed intact with the Government but we are being served from what we never sowed. As a result, there is nothing Lakes State cannot offer to Hon. Aleu Ayieny Aleu, Minister of Interior, so as to stop tarnishing our good names.

Johnson M. M. Makur is a South Sudanese citizen working in Rumbek. He can be reached on ramcuer@outlook.com

The marginalisation of Equatoria- Enough is enough!

BY: ELHAG PAUL, South Sudanese, NOV/02/2014, SSN;

Whether by design or coincidence, once again Equatoria has been marginalised in the affairs of the country. President Salva Kiir’s SPLM-IG, Dr Riek Machar’s SPLM-IO and their off shots the SPLM-G10 together with IGAD have to a large extent connived to exclude Equatoria to maintain the strangle hold they have over the people of the most peaceful part of the country.

SPLM’s creation from the outset was intended to fight and subjugate Equatorians. The silent policy of this organisation towards Equatorians has been crystal clear. It strove to oppress and marginalise the Equatoria region through violence to disempower its people within and without the movement.

This was done through the policy that stated no groups are allowed to join the movement but only individuals. This policy evidently was designed and intended to keep individuals isolated and weak.

It is associated with predatory groups wanting to dominate and control people. This had a devastating effect on the Equatorians within the movement because what it did was it directly eliminated Equatorian leadership.

It cut Equatorian leaders and potential leaders from being recognised by their own people while at the same time installing and building Jieng as their direct bosses.

(Please see ‘The broken social boundaries in South Sudan.’ http://allafrica.com/stories/201307050284.html)

However, this policy was not applied to the Nuer. The Nuer joined the movement in all sorts of groups with their leaders intact and recognised. This obviously ensured the continued survival of Nuer power within the SPLM/A.

Unlike the Equatorians who became victims of violent elimination under the watch of the current useless Vice President James Wani Igga.

For example, a certain notorious cousin of Dr John Garang by name Deng Agwang openly executed Equatorian officers and soldiers of the SPLA at will in Eastern Equatoria during 1980s and early 1990s without any accountability.

The net effect was total disempowerment of Equatoria. The Nuer continued to grow in strength because as a group they could assert their interest. This group approach to the membership of SPLM is the single act that has helped the Nuer to resist and face down the Jieng at different critical times including the current conflict.

The balance of power between the Nuer and the Jieng in South Sudan has always been maintained through this unspoken arrangement. Now that the two are at each other’s throat, both want to use Equatoria to strengthen their positions in order to control the country without any discernible benefit for Equatorians.

Basically both groups view Equatorians as their donkeys or slaves to be exploited.

Equatoria’s patriotic stand to always fight for the freedom of South Sudan unfortunately has made them to ignore their inalienable rights in South Sudan to their own detriment.

By default, their patriotism has turned them into the underclass in the country they greatly sacrificed for. This is unacceptable and Equatoria must re-strategise to regain their rightful place in the social structure of the country. They should no more play second fiddle.

The exclusion of Equatoria from the talks in Addis Ababa should serve as the final straw that broke the Camel’s back.

Dr Machar has openly claimed that he is fighting for implementation of democracy in South Sudan. This is welcome and everybody in the country is looking forward to it. However, a mere statement stating a noble position is not good enough if it is not followed by action.

If the actions of a supposed leader who promises something contradict his words, then alarm bells ought to ring loudly lest the people are taken for a ride.

This article is the alarm bell. Dr Machar has been part of the system (Dinkocracy) since 2002 when he returned to the fold of the SPLM after having led a rebellion against it from 1991.

For nine solid years he fought the system in order to change its objective of united Sudan. He did not succeed. The rebellion movement that he led fractured into two. The other part that Dr Machar led which was renamed South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM) ended up signing the Khartoum Peace Agreement in 1997 which granted him the position of Vice President of General Omer Bashir.

While he was a ceremonial Vice President in Khartoum he found himself powerless and this led to his return to the SPLM under Dr John Garang in 2002. In the process of defecting, Dr Machar basically abandoned all those he took with him to Khartoum. They remained at the mercy of President General Bashir.

There is a crucial thing here to be noted. The quality of leadership of Dr Machar, his values and principles and his ability to hold a group together is highly questionable.

It is important to note this point because Dr Machar may eventually sacrifice the Nuer and the Equatorians with him now exactly in the same manner he did in 1997 and in 2002 if he sees an opening for seizing personal power.

The alliance with Nuer must not be confused with support for Dr Machar. South Sudanese standing with the Nuer is based on the fact that they were subjected to horrendous and unacceptable killings by President Kiir and the Jieng.

Everybody acknowledges, accepts and condemns the ethnic cleansing done on them. Because of this, the Nuer have all the rights in the world to be given support to fight for their own survival.

Dr Machar as a Nuer happened to have been targeted and so people sympathise with him. But unfortunately Dr Machar is taking the fight of Nuer as a chance to advance his own personal interest.

He seized on the massacres of the Nuer to promote his personal ambition to accede to power. The evidence can be gleaned from the interview he held with Al Jazeera on 22nd December 2013, a week into the ethnic cleansing.

Dr Machar categorically stated that he wished to become the president. There was no need for Dr Machar to unequivocally express his ambition when the Nuer people were being hunted down in Juba by the Dootku Beny militia. This reckless behaviour exposed his lack of care for his own people.

As far as Dr Machar was concerned he wanted to be president and that was all. The ongoing killing of the Nuer was not an issue. Initially, he even resisted naming the targeted killing of Nuer as ethnic cleansing.

If Dr Machar was a true leader, he should have used the interview to articulate the horrendous experience of the Nuer and by extension the suffering of South Sudanese people. This would have presented him as a conscientious leader in waiting which would be exactly like what he verbalised.

Others could argue that Dr Machar is an ally of Equatorians because he championed the cause of federalism. Yes, it is indisputable that Dr Machar has called for the implementation of federalism.

However, the question to ask is why did he not show his support when he was the vice president?

Crucially, in July 2011 at the adoption of the infamous interim constitution of Mr John Luke Jok and following the three Equatorian conferences Dr Machar did not side with the Equatorians.

This evidence raises serious issues with the integrity of Dr Machar. Simply put, when Dr Machar was in alliance with President Kiir and as his Vice President, he was happy to step firmly on Equatorians with his Jackboots. He was happy helping President Kiir and the Jieng to lord it over Equatorians mercilessly.

Since Dr Machar rebelled following the mid December 2013 incident, he sung all the right songs to woo Equatorians to support him. He has succeeded to some extent but unbelievably he has started to backtrack in a very worrying manner.

Those people in SPLM-IO should not just be carried away by the heat of the moment. They need to scrutinise Dr Machar’s speeches (some through his spokesperson James Gadet Dak) and actions carefully to see the very worrying signs in the open political space now.

Dr Machar is already displaying dictatorial and tribal tendencies akin to Dr John Garang’s behaviour at the early stages of SPLM inception which morphed into the monstrous organisation that we now know.

The evidence to this lies in:
– 1) the manner Dr Machar makes his appointments,
– 2) in how he dismisses the participation of the stake holders in Addis Ababa by emphasising direct talks between him and Kiir only and
– 3) in how he neglects the rights of other oppressed groups.

The second and the third parts are very crucial because these are the bits responsible for marginalisation of Equatorians from the talks in Addis Ababa.

As it is now, the talks technically are clearly between Bahr El Ghazal on one hand led by President Kiir and Upper Nile on the other led Dr Machar as an armed opponent of the system (Dinkocracy) with the SPLM-G10 playing the role of supporting both regions ensuring Equatoria is kicked into the long grass.

The exclusion of Equatoria is a combined effort of President Kiir, Dr Machar and the IGAD.

First of all, President Kiir used the machinery of the state of South Sudan to exclude the Equatorian leaders from the process by quarantining them in Juba. Although they were officially invited by IGAD to the talks, the system (Dinkocracy) illegally denied them the right to travel and on top of that, their passports were confiscated. This severely oppressive action amounted to direct exclusion of Equatoria from the talks.

Secondly, all the other parties invited to the talks in Addis Ababa found themselves abused and corralled to accept being represented by Dr Lam Akol as their leader. Dr Lam himself has now been fouled and quarantined by the system. This shameful act was done by IGAD and the delegation of government of South Sudan exposing the collision between them.

Thirdly, IGAD from the outset has all along been interested in patching the SPLM as a solution to the problems of the country. Within this position, they deliberately ignored the violation visited on the Equatorian leaders and the other invited participants.

Not only that, but they participated in forcing the other parties to be led by others whose ideology and values widely differs. This was a violation of the very principle of stakeholder participation.

The question that IGAD must answer is: why have they violated their own principles by denying all the lawful South Sudanese political parties participation individually in their own right? Please see, ‘IGAD’s inadequate strategy in South Sudan’, http://allafrica.com/stories/201404140864.html?viewall=1 and ‘Reflections on Justice Peter Sule’s indefinite incarceration’, http://allafrica.com/stories/201305080235.html

As it can be seen, the quartet: SPLM-IG, SPLM-IO, SPLM-G10 and IGAD have all connived to exclude and marginalise Equatoria. There is no doubt that the views of Equatoria are not represented in Addis Ababa.

This raises serious issue of legitimacy of the talks going on in Ethiopia. Now that the views of a third of the country (Equatoria) are not taken into consideration, whatever the outcome, it may not be binding on Equatoria.

Equatorians should not accept any outcome from Addis Ababa as binding upon them because their interest was not represented, articulated or considered in the current talks taking place in Addis Ababa.

If Dr Machar was a democrat and an ally of Equatoria he should have demonstrated it by fighting for all the stakeholders regardless of whether they are his supporters or not.

As a freedom fighter (based on his claim) espousing the ideal of justice, he should have been in the forefront showing that he wants to see the country return to peaceful co-existence by insisting on the participation of all stakeholders including the Equatorians.

Unfortunately, he only fought for the participation of his own people and in my opinion Dr Machar has failed the test of a truly national democratic leader.

Therefore, clearly without any doubt, Equatoria is on its own. It remains marginalised and oppressed by grand design of Jieng, Nuer and IGAD. What does that mean? Simple, Equatoria is not weak as perceived and believed by others and some Equatorians. Equatoria is the sleeping giant. It only needs to wake up.

The only thing crippling Equatoria is the dysfunctional SPLM. Equatorians must first desert the SPLM or the Equatorians in this hopeless organisation need to think outside the box and join their sisters and brothers to realise its interest.

Equatorians, therefore, need neither the Jieng nor the Nuer for allies. What it needs is internal unity of purpose, unity of survival and unity of destiny. Without such unity, the options before it are limited.

Thus this suggested kind of approach is a must to offset the brutal jungle politics employed by fellow countrymen from the other two regions.

On its own Equatoria can lead and bring stability to South Sudan. After all, South Sudan numerically (population) is equally divided between the three regions. Each region is a third of the country.

If Equatoria organises itself, it has equal chances of winning the presidency in any elections held in the country. This should now be the policy of Equatoria. Go it alone and if any alliance is to be made, the leadership must be of Equatoria. Anything less than that should not be entertained or accepted.

Equatoria must not take this insult from the SPLM warring factions and IGAD lying down. Enough is enough because the unnecessary bloodletting in the country needs to stop.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com