Archive for: May 2015

Kiir Government is Tribal Government serving Dinka interest in Chollo Kingdom

By: Michael Kalakon, MAY/15/2015, SSN;

Land dispute is killing people in Chollo Kingdom. All records show that Salva Kiir regime is a tribal government just for the interest of his tribe. Reference to Niavasha peace agreement chapter II, article five (5) concerning land ownership, it says very clearly that community land shall include all lands traditionally and historically held or used by local communities or their members; they shall be defined, held, managed and protected by law.

Now when we come and look into the situation in Upper Nile State, Dinka are claiming land traditionally and historically held or belonging to Chollo people Community.

And Kiir regime did arm Dinka civilians to empower them against their neighbours, the Shilluk under the pretext to protect the oil pipelines as if there is no national army in the country, and yet the Shilluk tribe didn’t fail to understand the Dinka and their government’s plan.

When these oil pipelines were under imminent threat, Dinka militia didn’t fight to protect the oil pipelines.

Instead, Chollo youth under General Johnson Olony were the force that liberated all Upper Nile region up to Wat Akon!!

And immediately after liberation of Wat-Akon county, General Johnson Olony’s vehicle came under heavy attack in Renk town, the attack was planned by the government of the county and no serious investigation done by the government of Juba.

Again, when General Johnson Olony arrived in Makal, another deadly plan was made by the state government in cooperation with Dinka militia in Makal town against General Johnson Olony and his fourteen officers were killed including his deputy, Major General James Bwogo!!

That took place in north of the town of makal. Kiir regime in Juba didn’t take any serious investigation to bring the criminals before the court of law, this negligence made it very clear that the government in Juba was behind all these incidents.

When General Johnson Olony reacted, all SPLA Dinka and Dinka militia including Mathiang Anyor which is Salva Kiir’s own specially trained militia that he used to kill Nuer in Juba, were sent to Chollo land supported with 45 tanks and many heavy artillery to fight the Chollo youth under general Johnson Olony who are defending Chollo land against land grabbers.

Not only that, but president Salva Kiir himself unlawfully grabbed Chollo land and gave it to his Dinka, that was Pigo area, the land of Adhiethiang which, he, Kiir. gave to Padang Dinka.

Now the big question is this: is Chollo Community part of South Sudn or is it enjoying the supposed independent nation of South Sudan?

Or has the Chollo kingdom actually switched from a bad Arab colonial rule to a clearly worst Dinka colonial domination?

Today in the Chollo land, Dinka militias supported by Salva Kiir in Juba are doing worse than the Arabs in the history of the Chollo Kingdom, that kind of practice never was done by Arab Northerners in chollo kingdom in the history of the old Sudan.

The lands that we’re talking about today were held by Chollo kingdom before 1545, by then there were no Dinka around in those areas. However the only tribe that was neighbour to the Chollo was Anyuak tribe.

Supposedly the Dinka started moving into the land at about 1905 according to the available records of the area. Until 1937 there were no Dinka inhabitants in Makal town, according to The Rev. J. A. Heasty’s reference book, “The American Mission, Dolieb Hill, The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. 1937.”

So even, if we can ignore the above-mentioned records and just take it from Sudan’s independence time in 1956, nothing could have brought the Dinka into Chollo land if it wasn’t for president Salva Kiir, the one person now creating and exacerbating the problems between the communities.

Indisputably, the Boundaries are very clear and they are strongly in favor of Chollo community.

Dinka Apadang made three (3) attempts to claim Chollo lands but both three attempts came out in favor of Shilluk communities, two of those attempts were during South Sudan regional government, 1980 and 1982.

Committees were sent to the area to look into the disputed land, the outcome of the finding was in favour of Chollo Community.

Another attempt was in November 2004 during visionary leader and SPLA/M head, Dr. John Garang de Mabior, who just ignored Padang Dinka claims because it was an obvious case and it was a nonsensical claim from Dinka Padang, knowing that land belonged to Shilluk community.

Now when the ignorant President Kiir took over, the case came up more deadly again, the tribal President backed up his tribe using state power to fight the Chollo for the benefit of Padang Dinka tribe.

Finally, we know very clearly that in this country, South Sudan, you can not differentiate between the Dinka as a tribe and the Kiir-led government nor between the national army, the SPLA and Dinka Militias.

This is because the SPLA is basically conceived as purely a Dinka militia and just likewise, the Dinka militia is the SPLA.

But will the Chollo (Shilluk) allow Dinka to take over by arms their land in their watch because president Salva Kiir’s regime is supporting his own Dinka?

This question absolutely remains for the Chollo Community to promptly respond to it.

The author is a concerned Chollo.
His is living in Diaspora (USA) and can be reached at: okalakon14@gmail.com

Riek Machar: Prolonging the war causes more unnecessary deaths and sufferings

BY: Choromke Jas, CANADA, MAY/13/2015, SSN;

Dr. Riek Machar: It was unsurprising to read in the news that your commanders are grumbling about your lukewarm attitude towards the prosecution of the war against the Butcher of Juba, Salvar Kiir (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article54922). It is unsurprising because, earlier in the war we had cautioned your leadership (in this forum) against being taken in by “diplomatic” overtures on peaceful settlement of the conflict. True to our prediction, the tribalists in Juba have resisted any move towards peaceful solutions.

Two things stand out from the reported complaint of the battle commanders:
— lack of interest on your part to seriously mobilize sufficient military materiel and munitions to counter the advance of the Juba genocidal army;
— and the pressure from the Americans to go easy on the military front.

First, I will comment on the former and later, on the latter.

Dr Machar, you did not appoint Taban Deng Gai to head the peace delegation by chance. Governor Deng Gai was the one receiving the 2% of the oil income earmarked for the Unity State. We know from banking records that Mr Gai did not deposit these huge sums (in USD) in formal banks but kept them in designated monetary depots in his compounds.

During his term, he lavishly dined, wined, nay, paid, the dictator in Juba and the national MPs from Unity State handsomely.

He formed a State Development Corporation which constructed houses and real estate that were allocated to dignitaries from the same State free of charge!

What I am driving at is that you appointed him head of the delegation because he would be crucial in the procurement of military equipments and other requirements for a successful prosecution of the war using the public funds he had accumulated.

The young people of Nuer have sacrificed enough; you and Gai should use some of these monies to invest in the final push of the war so that their sacrifice will not be in vain.

On the issue of the American pressure, I can only repeat here the caution some of us expressed on this site about listening too much to Western diplomats. We had cited two contrasting examples of Raila Odinga of Kenya and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.

In the period preceding the last Kenyan general elections, Raila was praised for his statesmanship and was assured of ascending to the Kenyan presidential throne after winning the election.

On the other hand Raila’s opponents were vilified and there were talks among the diplomats that their government would not be recognized on the account of them having been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

The casting of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto as villains “freed” the duo from the strictures of diplomatic niceties; they thumbed their nose at the diplomats and used tribal and establishment resources (hate speeches, secret service, judiciary and others) to go and “win” the election.

In the end Raila was robbed of his victory in the election. A number of people have since concluded that if Raila had shown some “fire in his bell” (meaning fighting fire with fire), perhaps he would not have been mistreated by the Kenyan Supreme Court the way it did when he contested the election results.

Kaguta Yoweri Musevein’s case is a different kettle of fish. He waged a war against Obote II government, and later against the two Okellos (Tito and Bazilio). There was a lot of pressure for sorting the war in Uganda peacefully. Peace talks were taking place in Kenya. There were few issues to be cleared before the agreement was due to be signed. But this was not to be!

Museveni, while having a delegation at the talks, marched (militarily) into Kampala and took over the government. At this putsch, many a Western diplomat promised fire and brimstone on the houses of Kaguta. But in the end just like the case in Kenya, the West recognized Museveni’s military government.

Need I say that Museveni is now the “blue-eyed boy” of the West? He is even involved in this war with impunity; knowing that the West will not pressure him to withdraw.

I hope these two examples from the region will bring it home to you that nothing stands still: if you show resolve and overthrow the evil and Jieng Council-inspired dictator, the West will have no choice but to deal with you as a de facto leader of South Sudan.

One more other thing. Ulysses S. Grant, the General who commanded the Union army against the Confederate army of General Lee during the America Civil War believed that prolonging civil war causes more and unnecessary deaths and sufferings; he hastened the defeat of General Lee by mobilizing vast resources and showing great resolve in defeating the enemy in the field.

It is imperative that you work hard to bring this unjust war to a speedy conclusion as your commanders are demanding.

Good luck and best wishes.
Choromke Jas

Decentralized Federal System: the Best Option for Diversity Management

By John Juac, CANADA, APR/12/2015, SSN;

South Sudan is divided into ten states which correspond to the three historical regions of old Sudan known as Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile. These states are further divided into 86 counties and several Payams and Bomas; the transitional constitution of the new country, which was enacted in 2011, describes a decentralized system of governance with three levels of government: “the national level, which will exercise authority within a state in respect of the people and states; the state level of government, which shall exercise authority within a state, and render public services through the level closest to the people; and local government level within the state, which shall be the closest to the people.” (The Transitional Constitution of Republic of South Sudan 2011).

According to this constitution, while the national government has far-ranging powers, states also have broad executive and legislative rights giving them a fair degree of self-governance.

In many respects, some argued, the transitional constitution is fairly progressive with respect to devolving decision-making authority to appropriate levels of government. And this is especially true in relation to service delivery which is primarily the functions of states.

Even the local level of government is expected to undertake many functions that enhance broad citizen participation, the hallmark for good governance.

The constitution also recognizes traditional authority and lays a good foundation for a decentralized federal system of governance, and yet there has been a public debate in recent months about the merits and demerits of unitary and federal systems.

In a Sudan Tribune opinion editorial, one of the debaters made a strong case for a reversion to a unitary state, and argued that “economically, federalism hurts poor states and most of the time, it encourages unnecessary competition and selfishness. In another word, it breeds inequality and we do not want it happen in our land. Some states are rich while others could be left behind,” (Sudan Tribune2012).

Such arguments suggest two things: an inclination to weaken the decentralized structures in favor of a unitary state and a wrong assessment of governance systems in Africa and elsewhere.

The available written materials show that a unitary governmental system has failed many African nations in the past. So would South Sudanese still need unitary state structures to fail them?

One thinks that arguments in favor of a unitary state in a new country like South Sudan are wrong headed. Africa’s post-independence experiences with unitary state structures has been disastrous.

Unitary systems have produced the high levels of inequality, marginalization of vulnerable groups such as women, rural people, ethnic minorities, urban poor, and the promotion of policies that have made corruption and rent seeking endemic.

Unitarism concentrates power in the center and enhances the ability of the ethno-regional groups that control the central government to maximize their interests and values at the expense of other citizens, especially those which are not politically well connected (Kimenyi and Meagher 2004).

There is often a strong motive for ruling elites to concentrate political power in the central government, and this concentration of political power enhances the ability of ruling elites to redistribute income and wealth in their favor and their supporters’ favor, usually at the expense of the larger majority.

As has been the case in many African countries during most of the post-independence period, the common tendency for leaders has been to create strong unitary states.

Furthermore, those countries that had some form of decentralized governance structures before independence often had post-independence rulers that abolished such systems, arguing that they were not effective instruments of governance and economic development. These leaders saw the unitary system as the best institutional arrangement to unite the diverse ethnic and religious groups that inhabited their countries.

But the results of the strong unitary states on African continent are well known- abuse of power, high levels of corruption and financial malfeasance, as well as oppression of minority and other vulnerable groups and regional inequalities.

Many groups that came to view themselves as disenfranchised and deprived by the existing system of governance resorted to destructive mobilization in an effort to improve their participation in political and economic markets and to minimize further marginalization.

The results were brutal civil wars and extremely high levels of political instability.

Some of us who argue in favor of a unitary governmental system really do not know much about South Sudan. South Sudan is a very large country with a population estimated at slightly over 8 million with complex ethnic diversity.

There are more than 60 different ethnic groups of varying sizes currently residing in this new country, making diversity management particularly important. Effectively delivering public goods and services in such a varied and complex environment presents many challenges.

To deal effectively with these immense human development obstacles that our country faces, we must design and implement governance structures in which the civil servants and political leaders are accountable to the people and constitution.

Such governance structures must also allow for broad participation of South Sudanese people in social, political and economic affairs. Only a decentralized system would bring these desired outcomes in South Sudan.

The lesson from other highly heterogeneous countries is that “decentralized governance is the best suited in dealing with diversity, improving the delivering of services and entrenching participation and accountability” (Kimenyi 1997).

As the experiences of other African nations have shown, concentration of political power in the center is associated with a whole range of outcomes that undermine national unity and national development.

Conclusion
The story which has repeated itself over and over is that people of South Sudan have set out on the democratic path with revolutionary enthusiasm, but before long they have lost their way and settled back into a more centralized authoritarian regime.

This centralized authoritarian regime is characterized by the dominance of unable personalistic leaders who often pursue disastrous political, social and economic policies, widespread and blatant corruption among cabinet ministers and civil servants, arbitrary infringement of the rights and liberties of citizens, lack of standards of bureaucratic efficiency and performance, the pervasive alienation of traditional rulers, the loss of authority by legislatures and courts, the fragmentation and complete disintegration of broadly based political parties.

The primary fact is that all these problems are in the large part the product of the highly centralized system coupled with a dictatorial tendency.

The ruling political gangsters in Juba have reneged on a promise to move the country from its transitional constitution to a permanent framework of governance and focus on strengthening the federal system.

Now there are concerns that the centralization of political power in Juba is marginalizing some national groups and is creating corruption and wasteful allocation of scarce public resources.

The states and their constituent local governments are not really constitutionally functional entities. So what will you do as responsible South Sudanese citizens to rectify this situation?

You must forge a united urban revolutionary front, regardless of your political persuasions, ethnic and regional backgrounds, to resist the temptations by the ruling criminals and thugs to concentrate power in the national government at the expense of state and local levels of government.

For this nascent nation, a major focus must be the strengthening and not the weakening of decentralized federal system. Actions that weaken state governments are likely to create a volatile situation, as some national groups will be marginalized and deprived

According to experts, there are several advantages of a decentralized system of governance for a country like South Sudan.

First, decentralization when it is guaranteed by the national permanent constitution, brings government closer to the people and makes it relevant to their lives and the problems that they face.

Second, decentralization enhances the ability of the people at the local level to participate in the design and implementation of policies affecting their lives. This is especially critical given the fact that the people at the community level have more information about demand and supply conditions in their communities than those in Juba, and hence are able to help the government adopt policies that significantly enhance the efficient and equitable allocation of public resources.

Third, decentralization increases competition in government provision and therefore enhances government efficiency.

Fourth, decentralization improves accountability since civil servants and political leaders are forced to work closely with those who provide the resources- the tax payers that pay their salaries and support their activities.

Finally, decentralization enhances the ability of local communities to maximize their values and thus minimizes the conflict that often arises when some groups are forced to sacrifice their traditions and cultures in favor of some national values dictated by those groups that control the central government.

Only a decentralized federal system of governance would bring these desired outcomes in South Sudan.

John Juac Deng
Journalist/writer
Juacd@yahoo.ca

Forty three years of chaos and disorder in South Sudan

BY: ALHAJ PAUL, MAY/12/2015, SSN;

“It is unfortunate that one of the well mannered and highly disciplined officers at the ministry of defence could not stand the test of pressure which is regretful.” General Kuol Manyang Juuk, the minister of defence of Republic of South Sudan declared. “I have always admired him” he continued, “for being one of the well mannered officers but one of the officers we have trained to the international standard. He holds a masters of Arts from Liverpool University.”

This lamentation speaks for itself, but it is important to mention Mr Juuk got it totally wrong; Major Lasuba Lodoru Wongo did not attend Liverpool University. He did his masters degree at Manchester University.

The agony of losing Major Wongo is coursing through the system like electric current causing shock to President Kiir’s government. Kuol Manyang was not only shocked but his thinking got paralysed due to the disorientation caused by the departure of the impeccable officer.

In trying to explain away the rebellion of Major Wongo, Kuol makes an empty statement subtly trying to associate the clean officer with being weak. “It is unfortunate…………(Major wongo) ………could not stand the test of pressure.” This is a baseless accusation with no credibility in it whatsoever.

To add to the already obscured comments Kuol is a well known chauvinist who parades his insensitivity to women openly. To understand his mindset just read, ‘SPLA vows to end rebellion in Greater Upper Nile region’ http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article53180

Kuol’s derogatory announcement of Major Wongo’s rebellion reflects the larger picture of the constant taunts the Jieng throw at the Equatorians as ‘cowards’ , ‘slaves’, ‘colonised’ and so on. If people ever wanted to know where the average Jieng gets these abusive words from they should look no further than the minister and the ignominious Jieng Council of Elders. This is a self styled group of national thieves and criminals responsible for the rot in the country masquerading as respectable elders.

Although Mr Juuk has resorted to a sexist and abusive language he unknowingly reveals the system’s worries about the prowess of Major Wongo’s potential in ending the abusive system in Juba.

Mr Juuk confesses, “(Major Wongo’s) rebellion could undermine economic activities with neighbouring countries of Uganda and the Democratic of Congo (DRC) if he takes advantage of his knowledge of the triangle region straddling Uganda to the south of Juba and the DRC to the south west. “ Please see, ‘S. Sudan army expresses concern over defections in W. Equatoria’ http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article53835

These worries are not without foundation. First, Major Lodoru’s declaration has been well received sympathetically by the majority of South Sudanese. He has ably and competently identified the malaise of South Sudan and skilfully prescribed the right medicine. His group’s objective is captured in this excerpt from his, “Why REMNASA was formed” received on 2nd February 2015 and published by South Sudan Nation website.

“For this reason, REMNSA therefore having been deeply touched by the urgent need to salvage the country from complete disintegration has developed firm determination to unite and reconcile all the 64 nationalities of South Sudan in order to maintain the existence of the country everybody fought to liberate for prosperity of the people and posterity of the future generation.”

What Major Wongo offers here is hope and peaceful existence for all the people of South Sudan, unlike the myopic recipe shoved down the people’s throat by the Dinkocratic system in Juba.

Who does not want to live in a secure and safe environment? Who does not want to see his/her family exist and develop in peace while knowing the future is assured? Who does not want to see their family and their children grow and develop socially, educationally and economically in happiness?

Everybody of-course wants that but the SPLM does not offer it. What they have offered so far is theft of public funds, ethnic cleansings, rampant killings, tribalism etc.

So the future clearly lies in the Lodorus, the Sules, the Mullas, the Paride Tabans, and many others. The people of South Sudan have a choice to make between evil and good, between totalitarian rule and democracy, between terror and secure respectable existence, between Jieng tribalism and a pluralistic order.

The SPLA, as the minister of defence confesses, will not be able to stop REMNASA from paralysing the country. The leadership of the SPLA is already damaged beyond repair by their poor behaviour.

The top brass have turned themselves into super businessmen owning huge business partnerships. Their capital was creamed from stolen salaries of the foot soldiers and the massive unsupervised budget accorded to the defence establishment.

Most of the generals have become physically shapeless due to over indulgence in eating. Their tummies protrude meters in front of them impacting on their mobility. These are people who can no longer afford to fight. Their only interest in life now is in protecting their loot. Even their existence in the army is towards that end.

SPLA currently is comparable to Idi Amin’s army routed by Tanzania in 1979; Joseph Mobutu‘s army routed by Kabila in 1997 and the list continues. Once an army becomes corrupt and business minded they can no longer defend a country.

No wonder, had UPDF of Yoweri Museveni not come to President Kiir’s rescue in December 2013, SPLA for certain would have crumbled and President Kiir and his Dootku Beny would have been history.

With the emerging patriotic rebellion in Equatoria it is just a matter of time before the SPLM/A and its Dinkocracy is cleared out from South Sudan once and for good. It must be noted that this rebellion can be traced to two crucial events.

First, and foremost, the pains of December 2013. The Equatorians are victims of President Kiir’s grave crime against humanity. The killings of the Nuer in the presence of the Equatorians have had a huge psychological impact on them emotionally and mentally.

In addition to nursing this destructive pain, the Jieng audaciously threatened the very existence of Equatorians. Having witnessed the horror of the cleansing of the Nuer and listening to the threats on their well being convinced the majority of Equatorians that the only way to safety is to struggle for freedom.

After all, they are being killed daily, their lands are being grabbed daily, their women and daughters are being raped daily so on and so forth. Please see, ‘The Jieng’s Vile Plan to Ethnically Cleanse Equatoria’ http://allafrica.com/stories/201407280866.html

Secondly, IGAD’s incompetence and lack of professionalism infuriated the Equatorians. The Equatorians as stakeholders found themselves excluded from having a say on the country’s affairs. Basically IGAD indirectly in a naive way was encouraging the Equatorians to rebel because the peace talks actually became the talks “of those holding arms” and not of stakeholders in general. IGAD was thus rewarding the men of violence and despising the men of peace.

IGAD’s conduct in the whole peace mediation at best is disgraceful and at worst is a downright promotion of violence in South Sudan. It is disgraceful at best because the whole foundation for the solutions to the conflict is built on the belief that if SPLM/A is reunited peace can return to South Sudan.

This view and the narrative that follows it ignore the real cause of the problem which is tribalism and President Kiir’s cleansing of the Nuer in December 2013 to silence his critics and challengers in the rotten SPLM party.

Furthermore it is not right that power is yet again to be concentrated in SPLM/A which has failed the country.

In mediating, IGAD behaved like an Ostrich. It hid its head in the sand expecting peace to magically appear. This is the stuff of a deranged mindset. Peace will not come to South Sudan out of a biased mediation process, spiced with self serving interests and a hypocritical approach to the conflict.

IGAD’s approach at worst is a promotion of violence in South Sudan because IGAD itself has taken sides in the conflict in support of President Kiir who de-legitimised himself by engaging in ethnic cleansing of South Sudanese citizens whom he has a duty to protect.

This is in spite of the fact that President Kiir in breach of the interim constitution recruited his own tribal militia who he unleashed on the Nuer people and opponents of the regime.

Plainly President Kiir is a criminal and should not be supported to remain in power. He cleansed Juba of the Nuer people in December 2013. Please see, ‘Timeline: formation of Mathiang Anyoor in South Sudan’ https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/timeline-formation-%E2%80%98mathiang-anyoor%E2%80%99-south-sudan and ‘Generals say Juba massacre was done by private militia, not SPLA’ https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/generals-say-juba-massacres-done-private-militia-not-spla

Once you have read these two pieces on Radio Tamazuj website, please proceed to watch ‘President Salva Kiir of South Sudan on BBC hard talk’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_-WncqcZ5o

Given the available evidence, the right place for President Kiir now is in the International Criminal Court to answer for his grave crimes against humanity. IGAD shamelessly in condoning impunity interferes with the release of the African Union report to the atrocities of December 2013. If this is not stalking the flames of war I do not know what it is. Please see, ‘IGAD on the Issue of Stakeholders’ http://allafrica.com/stories/201406060656.html

The man responsible for the trashing of President Kiir’s grave crimes against humanity is none other than his nemesis Dr Riek Machar. Right from the beginning he callously downplayed this serious crime by not calling it an ethnic cleansing of the Nuer. His reluctance allowed the IGAD to define the conflict from its own perspective dismissing the mass murder as the real cause of the conflict.

What was disheartening was that on 22nd December 2013 a week into the ethnic cleansing of the Nuer, Riek in an interview with Al Jezeera naively announced to the world his wish to be the president of South Sudan. It seemed to him the killings of the Nuer did not matter at all. What was important for him was the presidency of South Sudan.

Here, Riek as usual has disappointed the people of South Sudan. In 1991 he correctly challenged Dr John Garang over the objective of the movement only to fall prey to President Omar Bashir of the Sudan. He was greatly deceived by Bashir to enter into an alliance of the devils without a clear strategy. They then set out to conquer South Sudan militarily. Within a period of less than one and half years the SPLM/A was ruthlessly beaten to a near total annihilation. The alliance with Bashir’s regime succeeded to capture the whole of South Sudan save Nimule.

Dr Garang sensing the demise of SPLM/A and triumph of Khartoum, he coiled his tail and literally begged the Equatorians to forgive the ills of the movement and return to save the country. Were it not for the late Eliaba Surur, Yaba Saverino Fouli, Rev. Kinga and the Equatorian leaders of the time who intervened and mobilised the Equatorians to re-join the fight, SPLM/A would have been history.

When the Equatorians returned to the field they rolled back all the gains the unholy alliance of Bashir and Machar made. As expected the Jieng shamelessly claimed the victory as theirs pushing the Equatorians once again away from the centre of power.

The Equatorians have always been the saviours of South Sudan. Just prior to the independence of the Sudan in January 1956, the Equatorians rose up in Yambio, Juba and Torit igniting a war of resistance and secession against the Sudan. This initial war from 1955 to 1972 was fought to a large extent in Equatoria by Equatorians. They gave their all to realise South Sudan.

After signing the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972 granting South Sudan self rule, out of good will and in belief of South Sudan’s welfare, General Joseph Lagu took the highest patriotic act by handing political power to Mr Abel Alier while he remained in the army.

Lagu then went out to train the next leaders of South Sudan. He identified John Garang and Salva Kiir among others and proceeded to train them. Here was an Equatorian working for the interest of the people and South Sudan. Unfortunately, Abel Alier instead of building the South, he embarked on fragmenting it tribally which led to Kokora.

Abel Alier’s right hand architects of tribal division and destruction unbelievably make the core of the current Jieng Council of Elders. Any wonder why the country is in chaos. These are the very people who created the environment that led to Kokora. Kokora simply was a reaction of Equatorians to Jieng abuse of power from mid 1970s to early 1980s just like now.

Again, in mid 1990s Equatorians saved SPLM as narrated above. Now, once more Equatoria is stepping in through REMNASA to rescue the country. This time round Equatoria needs to do a thorough clean job to ensure that proper institutions are set in place to ward off any abusers of power.

In the 60 years of South Sudan’s tragic existence – from 1955 to 2015, the Jieng have directly been responsible for 43 years of the chaos and disorder in the then region and now a country. This makes 72 percent of valuable time wasted. It is what can honestly be called a period of continuing darkness. The remaining 28 percent was lost to the oppression of the Arabs. Had South Sudan under the Jieng utilised this time productively South Sudan would perhaps be far ahead by now in all spheres.

Although the 72 percent of wasted time partly was also locked in the war of liberation, what needs to be recognised is the real failure of the Jieng to understand the real needs of South Sudan which is the forging of a united people under values that promote equality, justice and prosperity.

However, the humiliation and abuse Equatorians suffer, with the constant elimination of their leaders capped with constant taunts is bound to lead into a conflict. It is a no brainer to know that this kind of humiliation and subjugation of a once stout and proud people is eventually going to result in an ugly show down.

Here is where Major Wongo comes in. His rebellion is a reaction to 43 years of relentless humiliation. There is nothing the Dinkocratic system is going to do, that they have not already done. If it is killing, they are already doing it with style. If it is rape, they are already doing it to both women and men. If it is land grab, they are doing it. If it is marginalisation, they are doing it. If it is mass displacement of Equatorian communities, they are already doing it.

In such an environment though violence is undesirable and unacceptable, it is understandable why Major Wongo has taken up arms to resist and save the country from disintegration. The theory of Just War clearly endorses war when the victims have no recourse to peaceful solutions to their suffering and problems.

In interest of self defence and saving the country Major Wongo can not be faulted. His situation is similar to Dr John Garang’s situation in 1983. If it was right for Garang and Salva Kiir to pick up arms against the oppressors in Khartoum then, it is equally right for Major Wongo to pick up arms against them the oppressors of today in Juba.

Knowledge accumulated from experiences from various conflict situations over the centuries tells us that abused persons are likely to become the future abusers or oppressed persons are likely to become the future oppressors. The evidence to this theory has been vindicated in post colonial states of Africa. South Sudan itself is the latest glaring indisputable case.

Please see letter sent to President Salva Kiir by a group of pro-South Sudan American activists. It proves the point by saying: “This violence is shocking and has included rape, murder, theft, and destruction of property. We are particularly concerned about the evidence emerging of abuses by government forces in Jonglei. These terrible crimes occur because government forces believe they have the power to act with impunity. We joined you in your fight against these very abuses by the Khartoum regime for many years. We cannot turn a blind eye when yesterday’s victims become today’s perpetrators.” http://enoughproject.org/files/FriendsofSouthSudanLetter_July2013.pdf

Franz Fanon in his book, ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ beautifully sheds light on the pitfalls of violence. While he endorses it as a means of breaking the shackles of oppression he disagrees passionately with the supposed liberation fighters’ inability to break free from the ways of the ‘master’ which paradoxically is what they fought against.

In a nutshell yesterday’s oppressed become tomorrow’s oppressor. What a curse? President Kiir and the SPLM/A are the living example of this curse articulated by Fanon.

The SPLM fought claiming it was liberating the oppressed people. Now see what they are doing and what is the difference between Bashir and Kiir. For instance, Bashir is intolerant of free speech and media and so is Kiir. The security services of Khartoum abuses the people in exactly the same manner the security of Juba does.

In other words, the break away from the Sudan has not provided the people of South Sudan with the true freedom they fought for. Thus there is need for the liberation to be finished.

It is only the conscious liberation movements such as the South West Africa People Organisation (SWAPO) of Namibia to some extent that can deliver to their people. Now, will Major Wongo and REMNASA be able to deliver on their promise.

On balance of probability they are better suited to rescue the country especially given the fact that REMNASA’s declaration captures the real issues of South Sudan. Major Wongo comes across as a more clued up person on the issues of South Sudan.

There is no reason for a humble, well educated and disciplined army officer to break ranks unless he/she has come to a logical conclusion that things are at the tipping point. Indeed in South Sudan things have reached a tipping point.

The only hope was in the IGAD peace talks. Unfortunately IGAD the mediator itself sexed out the stakeholders removing the vital required element for a real credible lasting solution.

Unsurprisingly it has as a result of its naivety hit the buffers ending with a grand failure on its hands on 6th March 2015.

The survival of the country is in dire straits and an internal intervention is needed. Major Wongo has selflessly answered the call for the internal intervention and salvation of the country. His appearance on the national stage in many ways is comparable to that of Dr John Garang in 1983.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com

Failed plot to kill Gen. Martin Kenyi by pres. Kiir, Itto and Andruga

BY: Joshua Onyango, Nairobi;

A very worrisome security leakage reached the South Sudan Liberty News, indicating that the former ambassador John Andruga, who never reported to his mission station since his appointment, and the acting SPLM general secretary, Dr Ann Itto, met with the President Salva Kiir on 16 April 2015. According to the leaked report, the three met in closed doors in Juba to discuss the fate of General Martin Kenyi Taratisio ,who defected from the Juba-SPLA and has since pledged his support to the people’s movement against the Juba regime.

During the closed-door meeting held in the presidential office, the three then agreed, given he was once stationed in Nairobi, that Ambassador John Andruga Duku to first attempt to convince General Kenyi to abandon the rebellion in exchange of lifting the treason charges against him for rebelling against an elected and a legitimate president of the Republic.

The first attempt to convince Kenyi to abandon his rebellion was made mid April 2015, this was the first initiative of the president to convince Martin kenyi before the Pagak SPLA-IO leadership consultative conference.

According to the leaked report, John Andruga Duku was dispatched to Nairobi with undisclosed amount of cash to bribe close friends who knew the location and the whereabouts of Gen. Martin Kenyi on his transit through Nairobi to Pagak.

The friends bribed with the Juba’s money included very close ally of SPLA-IO at its mission office in Nairobi. To gain access to the Office, Ambassador Andruga went accompanied by the south Sudanese Anglican Bishop, Paul Yagusuk…aka ‘Abuna Kabasa meaning “liar priest”,’ an Equatorian by background whose residence are both in Juba and Nairobi.

Having made several attempts to personally contact the General and being turned down each time, the Ambassador Andruga then sought out the help of Bishop Yagusuk who in turn called a prominent SPLA opposition member in Nairobi office, a known associate of General Kenyi, this then gave them an access to the General.

Upon their arrival and seeing the Bishop was accompanied by John Andruga, General Martin Kenyi declined to meet the bishop and left the location immediately.

The leaked report further revealed that Kiir and the two Ma’di traitors namely… John Andruga Duku and Ann Itto formulated three proposals for General Kenyi.

1. Urge general Kenyi to renounce and abandon the rebellion without delay and in return they will help him seek asylum to South Africa. The Juba government agreed to facilitate his safe transit and offered unspecified cash amounts for him to start a new life in South Africa as well as a monthly generous allowances for the Gen and his family instead of a bush life and his family suffering in Kampala.

This is a plan designed to render the Equatoria region free of threats and rebellions, which is the lifeline for the Kiir government. Per this leaked report Kiir is severely frustrated with Kenyi’s defection desiring to eliminate him from the Equations by all means as soon as possible.

2. The second option is, if General Kenyi renounced and abandoned Rebellion, any related activities and functions, and could agree to return to Juba, all charges against him including the military treason will be dropped. The only charge that will remain is the charge of neglecting duty and abandonment of his post but these are lighter changes compare to treason charges that will seek for his execution, revealed the leaked report.

3. The third and final option is to appeal to the General’s raw emotions, alleging the General Martin Kenyi has caused insecurities and increased sufferings for his Ma’di people.

According to the leaked report, the three claimed they received numerous complaints from the Ma’di people, blaming General Kenyi for their daily arrests and harassment by the Security forces, that they were living peacefully with the Dinka until Kenyi brought sufferings and miseries on them for rebelling against the Kiir’s government.

That they rejected Kenyi’s rebellion and would rather live with the Dinka than with his rebellion that led to the government arresting and torturing them daily!

Per a Madi Elder contacted by SSLN, who desires to remain anonymous, this last option is the making of lies created by selfish individuals the likes of Anna and Andruga, who right from their professional births showed Zero support and love for their constituencies and blood kin but choose to lay in bed with those who inured their very inheritance in South Sudan, Ma’di people, therefore they have, for the sake of their stomachs, willingly became traitors each and every time.

It must be recalled that the Ma’di people have accused both Ann Itto and John Andruga in the past of forging coalitions with the Dinka hardliners and their associates the likes of the deputy interior Minister Salva Mathok and the former interior Minister Aleu Ayieny Aleu at the expense of the Ma’di people and their lands on which the Dinka sit in humiliations of the land owners.

After the first mission to convince General Kenyi failed to even reach him, Dr. Ann and President Kiir for the second time dispatched Ambassador John Andruga to Nairobi in the end of April, this time some unknown men believed to be agents from south Sudan security, accompanied Ambassador John Andruga.

Their mission was to find General Martin Kenyi and assassinate him on the Kenyan soil. But General Kenyi was tipped off by the very same South Sudanese Security Loyalist to change his locations and not avail himself to meet anyone; thus surviving his assassination attempt by Kiir, Dr Ann Itto and Ambassador John Andruga.

The Kenyan Government needs to take note otherwise Kiir and his assassins will succeed next time given they host a number of opposition figures to include those not in active armed struggles against the genocidal regime in Juba.

This is very unfortunate development in that the Juba government has now resorted to attempting to eliminate her opponents in foreign soils. If legitimate as they claimed then they should adhere to international laws that govern relationship between sisterly nations.

South Sudan Liberty news reached out to members of the Ma’di communities in the Ma’di corridor to get their view on this failed assassination against their son involving their own son and daughter as agents of the Jieng.

A Madi elder who agreed to speak to SSLN on condition of anonymity said their community is indignant and disgusted by their two sold out son and daughter blinded by greed for money and power and that they are not surprised by the behavior of these two who clearly have cast their lots with the Jieng government.

He appeals to Ann Itto and Andruga to remember that no government lasts forever but the Ma’di people will.

“Why are you sailing in a sinking Ship?” He frustratingly asked his two kin.

Adding that they will never get this power without their people and that they will never enjoy this money in peace and history and the Ma’di people will judge both Ambassador Andruga and Ann Itto harshly and their children and grandchildren will unfortunately carry this burden years after this two are gone into the graves.

Joshua Onyago,
Nairobi, Kenya.
SSLN

Hard Time: Warrap Will Remain a State of Wonders Forever.

By: Simon Yel Yel, Juba, MAY/11/2015, SSN;

Quote: “when government fears people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny,” says by Thomas Jefferson, the former president of the US.

The wonders that Warrap State had been known for ages are now starting to take different shapes and forms. Warrap had been known for its good wonders since the liberation struggles but what we are now witnessing today is what I can called” imported bad wonders” in the making.

We are now in the “beginning of an end” of the grave and life-threatening imported wonder of State Governor Nyandeng Malek Dielic that Warrap had never experienced before. Warrap had been known of its liberation, scientific and democratic wonders but Nyandeng has maculated its reputations with her wonder of dictatorship and corruption.

I will remind my readers with some good wonders that the people of Warrap state have been known for before Warrap has been tarnished by Nyandeng with her bad imported wonders.

The first good wonder was in 15th May 1983 when the late Gen. Karbino Kuanyin Bol broke the silence of the marginalized Sudanese and southern Sudanese in particular by firing a first bullet against the Khartoum dictatorial regime. His first bullet has successfully led us to have independent south Sudan today where every citizen is treated equally without prejudice.

The other thing that surprised the whole world so much was how lucky and blessed is Warrap to have produced the world’s tallest person, Late Manut Bol and Prof John A. Akec, the first black scientist who went to the moon.

The other miracle that left people wondering up to now is also about the president Salva Kiir Mayardit. People are still wondering now asking themselves how lucky is President Kiir who was in number four in the SPLA\M leadership to rise the flag of independent South Sudan and be its first president.

Readers may ask what the gist of this article is about, let me go straight to the point that I want to make. Since Nyandeng Malek entered into politics in Warrap, she equally brought hitherto the “bad imported wonders” into Warrap right away from when she was a deputy governor in 2006.

The preliminary of her bad imported wonders started when she was an acting governor in 2006, she ordered the police to shot pupils of Kuajok primary school when they staged a peaceful march to the ministry of education to petition the minister for the delay of the teachers’ salaries.

Teachers were on strike for more than a month because they didn’t receive their salaries of three months. One student was shoot dead by the police and many pupils were injured. This wonder made Warrap to be the first state in south Sudan where pupils are shot dead and no one has been held to account.

In 2010 elections, SPLM gave Nyandeng Malek a gubernatorial ticket, she was the first and only female elected governor not only in the Sudan but also in East Africa. It was a kind of democratic wonder for Warrap state people who elected her to be first female governor in the Sudan.

Immediately one year after her election, we saw the “beginning of the beginning” of her bad imported wonders and hidden dictatorial alter ego in the brutal beating and jailing Hon. Deng Mayom Akeen just two month after the independence of south Sudan.

She was the first governor in the Republic of south Sudan to beat and jail an elected MP without lifting his immunity. De facto, she is the one who have taught General Malong Awan and General Matur Chut how to beat, jail and even dismiss elected MPs in the parliament.

This wonder made Warrap to be the first state where MPs are illegally beaten and jailed without lifting their immunities; after they are beaten and jailed, they are released without being taken to court for the crime they were arrested of committing.

18th December 2013 was the “end of the beginning” of her bad imported wonders when she would beat and jail the deputy chairman and the acting chairman of the SPLM, uncle Andrew Kuac Manyol, William Deng Nhial, the SPLM secretary for finance and the SPLM acting secretary General, Kharlos Maluil Makuek, the SPLM youth league coordinator and other youths.

She falsely incriminated them of having links with the group of Riek Machar who staged a failed coup in Juba. The real reason behind was the withdrawal of confidence on her government by the state SPLM office.

This wonder made Warrap to be the first and only state in south Sudan where SPLM officials are beaten, jailed and released without the legal procedures being followed.

On 8th May 2015, this day will be remembered as a stygian gloomy day of the “beginning of an end” of the bad imported wonders of Nyandeng Malek in Warrap history and blame shall be on Prof Malek Madut for importing Nyandeng from Cueibet to Warrap without first removing these dangerous “wonders” in her.

The wonders in her are so dangerous and they are threatening the existence of Warrap as a state and its prosperity as a people.

It was on Friday 8th this month when Hon. Amet Amet Kuol and Hon. Ariech Mayar Ariech were illegally arrested by security operatives under command of Nyandeng without their immunity being lifted.

I wonder how becoming an SPLM governor makes one automatically be an SPLA commander. Nyandeng is now an SPLM commander not an SPLM governor because what is she is doing now is even far beyond what a brutal military dictator does.

Nyandeng needs to be stopped before she surprises us again with her last worst wonder, “the end of an end,” which I think is going to be the most shocking one among her all bad wonders.

All her bad wonders were meant to provoke the population of Warrap to take the law into their own hands but the citizens of Warrap state are law-abiding and love to see things done in peaceful way.

What is that thing that can be a threat to the national security to prompt the president to remove the governor if not what Nyandeng has been doing?

Nyandeng has done enough and it is high time for the president Kiir to remove her before she surprises him and us with her last “end of end” wonder.

Inclusion, I will paraphrase the statement of Tony Blair by saying, the election of Nyandeng as a governor brought: tranny, not freedom; dictatorship, not democracy; the rule of national security or secret police, not rule of law in Warrap.

President should decree Nyadeng out this time.

The author is a concerned Warrap citizen and can be reached at simonyel55@yahoo.com or 0955246235.
——————
Letter of Apology to Prof Malek Madut.
By: Simon Yel Yel, Juba
I my last article “Hard Time: Warrap will remain a state of wonders forever, published on southSudanNation.com, May 11, 2015,I had castigated Governor Nyandeng Malek for violating the constitution of Warrap state since 2011 up-to date.
I had then playfully, and without any bad intention, added that the “blame shall be on Prof Malek Madut for importing Nyandeng from Cueibet to Warrap without first removing these dangerous “wonders” in her.”
I would like to abjure the word “IMPORT” I used in my article. I accepted that the word “import” was wrongly MISPLACED while the rest of words are correctly placed and I take full responsibility of them.
I understand the word “import” was wrongly misplaced and no reason can justify it, but I would like you to know that I was enraged by Nyandeng’s ad infinitum flagrant violations of the constitution of Warrap and that have forced me to use that word. I didn’t have ill-intention to use it to describe your legal marriage but I found it right to use because I was infuriated by what governor Nyandeng always do in Warrap state.
I didn’t impugn the political aptitude of any woman that hails from Cueibet to govern but I was trying to tell the public where Nyandeng hails from but am sorry to people of Cueibet for any inconveniences caused. I would love to make it clear to everyone and Nyandeng Malek herself that my criticism was not a character assassination, libellous nor even giving a dog a bad name but I believe what I wrote were facts with evidences but only I erroneously MISPLACED the word” import” to describe the legal marriage between Nyandeng Malek and Prof Malek Madut.
I request you (Malekdit) to forgive me for wrongly describing your legal marriage. I promise to use the right words in my next article when criticizing Nyandeng Malek and no single word will touch the family again. I also want to let Hon Nyandeng Malek know that am not apologizing for pointing out her hitherto infringements of Warrap constitution but for only MISPLACING the word “import”.

Sincerely,
Simon Yel Yel, he is reachable at simonyel55@yahoo.com

How an arms embargo could actually prolong the war in South Sudan

Regional bodies should support settlements that’d allow Salva Kiir and Riek Machar to save face, and international institutions like the World Bank should work to develop revenue management tools that could help a power-sharing government achieve staying power.

By Tim O’Brien, MAY/09/2015, SSN;

*** If the goal is to end the conflict and encourage a sustainable peace in South Sudan, the Security Council resolution is likely to help. The Security Council should ratchet up pressure as the conflict drags on.

The world’s newest country, South Sudan, is not only in the midst of a brutal civil war, it is also facing what has been characterised as “the world’s worst food crisis.”

While both sides in the conflict have attacked unarmed civilians in hospitals, churches and mosques and committed ethnically targeted acts of rape, a staggering two million people have been displaced from their homes.

This equates to about one in five people in a country where nearly everyone relies on subsistence farming, fishing or herding for their livelihoods.

Last month, just days before the collapse of regionally organised peace talks between South Sudanese President Salva Kiir and former vice president, now rebel leader, Riek Machar, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution that installed a system for imposing individual sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, on “leaders of any entity” in South Sudan who block peace.

Kiir and Machar are clear targets of the sanctions. Since fighting broke out in December 2013 when the Sudan People’s Liberation Army split along mainly ethnic lines behind the two leaders, at least seven ceasefires have failed and three peace agreements have been signed and broken.

The new resolution, which was drafted by the United States, does not impose an arms embargo but leaves the option open for one in the future.

Human-rights organisations have led widespread calls for an impartial arms embargo and the idea has been supported by many within the Obama administration, including Secretary of State John Kerry and ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, as reported by Foreign Policy earlier this year.

Thankfully, for now, the calls have gone unheeded. If the goal is to end the conflict and encourage a sustainable peace in South Sudan, the Security Council resolution is likely to help.

An arms embargo, on the other hand — or even the possibility of one — threatens perverse outcomes and should be taken off the table as soon as possible.

Given what scholars have learned about the causes of civil war, South Sudan is a tinderbox. The country has a rich base of natural resources, specifically oil in the states of Unity and Upper Nile where fighting has been concentrated.

It has weak (in fact, brand new) state institutions, extremely limited infrastructure to reach remote areas, and a history of past conflict (primarily with Sudan). At the same time, national income is very low and there are ethnic divisions that can be exploited for political gain.

Still, none of these factors, individually or combined, make conflict inevitable. That still takes a spark — which in this case was the split between Kiir and Machar.

Contrary to popular perceptions, the current conflict is not driven by ethnic hatred between the Dinka and Nuer but rather by the leaders’ willingness to politicise their power struggle along these ethnic lines.

Furthermore, Kiir and Machar authorise (either actively or passively) acts of horrific violence by their military factions. This dynamic instils fear among the civilians caught in the crossfire, which increases recruitment and drives the conflict forward.

The new sanctions programme will help pressure Kiir and Machar to reach a negotiated settlement by imposing private costs on them and their advisors for the continued fighting.

Until now, each has held out for the potential rewards of victory while the immense social costs of the war have been borne by ordinary South Sudanese civilians.

The Security Council should ratchet up pressure as the conflict drags on. At the same time, regional bodies should support settlements that would allow Kiir and Machar to save face, and international institutions like the World Bank should work to develop revenue management tools that could help a power-sharing government achieve staying power.

But what about the proposed arms embargo? Don’t fewer weapons imply less violence and a faster end to the conflict? Historically, the answer has been no and the reasons for this are quite clear.

In a 2005 study of past multilateral arms embargoes enacted by the Security Council during civil wars, Dominic Tierney concluded that their impacts ranged from irrelevant to malevolent.

He found that arms embargoes are rarely enforced, especially in Africa, and that even when enforced, they fail to force political changes in target countries and tend to have serious unintended consequences. They strengthen more criminal networks within armed groups and, in the case of impartial arms embargoes, the impacts are never neutral.

When weapons are scarce to begin with, an impartial arms embargo may favour the sitting government, which has greater resources stockpiled. But in the case of South Sudan, which is flush with weapons from past conflicts, an impartial arms embargo would be likely to favour the rebels since the government’s supply lines stand to be more affected by the measure.

In this way, by simply holding out the potential imposition of an arms embargo in the future, the Security Council may already be working to lengthen the civil war. Machar probably sees little reason to settle for a peace agreement if a future arms embargo would strengthen his side.

Unfortunately, a prevailing assumption among many continues to be that African civil wars are the product of ethnic hatred and access to arms. In such a world, any initiative that decreases the availability of weapons is a promising step, and perhaps the only promising step, that can be taken by the international community. However, the world is much more complex.

As South Sudan enters its rainy season and 3.5 million people are expected to face a food security crisis or emergency — one step away from famine — the international community can actually do a great deal to help end the civil war in South Sudan. But at the same time, if diplomats ignore what has been learned through the study of civil war or the context of South Sudan itself, some efforts could easily do more harm than good.

Based on what is known about civil war in general and the conflict in South Sudan specifically, the current Security Council resolution is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, the continued calls for an arms embargo threaten a big step back.

Tim O’Brien is completing his masters in public administration in international development at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Nation Media, Nairobi, Kenya

Peace, not Appeasement

By: Deng Vanang, MAY/09/2015, SSN;

Just, durable and sustainable peace is deeply rooted in openly and honestly discussing the root causes of the conflict. It is these root causes that distinguish between who is an aggressor and aggressed. With this finding, the aggressor is served with reasonable punishment and aggressed rewarded with verdict of innocence.

The aggressor is then asked to pay the aggressed the losses he incurred in order to restore him to safe position before the time of the inflicted harm, be it physically or materially.

With punishment, the aggressor is taught invaluable lesson that crime doesn’t pay and never to repeat the costly exercise in future. While this apportioned punishment cools the enraged heart of the aggressed that there is a lot to gain morally when standing on the side of justice that sets social trends for exemplary life of peace and stability.

From this point of view, it is not the appeasement in apportioning blame to all sides of the conflict by mediator just to be seen fair that matters but just peace that points out where wrong or right lies so as to craft practical solution that addresses the crisis at hand amicably.

As it is impractical for two sides of the conflict to be both right and wrong and equally not the retribution against the perceived wrong doer the best way forward but reasonable act of deterrence becoming the hallmark of justice system if premeditated crime shall be anything of the past.

Window shopping for peace that treats the aggressed and aggressor as equally wrong or right is not only impractical approach to unravel in more foreseeable future, but also a cruel method of covering the wrongs of one side with which to get away. It is a recipe for even more disaster than the one people seek to tackle now.

In families and societies immoral behaviors are taken as normal struggles of daily life, then there exists a continuous tendency of the same being committed over and over again with dire consequence of such set ups remaining in vicious cycle of stagnancy or retardation or even both.

Again, warring parties don’t choose the kind of peace each wants. The course peace takes is dictated by myriads of ingredients, such as root causes both principal and subsidiary, disastrous effects – long term and short term and most sustainable remedies to the conflict.
Yes the perceived wrong doer may own up while the wronged honestly accepts and forgives for a just peace mutually acceptable to all sides can be attained.

However, in the case both sides pull the ropes the mediator has the final word based on his fair assessment of what really caused the conflict.

The mediator in pursuit of just peace shouldn’t be blackmailed by consequences of his perceived just act no matter how dire they may be. In avoidance to take the course of justice for fear of the side his act will adversely affect, then justice that could resolve conflict is not served.

It is equally scaremongering and defense mechanism at best to the benefits of the wrong doer as cited by some opinion writers. To them, a stronger SPLA backed by its local defense forces could manage to marshal and destabilize the country if bad peace is imposed on the government in the country built on the foundation of tribal sentiments.

The said opinions are advanced without considering the fact that the same SPLA with the full backing of Uganda’s People Defense Force, UPDF, the allied Sudan’s rebel groups and locally trained multi-ethnic militants has been contained by a pre-dominantly single ethnic armed group in the name of SPLA-In-Opposition.

What if it is the UN’s backed military intervention, can SPLA and its allies survive in the face of such onslaught?

Whereas, the same advanced hypotheses wrongly defined South Sudan’s problem as that of tribes which hate themselves than the lack of equitable development as promoted by corrupt and tribal politicians who use resources to divide and rule tribes in order to maintain tight grips on positions of political supremacy and economic plunder.

Truth be told, before formation of SPLM/A back in 1983, not a single tribe mobilized itself and occupied the land of another or had been in constant feud with another save for isolated peaceful land encroachments and sporadic rustling incidents orchestrated by a few individual cattle entrepreneurs.

If United Nations peace keeping force takes charge and forms people – centered government that delivers social services in healthcare and education, roads and communication networks as well as creates favorable environment conducive for rule of law, freedom of speech, fair employment, and business and trade these politicians will just be deprived of recruitment ground to wage self-serving wars against one another.

Also citing cases of Somalia, Iraq and Libya so as to influence the third party’s intervention in a way wrongly favorable to certain side or else South Sudan will go the same way those countries have taken is an empty political rhetoric.

The deterioration of situation in these countries followed third party’s intervention that aimed at totally supplanting the favored opposition with hated establishment. It is a win -loss political approach.

In Somalia it was destroying Ahmed Farah Aideed with Ali Mahdi in the past and currently Al-shabaab with moderate Islamic groups. It is pitting Shiites against Saddam Hussein’s Sunnis in Iraq. In Libya, it is propelling long aggrieved people of Benghazi over and above Tripoli’s ruling clique.

That is all done at the expense of creating a whole new system in those countries comprised of members with no criminal records from all warring sides followed by rigorous process of national reconciliation and healing.

The same quarters similarly feel warring parties be given an ample time to make peace in order to avoid an imposed peace from outside that shall rather serve to aggravate the already worse situation in South Sudan.

The problem is not shortness of time given to parties to make their own peace but it is impossibility of these parties to reach a workable peace agreement even if given a century and the destruction the war shall cause the longer it takes while rumbling on.

Within a span of a year and half, the war caused the death of modest estimate of 50,000 people, displaced 2 million others and unknown number of those it maimed, then how destructive it will be if allowed to go on indefinitely in discretion of the warring parties?

When it is common knowledge worldwide the longer the conflict takes, the more it creates high human casualties and material destruction while arousing in the process terrible emotions too difficult for the parties to reach comprises for any future agreement.

Another impractical opinion doing the round among some members of academia is that South Sudan’s war should be ended by world powers’ consensus, probably in the United Nations Security Council. When it is known to all and sundry members of global UN, regional and sub-regional blocs in AU, Arab League, etc. hardly agree on a single course of action ever since the cold war’s era.

Given the current multi-polarity of the world, five permanent members of UN’s Security Council such as US, China, Russia, Britain and France are even more divided. With US as sole super power is getting more weakened to impose its will by over ambitious China and resurging Russia as formidable challengers.

Hence, required unanimity of decision with subsequent action remains a distant mirage. Although US with its Western allies in European Union, EU still wields some considerable leverage to bulldoze its way against certain set obstructions.

Though given a considerable period of time, South Sudanese leaders failed to come up with political will to address issues of bad governance for the last ten years that eventually caused December, 2013’s violence as well as their unbridled intransigence to reach a required compromise at peace talks.

With mediators’ failing suggestion of two principals that include those accused of political and economic crimes in yet to be released AU’s Commission of Inquiry reports be barred from purposed Transitional Government of National Unity, TGNU.

Or South Sudan to be governed under the UN’s trusteeship for a five – year term also falling flat on its face.

It is now safe to say that let the benevolent world in the next rounds of peace talks intervene in whichever way it thinks fit.

That is in the best interests of ordinary, economically deprived, ethnically divided and long suffering South Sudanese, being the real victims of this war so as to rid the country’s dented image of warmonger Generals, corrupt politicians, incompetent bureaucrats and pseudo intellectuals.

Deng Vanang is a Journalist and Author of “South Sudan the Making of a Nation, A Journey from Ethnic Polities to Self-rule, State and Democracy.”

dvanang@yahoo.com

But Mr Vice president, have we tried to save our economy before asking other countries to save it for us?

BY: Agok Takping, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, APR/08/2015, SSN;

Vice president James Wani asked East African countries to save his country’s deteriorating economy, but have South Sudan tried enough to help itself? Since February this year, most people have been speculating that the South Sudanese economy is about to collapse. However, the South Sudanese government only started to share that view of many in April that the economy is indeed on the free fall.

The elite or the policy makers only came to that realization because inflation has reached new heights and the country has faced an increasing shortage of essential consumer goods like bottled water and fuel. The black market price of the dollar has risen close to 9 SSP and as I write this article, that rate may have gone up.

There are many reasons why the dollar is a hot commodity in South Sudan. Firstly, South Sudan is a country living on imports, there is absolutely nothing produced in South Sudan. Everything from vegetables to construction materials are imported.

Secondly, almost all South Sudanese who have regular incomes have rented houses for their families and put their children in various schools in East African countries.

Thirdly, students whose parents or guardians cannot afford rents in Uganda or Kenya but can afford to pay their school fees are all studying in boarding schools in East African countries.

Fourthly, there are no hospitals in South Sudan, the few that are there are poorly equipped and can hardly treat even little sicknesses like flu or malaria. This means the majority of people who have an income travel overseas for treatment.

Finally, a large number of big businesses are owned by foreigners. What this means is that these foreign nationals exchange a huge amount of South Sudanese pounds into dollars and take the dollars back to their countries.

All the mentioned factors have always been there, however the difference this time is that the oil prices in the international market has dropped dramatically, this coupled with an ongoing civil war, which forced the closure of some oil wells in Unity and Upper Nile states, means that there is a lot less hard currency going into the South Sudanese economy.

As a result, dollars become scarce. Here the law of demand versus supply kicks in, as demand increases while the supply dries up, it pushes the black market price up. This pushes up the inflation as well as import prices rise.

The long term fear is that as more people want dollars and not enough dollars coming into the economy, inflation will keep rising. In extreme cases this can cause hyperinflation where the pounds could become useless as was the case with the Zimbabwean dollar in 2009.

Another factor why the black market for dollars rises higher and higher is that the government of South Sudan has a system of fixed exchange rate. What the fixed exchange rate does is that it overvalued the pounds, while the demand is in dollars, this swings the exchange price against the pounds in favour of the dollar.

Fixed exchange rates can only be a good thing if the South Sudan central bank has enough dollars in its reserves to maintain the fixed rate.

However, this is not the case, the Bank of South Sudan as acknowledged by the government itself is running low in hard currency. The shortage of dollars, which pushes up the exchange rate means that everything in South Sudanese markets will become more expensive, and South Sudanese living in East African countries will not be able to pay their rents and school fees for their children.

This prompted the government to send the vice president to Kenya and Uganda to ask those sisterly East African countries to rescue South Sudan’s economy by accepting the South Sudanese pounds (SSP) inside their countries.

Currently, South Sudan has two different exchange rates. The official rate is about 4 SSP per dollar and the black market rate is 9 SSP. Can you see the potential problem here?

The black market differential is too big, what this means is that it increases the incentive for corruption.

Think about it for just a moment. If you can get access to dollars at the rate of 4 SSP, which is the official exchange rate and then sell those dollars at the rate of 9 SSP (the black market exchange rate), you would be 5 SSP richer. This is corruption at its finest.

This is precisely what is going on in South Sudan, the elites with their families and friends are mostly exclusively the ones who get the dollars at the official rate of 4 SSP.

To answer the question I asked earlier, before going to East African countries and asking for help, there are few things which Wani Igga and his government can do to mitigate the short-term and the long term crises of the exchange rate.

In the SHORT TERM, the government needs to take some hard decisions and devalue the pound and get rid of the fixed exchange rate.

Adapting the floating exchange rate where the market forces determine which currency go up or down in value will unify the official and black market exchange rates. By unifying the exchange rates, the issue of discriminatory distribution of dollars will be eliminated.

Consequently, those corrupt officials who used to supply the black market with dollars will see no incentive in that crooked business.

By taking these measures, the government must have to introduce subsidies for essential goods like basic food items and fuel to cover the price shock which would force those households with not enough income to go without food as they wouldn’t afford it.

The few outlined solutions above for the quick fix are achievable. However, for the long term, the task is huge and it can only be done if the government of South Sudan is serious about fixing the economy.

To bring the South Sudan’s economy to a minimum regional standard, the government must embark on constructing 2000 or more residential houses annually in Juba. States governments will also need to do the same.

In addition to housing, there is also a need to uplift the face of education in South Sudan, funding for education must be the same or even more to that of the military.

With good education system where teachers are paid based on their qualifications and performance, there will be no need for South Sudanese students to go and study in Kenya or Uganda.

Moreover, if there are enough clean and affordable standard houses for rents, all the South Sudanese families in their thousands renting in Uganda and Kenya at the moment will come back to South Sudan.

These will almost half the number of people looking for dollars now in South Sudan, the result will be a healthy economy where investors will find it attractive to invest in South Sudan.

Another important project that the government will need to initiate is building cross-country highways. Connecting all major urban areas in the country with tarmac roads will not only reduce transportation costs of goods which will then reduce food prices, it will also ensure even distribution of population (less people in Juba).

Finally, the government will need to look at cash repatriation, in Ethiopia for example, an individual is only allowed to carry a maximum of $3000 if they are leaving the country.

Cash repatriation must be capped to whatever amount deemed reasonable, this will ensure that foreign nationals are not crowding forex bureaus in search of dollars only to take them back to their countries of origin and invest there.

There are many more the government will need to do to fix the economy for the better, however the above few points are at the core of everything that needs to be done in order to have economic growth.

Agok Takpiny is a concern South Sudanese citizen residing in Melbourne Australia, he can be reached at his email: agoktakpiny@ymail.com

Why the AU-UN Trusteeship for South Sudan must be Supported

BY: JOANA ADAMS, MAY/072015, SSN;

Since the outbreak of the violent conflict in the new republic of South Sudan in December 2013, the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) composed of the East African countries bordering South Sudan, have tried to broker peace between the two warring parties of the Government of South Sudan under Salva Kiir Mayardit and the rebel movement led by former Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny.

The reasons for the outbreak of the military confrontations which resulted in the massacre of hundreds and thousands of the Nuer ethnic group in Juba, from 15th-18th Dec, and thereafter, are now, well documented. Contrary to the lies of President Salva Kiir, there was no attempted coup.

We are thankful to former Nigerian President Gen Olusegun Obasanjo and his team for a job well-done, but are disappointed that in spite of repeated calls the official document has not yet been released.

We the concerned citizens of South Sudan especially the suffering women and children, who have born the brunt of this tragic war, demand for this Report to be released without further delay.

We are also grateful to the many patriotic South Sudanese who risked their lives to speak the truth to expose the heinous atrocities committed by the government of Salva Kiir Mayardit against its own citizens.

There are compelling reasons for this rouge government to be declared an illegitimate terrorist organisation, and those found wanting there in, held politically and criminally accountable.

The world cannot afford to have double standards. There should be nothing like African solution for African problems. African problems are human problems.

The same international legal standards that were used to hold those who violated human rights; committed war crimes; and perpetrated crimes against humanity in Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere, must be unequivocally used to hold Salva Kiir and cohorts to account to ensure that such gruesome crimes are never repeated again in South Sudan.

In January 2014, a Cessation of Hostility Agreement was signed between the forces of President Kiir and that of Dr. Riek Machar. But this Agreement continued to be violated to date by both parties.

Several Peace talks conducted in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa between government and rebel representatives followed by face to face talks between the two protagonists Salva Kiir and Riek Machar have yielded little result.

The two SPLM/A factions continue to trade blames while stock piling weapons to secure final military victory against each other. The outbreak of the recent horrendous fighting especially in Upper Nile and Unity States are testimony to this.

The actions and inactions of the government is a clear demonstration that they are not interested in negotiating peace in good faith. President Kiir and cohorts continue to beat war drums while entrenching their position to illegally remain in power come July 9th 2015.

He has repeatedly rejected any provision to accommodate Riek Machar in a transitional government in any capacity. He dreads his former Vice President and finally enlisted the support of his preferred Vice President, James Wani Igga to rally Equatorian governors to defend a worthless position.

In his attempt to address the nation after collapse of the peace talks on March 6th, the President meaninglessly rumbled on making many incomprehensible childish statements to the astonishment of many.

One of the statements which caught my attention on the SSTV was that, if Riek becomes the Vice President what would happen if he (Kiir), accidentally dies? I have never heard of such childish nonsense with respect to cardinal national issues in my entire life before.

Is Kiir seriously imagining that he will continue to own and rule the South, even from his grave?

The venom of Kiir and cohorts; the likes of Makuei, Barnaba, Martin Elia Lomoro, against Western countries that helped us get our independence in the first place, is truly astounding.

As though the government alone cannot fight its battle, the government of Kiir has employed the services of the evil unconstitutional Jieng Council of elders, to randomly attack it’s carefully chosen targets: the IGAD, AU, the Troika, president Obama, alleging them to be perpetrators of the destruction of South Sudan.

Forgetting that they are the very ones who have destroyed the South and there is nothing further to be destroyed. People of good will worldwide can now only rescue the country from the abyss.

These war of words are intended to achieve at least 3 things:
-1) With-holding the imposition of the UNSC approved sanctions regime;
-2) Stopping the release of the AUPSC Inquiry Report and the grave consequences it would have on alleged perpetrators of the targeted killings in Juba, some of who are members of the Jieng Council of Elders;
-3) Preventing application of the AU (leaked) Report recommendation particularly the AU-UN Trusteeship of South Sudan.

Let the citizens be not deceived. These targeted sanctions will not affect the whole country but only the individuals deemed to be obstructing the peace process- and they are known. Sanctions will reduce their abilities to travel and use the money they have looted from government coffers to buy arms to cause further death and further destruction.

There is also a tacit declaration of war should the government of Salva Kiir be destroyed, in the process.

The Jieng Council of evil Elders transformed itself from the notorious “kitchen cabinet” during the CPA implementation, to a parallel institution that advises the president on national matters and interferes and intervenes whenever in their view their tribal interests are being threatened.

To make things worst, it has now transpired that this illegitimate Council and its destructive activities are being fully funded by the President through the illicit disproportional budget of the presidency.

They have held the President hostage for a long time and should not be allowed to hold the country and the world at large, hostage too.

Their emergence on national matters is timely because it does support the cause for the country to be put under AU-UN Trusteeship until such a time when the general public are sufficiently literate and political aware to make their own judgments on matters that affect their lives, welfare and prosperity.

These men of letters are taking advantage of the semi-illiteracy of our President and the illiteracy of their so called political constituencies- their tribes. They are greedy selfish bastards who care for nothing but their political survival and privileges. They too should be held to account morally, socially, politically and criminally.

After failure to secure a peace agreement on 6th March, 2015, the negotiating body has now been expanded and renamed IGAD plus which include new players such as South Africa, Algerian and the Troika, namely United States, United Kingdom and Norway, the principal countries, that help negotiate the CPA 2005, which finally led to the independence of South Sudan from Sudan in 2011.

As expected Juba government immediately denounced this move and threatened not to attend should the Troika form part of the next negotiating body. They have since disclaimed the threat.

Despite the threats of the government and the evil council of Elders, the UN Security Council should immediately start implementing the sanctions regime they have approved.

The AUPSC Inquiry Report, must be released without further delay. Anything short of this is a total betrayal of the people of South Sudan by the continental body that has falsely raised our expectations, in the first place.

Going by the adage that there is no smoke without fire, the Recommendations of the (leaked) AUPSC Inquiry Report should be supported as the only sustainable solution to the profound political crisis in the country.

Indeed the violent reaction of the Jieng Council is a litmus test that these recommendations could work, otherwise they wouldn’t be petrified by it.

Power-sharing will never be a sustainable solution to the conflict in South Sudan. It will only act as a cease fire that will surely ignite again in not too distant a future.

President Kiir has made it abundantly clear that he loathes Riek Machar and does not wish to work with him ever again in his life time.

He attempted to assassinate his arch foe in Dec 2013. Even if both men are forced to compromise to form a transitional government of national unity, they are too suspicious almost paranoid of each other especially the President.

It will only be a matter of time before the one who strikes first will eliminate his rival which could again plunge the country into a fresh crisis.

The issue of power struggle between the protagonists is only one dimension of the conflict and should not be blown out of proportion by IGAD Plus, but put into context in so far as the larger national political dynamics are concerned.

The leaked AU Report has pin pointed the root causes of the South Sudan conflict when it asserted that the CPA, while it addressed the North South dichotomy, ignored intra South-South political dynamics.

That the CPA, gave the SPLA/M government the culture of “entitlement”. During the CPA implementation from 2005-2011, the SPLM government and key personalities in the SPLA constructed a government that gave them absolute power over the executive, the legislative and the judiciary at all levels of government.

This anomaly was compounded by the practice of tribalism, nepotism and corruption in recruitment of personnel in the military as well as in the civil services.

There is no rule of law in the country but what is grimly described as “rule of the gun”. The culture of corruption and impunity are rampant.

In fact the former UNIMISS chief in South Sudan Hilde Johnson affirmed that the foundation of the new state is totally flawed and should be “rebooted”, if any sustainable peace and obviously development is ever to be achieved in the new nation.

The problems in the country are now so deeply entrenched that the only viable solution is the implementation of the (leaked) AUPSC Inquiry Report recommendations that South Sudan should be placed under an AU-UN Trusteeship. The recommendation of the collegial presidency that will be overseen by the AU-UN, along with implementation of federalism, is a particularly welcomed development.

The collegial presidency will in the short term, eliminate the issue of political rivalry between peoples of the three former regions of Bahar El Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile at the same time give each region equal chance to participate in governing the country.

In fact after the transitional period, the collegial presidency could be transformed into rotating presidency between the 3 regions to ensure that democracy is not abused by the majority to exclude others from national leadership.

However because there has been profound destruction of the moral and social fabrics of the society; coupled with lack of basic infrastructure development; and the necessity to implement transitional justice, peace and reconciliation.

In my view, 5 years is too short a period to achieve all these and to lay a foundation for sustainable political stability and ultimate national development based on the principles of equality of citizenship, the rule of law, equitable access to finance, employment opportunities, health and education services.

The transitional government should therefore be extended for 7-10 years.

Equatoria’s demand for the Position of Vice President
Prior to their latest intervention, the Equatorian governors took a good stance in representing the position of Equatorians with respect to federalism. This position should be maintained at all cost. It is what will bring political justice and dignity to the people of Equatoria.

The position of Wani Igga as the Vice president or vice president is worthless. Wani Igga has always been a loyal servant to the SPLM first to Dr. John Garang and now to Salva Kiir. His constituency is the SPLM and not the people of Equatoria.

Why is he silent when the land and people of Equatoria are being violated by the government? Why did he not hold the executive to account when he held the second most powerful position of the Speaker of the Assembly from 2005-2013?

From the time, he joined the SPLM/A Wani Igga was a loyal son to Dr. John Garang and now he is a loyal son to Salva Kiir. Isn’t it ironic that when the position of Wani is being threatened the President sends Wani to seek protection from his fellow Equatorians and in turn asks Equatorians to protect their son?

The present illegitimate Transitional Constitution 2011, gives the President too much power. And this Constitution along with Kiir’s government must be dismantled. In his mind, Kiir believes he is a sovereign not simply an elected (2010) Vice- President of the Republic of Sudan.

He or any other leader is yet to be elected as the first President of the Republic of South Sudan, when the time comes. Thanks to the clarity of the leaked AU Report on this issue.

In a system where the President wields absolute power and the organs of government have no checks and balances of power, the position of the Vice President is rendered worthless. Vice President Wani Igga should have by now asked Kiir to step down and give him Wani Igga, the chance to be President to restore peace to the country. The question is, when will he pluck sufficient courage to confront his boss?

Where is it written in that flawed Constitution, that Equatorians must always deputise a Dinka, or a Nuer ? Under no circumstances should Equatorians or any of the so called minority groups from the 63 tribes should accept being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Does that ring a bell?

The new republic of South Sudan is not a free gift to the people of Equatoria, it is a right that was also purchased with our sweat and blood.

From 1955 to 2004, the war of liberation was fought more viciously on Equatorian soil and today the capital city is located on our land too. If the present leaders of Equatoria, accept servitude, the next generation of Equatorians will assume that it is normal to be slaves to other men and women.

The onus is on the present generation of Equatorians to ensure that our young people learn the art to stand up for their human and civic rights and duties. Finally, let us join ranks and not be disunited, by the worthless position of vice presidency.

This could well be a cynical strategy to tie us down in internal squabbles to distract us from engaging in tackling the real national issues that plunged this nascent country into war in the first place.

Citizen Joana Adams