Archive for: July 2015

Dr Riek Machar: Please sign the “Proposed Compromise Agreement”

From: Choromke Jas , Canada, 31/JUL/2015, SSN;

Dear Dr Riek Machar: Please sign the “Proposed Compromise Agreement”

I have taken time to read the IGAD’s “Proposed Compromise Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict South Sudan”. I must say, IGAD this time has done an excellent job!. That is my reading of the document.

In this Forum I have in the past offered unsolicited advice to you on a number of topics. Some of these include the need to have two armies to safeguard the delivery of a permanent constitution, reform of institutions (security, civil service, economic, ant-corruption etc) and general election after the transitional period.

Today, I continue in the same vein.

It appears to me that this latest offering from IGAD-Plus fits the bill. I would like to urge you to compromise on certain issues such the illegitimacy of Kiir, extension of equal shares in executive branch to all the ten states and the special treatment of Unity, Upper Nile and Jonglei states.

These, to me are adequately compensated for by articles on:

!- Reparation;
2- The Hybrid Court;
3- The Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and
4- The water-tight collegiate decisions-making between the President and the 1st Vice President.

Further positive articles are those on federalism, monitoring and evaluation, the safeguards on the electoral processes and the reorganization, professionalization, and downsizing of the army and other articles.

Of course you and your colleagues will carefully look at the draft and come up with the best options for the way forward.

However, according to the views of the many people I have talked to, the draft contains all that you have been fighting for.

Above all, it has the REBOOTING features suggested by Hilde Johnson!!

Good luck, God bless YOU and God bless South Sudan
CJ

Unrealistic hopes, Pres. Obama’s Visit won’t bring Peace to South Sudan

BY: J. Nguen, Canada, 31/JUL/2015;

Hope is an “expectation of positive outcome, with confidence and to cherish a desire with anticipation.” Thus is the mindset that my people have about President Obama’s visit to the continent of Africa, East Africa in particular.

They say President Barack Hussien Obama’s visit to East Africa is a positive step and a hope in progress to achieving peace in South Sudan. Peace can return to suffering people of South Sudan.

That the war-torn nation called South Sudan shall suffer no more. It sounds logical and pleasant in every one’s ear, me included. We and they experiencing peace and stability as a result of America’s President’s visit to South Sudan’s vicinity, Kenya and Ethiopia would be undeniable gift.

However, I disagree, this is a false hope, unless certain approaches are undertaken and change occurred on America and its people do things.

My disagreement so to speak, is based on the American Government’s foreign policy, particularly its decision making process in the event of ending wars.

There has never been such a quick fix to war by American Government and its policy makers and it’s unlikely to occur this time around. America’s solutions to conflicts are long and often centered on America’s national interest.

As President Obama tours East Africa, I bet there will be tough and strong talks spewing out from the world’s most powerful President. Evidence of this toughness was seen in Kenya and Ethiopia at African Union address.

Unfortunately these strong words are not always enforced. They do not mean anything. If someone said empty threats, I concurred.

This has happened before, too many times. It happened in Iraq. Late President Saddam Hussien of Iraq gassed Kurdish people with chemical weapon before the eyes of the international community in the 1980s and thousands innocent civilian Kurdish Iraqis have died and nothing happened as a result.

The United States and other nations made loud noises followed by strong condemnations but never acted upon them. I believe it is a strategic policy of instilling false hopes to suffering masses to avoid blame of responsibility and inaction in the face of injustices.

To bring this rhetoric close to home, the United State of America allowed Rwandans to butcher themselves in 1994 in their watch and so is the United Nations.

Relative to South Sudan, President Kiir has ready butchered 20,000 innocent Nuer civilians in cold blood and no actions were taken.

Much more personal to President Obama, he was himself lied to and even called a “liar” by President Kiir Mayardit. Many Americans were infuriated by these insults to their president and no action was taken to discipline the undisciplined mad general of South Sudan.

Though this happened in a face–to–face meeting between President Kiir of South Sudan and U. S. President and even on Americans’ soil, President Kiir didn’t apologize, I supposed.

To remind my readers on the circumstance in which this event happened, it was in a formal conversation between the two.

President Obama took a centre stage and told Kiir that the government of South Sudan was supporting Sudan’s rebels. When Kiir responded, he told Mr. Obama to fact-check his Satellites imageries.

In other words, Kiir was basically telling President Obama that he was lying and nothing was truthful on the topic under discussion. While in this regard the whole world knew the Government of South Sudan was indeed aiding the Sudan’s rebels.

In contrary, Kiir chose the high road and insulted his counterpart; the world most powerful man and in position of power by calling him a liar in his face.

President Obama was reported to have been outraged and disgusted by disrespectful remark but didn’t do anything.

The buck didn’t stop there, when USA, UN, EU and Great British threatened to impose sanctions against Kiir’s regime for massacring his own citizens, Kiir replied that he was not intimidated by the ‘stick’ of sanctions waved by Western powers, saying “let them hit wherever the like to hit.”

In defiance, Kiir went ahead anyway and ordered onslaught against innocent civilians in Unity State. Thousands of civilians were killed as a result. The American Government and the rest of the world watched on and didn’t do anything either.

Therefore, these are parts of my doubts, why I believed President Obama’s visit to East Africa shall never bring peace to South Sudan, his are empty threats.

My other argument lies on how double-faced this nation has become.
A decision to use force in American Government has multiple layers to traverse through. Above all, such decision must clearly define America’s national interest.

For South Sudan case, Americans’ national interest is murky not well defined because China controlled South Sudan’s oil fields and in part lands leased.

Therefore, it will take U.S to act forcefully on South Sudan civil war because there are not benefactors in anyway should peace come now to South Sudan.

For the warring parties, it’s unlikely that President Kiir regime will settle peacefully and through peaceful means. With the help of Uganda government militarily, the regime has already trashed too many agreements including the ceasefire signed on January 2014.

In numerous times, Kiir’s regime has also denied UN’s passage to relief corridors to save the dying populations in Upper Nile region. In all these cases, the world including U.S never acted on humanitarian ground defending common humanity and right of man to life.

Further, the recent IGAD’s Compromised Proposal Agreement is already trashed too before President Obama returned home to North America.

For example, Kuol Mayang Juuk, Kiir’s Government defense minister called it an invasion of nation’s sovereignty if allowed. He told his generals that this peace proposal is meant to disempower them and put Dr. Riek on the path to toppling the government.

Mr. Ateny Wek Ateny, President Kiir’s official spokesperson called the proposal “too complicated and too difficult for his government to swallow.”

Evidently, these are the realities on the ground on the side of the government. One may argue these are individuals’ utterance and may not mean anything as far as government’s position is concerned.

My counterargument is that Kiir’s government is ran by individuals of Dinka descent, particularly those who have already spoken out against the proposal. I bet the government’s position on the IGAD’s Compromise Proposal won’t deviate much from that of Kuol and Ateny.

Besides, President Obama is well aware that his visit to East Africa is not a blessing to South Sudan problem and the visit will not bring peace in any way to the war torn nation.

News outlets have already reported some indications validating my point. It was reported that President Obama was “strategizing … next steps in the event” present peace “doesn’t succeed.”

For instance, tough sanctions and East Africa military task force were pronounced to protect civilians and create buffer zone between the warring parties.

This proposal doesn’t grant peace and not tough enough. The other dumb idea was the fact that Uganda was in the meeting as part of East Africa’s countries to bring peace to South Sudan, yet, the Uganda Defense Forces (UPDF) are in South Sudan fighting alongside President Kiir government.

The other the issue that stuck out in this proceeding is the so-called Friends of South Sudan. They are Americans and have lobbied the Americans’ Government to push for South Sudan independence during CPA, in 2005.

They were personal friends to late Dr. John Garang and not to the people of South Sudan. So, because South Sudan has gained its independence in 2011, these individuals think they owned South Sudan and its people.

For example, in the current conflict in South Sudan, they have taken sides and some whom are still working for the government of South Sudan. Dr. Francis Mading Deng is the Government of South Sudan ambassador to United Nations and while Ted Dagne and Roger Winter were President Kiir’s official advisors.

Their mouthpiece, Eric Reeves is a diehard supporter of G10, allegedly called “the Garang Boys” who just surrendered to the Government of South Sudan. Mr. Reeves has been very bold and negative against Dr. Riek Machar, the armed opposition leader.

To my dismay, Eric Reeves never acknowledged the victims of South Sudan government. According to him, Dr. Riek is the sole culprit of all wrongs. The truth is the man is out of touch and no sound minded person should ever listen to him. The bottom-line, Eric Reeves is a shame to good American people.

This is where fault line lies. The Friends of South Sudan are now part of IGAD-Plus negotiating peace for South Sudan. Yet neutrality of this group is questioned. They have vested interest.

If I may, the Friends of South Sudan is a negative post and should be removed from IGAD-Plus. I urged President Obama to take extra care dealing with this group. They don’t mean any good whatsoever to South Sudanese people.

I conclude this writing with Nyaleel’s story. Nyaleel is a ten year old girl whose mother was burned alive by Kiir Mayardit forces and allies militias in Leer. My aim is to stress that my people need peace.

The story begins that blood run deep; it’s called motherly love. This is no longer a case for Nyaleel because she has no mother. Her mother with other 80 women and girls were killed.

They were burned alive by President Salva Kiir Mayardit’s forces in Leer. Nyaleel’s mother underwent gruesome and excruciating pain. She didn’t die in peace. It was this past June 2015 when Nyaleel’s mother was burned alive because she was a Nuer and from Dok-Nuer.

It was one of the devilish brutalities to say the least. It’s reminiscent of crimes committed against Jews by Nazi. Subsequently, the world is much safer without Adolf Hitler then and now.

This was remarkable and humanistic at best. Though, I sincerely believed President Obama will not bring peace to South Sudan in his visit to East Africa, as a brother, I urged him and the world to take necessary steps to rescue people of South Sudan.

Not more empty threats but forceful actions.

Evidently, President Kiir and his dying institutions will not accept IGAD’s Compromise Agreement Proposal. The end game must be, Kiir and whoever that opposes peace must be forced to accept it.

As piece of wisdom, they say do not envy a sinner. Well, I do. The world should and so is Nyaleel. President Kiir and likes must be held to account to end impunity.

J. Nguen is a South Sudanese living in Canada. He can reached at jamesnguen@gmail.com.

No Deal is better than a bad deal: The IGAD-Plus Peace Agreement

BY: Dr Lako Jada Kwajok, UK, JUL/31/2015, SSN;

I had the opportunity of reading through the Proposed Compromise Agreement On The Resolution Of The Conflict In The Republic Of South Sudan. This document as many of you know is the basis for negotiation to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

It has been endorsed unanimously by IGAD-PLUS partners after the consultation that took place in Addis Ababa between 21 to 23 of July 2015. As we know, the peace talks are scheduled to kick off on 05/08/2015 with a deadline by the end of 17/08/2015.

A lot of hope and good wishes have been placed on the coming negotiations by millions of South Sudanese and many other peace loving people to finally bring peace and stability to the war torn young country.

President Obama on addressing the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa, stressed that both Kiir and Machar must sign a peace agreement by 17/08/2015.

However, when you subject the above document to careful scrutiny, you quickly realise that something is wrong, indeed many things are wrong.

And gradually as you continue reading, you come to the conclusion that the document is full of flaws and missing some essential requirements that ensures the establishment of a just and permanent peace.

Firstly, I would like to address the issue of allocation of the presidency during the transition. As stipulated in the aforementioned document, Salva Kiir shall become the transitional president of the Republic of South Sudan for 30 months from the start of the transitional government of national unity ( TGoNU ).

This is a nonstarter and indeed a deal breaker from my perspective and I am quite convinced that many South Sudanese share the same view. The reasons are the following :

His deeds have blemished his reputation forever. To millions of South Sudanese, he is a genocidal ruler and a criminal. To others he is just a corrupt and a common thief. Still others consider him among the most tribalistic and divisive figures in South Sudan at the present time.

The presidency is not like any other job in the world. That is because it carries a lot in it. There is the national pride, the reputation of the country and it also provides an insight for the outside world about who we are.

What is seen in our president could be taken as a reflection of what we actually are as we are the people who allowed him to be on the helm.

The president needs to be a person of high integrity, good reputation and to be respectable. This relates to the fact that he serves as a role model for the school children, the youths and our future leaders. This is why children are often named after presidents.

Look at president Obama stance, he is a role model for the young and youths not only in his country but all over the world. His presidency has been uplifting to a whole generation of African Americans.

Who in his or her right mind would want their son to follow the footsteps of Salva Kiir Myardit?! Whatever good things he has done in the past, have been trumped or deleted in people’s memories by his heinous crimes.

It’s quite inconceivable that the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing (CTRH) would succeed in delivering the goods if Salva Kiir is allowed to preside over the transition.

Just consider the following – many Nuer families have lost their loved ones during the Juba massacre and some are still grieving from the recent atrocities in Unity State and haven’t reached conclusion to their ordeals.

How would they feel when every day they watch the face of the person responsible for their grief on SSTV?! Will this really be conducive to speeding up the healing process?!

Do not be misled by the Nuer Wews who are siding with Salva Kiir. They are fanatic food lovers who can kill and unleash carnage for food. They represent a negligible portion of the Nuer people displaying opportunism and political prostitution at its worst.

One of the things that would expedite healing is when the criminals are hold accountable for their heinous crimes. There will be a clear conflict of interest if Salva Kiir remains the top authority in the land.

He is the top culprit in the atrocities but is it realistic that he would do the unbelievable thing of indicting himself or allow others to indict him?!

It will never happen under his watch, in fact he will try to manipulate, coerce or even dispose of any individual who attempts to uncover the truth.

What is worrying is that there is a phrase in the agreement document that reads (mass violations of human rights have profound historical roots in our society which pre-date the current conflict).

It sounds like an attempt to water down the gravity of the atrocities or at least draw similarities with what happened in 1991.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a fundamental difference in terms of accountability between the Juba massacre and what happened in 1991. There was no government or rule of law in the rebel held areas in 1991.

What we have here is a government, recognised by many countries of the world and the UN. This brings on certain obligations and duties most notable are respecting human rights and protecting civilians against atrocities and genocide.

It’s clear that our government under Salva Kiir has violated the international law by committing heinous crimes against its own people. In a democratic society with no blind tribal allegiances, he would have been tried for treason because of plunging the country into civil war out of greed to maintain power.

The good news is that, Obama mentioned in his address that “the world awaits the African Union Commission (AUC) report because accountability for atrocities must be part of any lasting peace”.

This is music to my ears personally and certainly to the ears of the aggrieved families and millions of peace loving South Sudanese.

It is a matter of principles, Salva Kiir and his group of criminals should not be allowed to get away with murder. This is simply because what is the guarantee that it will not happen again in future perhaps to a much smaller tribe.

Nuer is a large tribe and losing 20,000 lives may not cause a catastrophic lasting effect. But we do have much smaller tribes some with a total number of less than 20,000 lives.

Just imagine what happened to the Nuers has befallen one of these smaller tribes, the entire tribe would have been annihilated. That is why we should not allow the people responsible for these ugly acts to go unpunished otherwise it will set a precedent.

Kiir has been in office for nearly 10 years with no tangible achievements in terms of developmental projects, provision of services and improving the lives of the South Sudanese people.

In fact the overwhelming majority of the people were much better off 10 years ago than they are now in regard to livelihood, access to health services and availability of schools for their children.

In addition to that they were even more secure during the war than they are now. If the above is Salva Kiir’s track record, how much can he possibly do for the South Sudanese people in 30 months that he failed to do in 10 years ?!

It will be a miracle if he comes up with something useful for the people of South Sudan. I will bet my bottom pound that it will be more of the same – corruption, tribalism, insecurity and absence of the rule of law.

The country needs a fresh start in the transition with a strong personality in the presidential palace. Salva Kiir has been proven weak time and again.

He is unfit to lead this country in the transition or any time in future. Who would want the infamous Jieng council of elders to pull the strings from behind the curtains or Museveni running the show by remote control?!

And it’s not only Salva Kiir alone as many of his top ministers and the SPLM officials are corrupt and may have blood in their hands in relation to the massacres hence unsuitable to be candidates for the presidency.

If people could agree, any one of the governors of the greater Equatoria states could do a better job in the transition than the current illegitimate president.

Even if people fail to agree on a politician why not try members of the clergy. Archbishop Paulino Lokudu Loro, Archbishop Daniel Deng or Bishop Parade Taban could be made president for the transitional period.

There are precedents for that, Archbishop Makarios III was president of Cyprus from 1964 to 1974.

In Africa, Bishop Abel Muzorewa was prime minister of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia from June to December 1979. At least he (the clergyman) will not be corrupt or lethal to our people and will be an asset in the process of healing.

There are those who will say that a clergyman will be weak for the presidency. That is not true plus you already had the weakest president in the history of the world, any one who comes along can only be better. Even the chief of my village could have done a better job.

Secondly, While the document acknowledges that the federal system of governance is a popular demand, yet it does not indicate establishment of the federal system during the transition.

It talks about the need for devolution of more power and resources to lower levels of government.

The aim is clearly to maintain the status quo and avoid real federalism. The only hope for South Sudan to remain united is federalism and it should commence with the beginning of the transitional government of national Unity (TGoNU+).

Thirdly, The power sharing allocations in the executive body is a very contentious issue. How did the peace mediators arrive to those percentages and on what basis?!

Why should the G10 which has become effectively G6 be given 7%?! Do they really represent any particular constituency?

These guys are made super citizens by the IGAD peace mediators as each one of them represents over 1% of the proposed TGoNU. The G6 will have a say in the TGoNU than entire tribes like Lopit, Lokoro, Murle, NDogo and the Broun of Maban.

The government has been allocated full control of greater Equatoria and Bahr Gazal states. Kiir and his government is very unpopular in Greater Equatoria states.

He also lacks popularity in Western Bahr El Gazal State due to the oppressive policies and unlawful killing of civilians in peaceful demonstrations. Even in the other Bahr El Gazal states SPLA/A-IO is gaining momentum.

Then how comes the government was given 100% control over those states and on what basis?!

They can not claim that there is no war in those states. We are in a state of total civil war which is getting worse by the day.

Despite granting the government full control, the peace mediators seemed to have overlooked the security for the opposition. I find this very strange and dubious.

One of the most important goals of the TGoNU is to prepare the country and set the ground for a fair elections by the end of the transition. This will involve campaigning freely in all parts of the country.

Do you think Dr Riak Machar, Dr Lam Akol or Peter Sule would be safe campaigning in Wau, Mundri or Chukdom?

The majority of us know how Dr Riak Machar’s guards were slaughtered in Juba during the massacre. In addition to that how can we be sure that the elections will not be rigged if SPLM officials are left alone to conduct the elections in those states.

Therefore to make the ground level for a free elections, the government should not be allowed full control of those states. In fact the percentages are flawed.

A more reasonable allocation would be 40%, 40% and 20% for GRSS, SPLA-IO and other parties/civil societies respectively. There is no room for the G10 or G6 as some of them have already joined the government and the rest are on their way either to join the government or SPLM/A-IO.

Fourthly, De-militarisation and Arrangement for the National Capital: This is one of the good things within the document but it is only limited to Juba.

What about Malakal that has been significantly destroyed and Wau where citizens live in a state of permanent siege. The de-militarisation should be expanded to include all the major towns and most parts of the country.

Citizens in towns like Nimule, Yei, Maridi, Mundri would be much happier if de-militarisation is extended to their areas. Indeed in the case of Mundri citizens, they have actually demanded the SPLA unit in the area be relocated due to gross misconduct, unruly behaviour and brutality against citizens.

Clearly the SPLA will not be missed in Equatoria due to the fact that it is the problem and not the solution.

Fifthly, The Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS): The document states that the majority of the judges on the panels whether trial or appellate, shall be composed of judges from African states other than the Republic of South Sudan. That means some of the judges would be South Sudanese.

This matter is quite a sensitive one and the future of the country depends on fair trials. I don’t think the African judges let alone the South Sudanese will be up to the task, because they do not live in a democratic environment that would protect them if they go against the rulers.

We have seen the case of Pagan Amum when he sued Salva Kiir before the conflict. A gag order was issued against him and his civil liberties were curtailed. But what happened to his case, no judge or court was willing to accept the case and in the end the Supreme Court of South Sudan threw it out.

The best option would be for the criminals to stand trials at the ICC in Hague.

Finally, there are some time bombs embedded in the body of the agreement document that will cause problems in future.

Do you really think people like Peter Gatdet will go along with Paul Malong and be in the same army?!

Integration of the forces will not work and it will be a waste of time and resources on a poorly trained tribal armies. They are undisciplined and lack understanding of the rules of engagement.

The best option is to disband the SPLA and to start building a new professional army that is inclusive to all the ethnicities in South Sudan.

Given the many flaws in the document, my conclusion is that it is far from the work of shrewd politicians. The possibilities are that the document was produced deliberately in that way due to the mediation team conniving with GRSS or it was a matter of political amateurism or both.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok,
ENGLAND

No viable compromise in the IGAD-Plus proposed ‘Compromised Peace Agreement’

By Taban Abel Aguek, MP Lakes State Parliament, 28/JUL/2015, SSN;

The efforts for peace in South Sudan and the international community shall always never skip a mention. Even as people criticize IGAD, TROIKA or the negotiating teams, it’s good to appreciate their commitment to bringing peace in South Sudan. That makes stronger our belief in being members of the family of nations of Africa and the world.

But despite the efforts by IGAD and the International Community to bring to an end the war in South Sudan, it is a feeling of large masses that their mediators are not honest in drawing solutions to the conflict.

Each time the warring parties refused to sign an agreement, IGAD has always gone back to the drawing board but only to reappear with no significant improvements on the issues of the agreement that touch on the lives of common citizens.

Secondly, the IGAD mediators seem to care too much about what rebels want than anything else since the negotiations started in January 2014.

It’s why negotiations have stuck at the point of Dr Riek’s demands, referred to as ‘contentious issues,’ and not at the Government side.

These contentious issues are power sharing, system of governance, the issue of two armies, the compensation and reparation of the victims of the conflict.

Out of all these that were presented by the rebels and rejected by the Government through IGAD One, only federalism has been left out by IGAD Plus in their latest peace proposal.

And from here the word ‘compromised’ was forged. But is that enough to be called a compromise?

Instead of telling Dr Riek off, IGAD and the International Community have only had their legs spread all over the warring camps.

They have only been dividing threats and punishment in equal halves. Perhaps, IGAD and partners have not diagnosed what the problem of South Sudan is.

If not, then we are justified to a claim that there are ploys in South Sudan peace talks by major players guiding the talks.

When one looks at the IGAD Plus proposal there can be every reason to be suspicious.

Why does the Compromised Peace Agreement seem to carry some components of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (with Arab North)?

What relevance does this conflict have to the two decade long South–North war so as to import almost the same mechanisms of the CPA to solve the current crisis?

This proposal ought to brand Dr. Riek as the owner of Upper Nile and the negotiators seem to give him Upper Nile region in exchange for peace.

Giving 53% share of power to rebels almost look like granting Upper Nile a way to break away.

Yet, Upper Nile is home to many tribes.

The rebellion in South Sudan has been stronger in Upper Nile region not because Dr Riek is popular there but because it lies along the supply route from Khartoum.

South Sudan’s borders with Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia are open and porous. It has kept the logistics and supply of the rebels to flow, hence allowing them to achieve some victories in the region.

However, those victories have always short-lived.

Otherwise, there is no need to give a higher percentage to rebels who have not garnered the support of the Nuer tribe wholly, let alone the other tribes.

When Riek gets Upper Nile, what will Kiir give his Nuer supporters and other tribes in the same region?

Doing that presents a recipe for going back to war by those that will be left out in power sharing.

The issue of keeping two armies in the same country has not also been properly addressed in the current peace proposal by IGAD Plus.

Here there are two things involved: the duration of integration of the two armies and who are legible to be integrated into the national army.

The period of 18 months is too long because other hiccups on the way may result into another complete all-out war again before reintegration.

The White Army forms a bulk of the fighters used by Dr Riek Machar. It must be noted that gelwong (pres. Kiir own militia-Ed.), the equivalent of white army, is abundant across the Dinkaland.

To avoid inflating the army, only those that defected from their various divisions should be integrated into the national army but not everyone who carries a gun.

There are defectors that left from police, prisons, wildlife and fire brigade. They should go back unconditionally to their departments.

Too large untrained army drawn from the local youths may present a recipe number two for going back to war in less than 18 months.

Compensation and reparation, if accepted, is not a bad idea but it must go back to the period in 1991 when Riek Machar killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese people in Upper Nile and Bor in particular.

Every victim of this war is a victim of Riek’s quest for power and they should be compensated in his name.

The problem is that there are so many people to be compensated. I lost my close relatives in Bor, Malakal and Bentiu. I buried one of the rape victims myself. She was rescued but she died in my hands in Mapuordit hospital.

If Riek will get us that money to pay all these victims of Nuer, Dinka, shilluk, Uduk, Equatorians etc…, then we have no problem.

Those who will fail to get the compensation might take up arms and fight for their rights. That will be recipe number three for going back to war.

The call for dissolution of the National Assembly is not correct. The National Assembly and Council of States have their membership drawn geographically and proportionally from all South Sudan.

To dissolve and reconstitute another assembly of 400 members is not only unrealistic but it equally begs the same question of where do we get the money to pay them.

Isn’t it laughable to have such a parliament of 400 members against a population below ten million?

What should be ideal is allowing back all MPs that had defected at all levels of parliaments to their positions.

The SPLM is still one since the Arusha Agreement has reinstated Riek Machar back as D/Chairman of the party.

Moreover, the process may affect members who have not rebelled. Should these MPs pay a price for not having rebelled?

There should be nothing like that or else they do the necessary: go back to war, recipe for war number four.

The proposal also seems to test the resolve of South Sudanese people by suggesting the demilitarization of the national capital, Juba.

The dignity of our President and sovereignty of our country are very vital to the very existence of the country.

There is no one that owns our constitution to set a number of guards for our President.

There can be no way UNMISS or AU forces can do what our national constitutional is paid to do. That proposal is insulting and it must be scraped.

IGAD One was wrong in its peace proposals to end the conflict in South Sudan. IGAD two (IGAD Plus) is equally wrong in what they called a compromised peace agreement on south Sudan.

Two wrongs do not make a right!

If the mediators do not adjust the wrongs in this proposal and the parties fail to sign the agreement then there will be no need for IGAD or TROIKA (IGAD Three).

Since the beginning of talks, the Government of South Sudan has compromised a lot of issues. Some vital concessions have been made by government against the will of the people.

The government has implemented the Arusha Agreement in full and has heeded the call to suppress anything that was viewed as a blockage to peace.

It is our strongest feeling that IGAD this time urges the rebels to come to a complete compromise so as to pave way for peace in South Sudan.

It is a known fact that some nations, now coined in South Sudan as godfathers of rebellion, still have their hands in the dimensions of the Addis Ababa talks.

It is high time that these nations and individuals also consider to compromise of their own interests in South Sudan.

South Sudan is awake. It’s not time to seduce our country sign up to another bad war.

There is no thought that shall ever go without being interrogated by South Sudanese how much powerful the proposers of such opinion is.

South Sudanese are disillusioned in the quest for peace, but they cannot be arm-twisted to accept a peace agreement based on compromises that will come to haunt them just in a very near future.

A compromised peace agreement is one that asks Dr Riek Machar to relinquish all the impossible demands. His demands do not only hinder peace process; they may also plant future wars in the country if peace is signed under duress.

Taban Abel Aguek is a member of Lakes State Legislative Assembly. He can be reached at abelaguek79@gmail.com

Better focus on the unity of South Sudan

BY R. MODI, JUBA, 24/July/2015, SSN;

A lot has been written and some of the articles have made focus on Dinka versus Nuer or Dinka versus Equatoria. Logically, it is not possible to paint a whole tribe or group of people using the same paintbrush or in the same colour.

Whereas there can be a myth aimed at creating what is called ‘bonding social capital’, usually those myths are created and propelled by politicians to achieve their goals.

These kinds of politicians do not in fact care for the good or welfare of their so-called tribes Men & women, contrary to what their followers choose or are made to believe.

These political foxes are merely pursuing their goals and in order to get support, they play the ethnic card.

Just see how they keep their immediate families in lucrative government positions and what bank accounts they have all over the world.

How they are out of reach even for mere handshakes for their tribesmen. By this you will know the myth of tribe is just a bluff.

But many people fall for these tricks. This has to be challenged and changed. If we are going to build a nation out of many but one, clearly the nation South Sudan has proven very expensive to build and elusive, demanding our language to change.

We have to deal with human beings as they really are. Humanly speaking, there is no evidence that a group of people, because they come from the same tribe or ethnicity, all reason alike.

Scientifically, the evidence to such is miserably lacking. The way we reason is the function of socialisation. It is not attached to our DNA.

In fact what is called a tribe can be deconstructed to a level that it is a unit created in negotiated identity. Because in one tribe there are so many differences that in many case the neighbouring adjacent tribe has more similarity with a group of people than their other tribe members geographically distant to them.

Anyway to come back to the topic, there are few points in the case of South Sudan that needs to be focused on. The important one is this, the government has failed and it does not serve the interest of South Sudanese, regardless of ethnic identity.

It is hurting everybody, whether they are Nuer, Ma’di, Dinka, Moru, Zande, etc. Simply it is not the government we fought for. It has no respect for the rule of law and in that case it hurts others who are not even South Sudanese.

Is there any doubt that this government hurts East Africans? There was a case raised at the level of East African court against South Sudan.

That has nothing to do with Nuer, Ma’di, Anyuak, Shilluk, Muru or Murle etc. It is simple and clear, this is incompetent government and whoever sticks to it is serving his self-interest.

And those who are mobilised to support this government on the basis of tribe not good principle of governance are self-deluded.

It takes us to a point where we need to examine the bedrock on which this government was founded.

There was too many lies about the SPLA/M right from the beginning. Some people will feel bad about this, but Dr. John Garang did not tell the truth to everybody.

His message changed according to the environment or audiences.

I want to draw the attention of the reader to the book of Professor Peter Adwok Nyamba entitled ‘The Politics of Liberation’. So do not judge me, but read that book and find the point where he pointed out how mobilization was done.

When Dr. Garang spoke to Dinka Bor Youth, he told them to go and get guns so that they could defend themselves against the Murle. When he spoke to the larger Dinka community, he said the Kokora was the reason to rebel.

In fact back in 2014, somebody called Martin Manyang Mading, commented from Bor and said they went in the bush because of Equatorians. That article appeared as a comment in South Sudan Nation.

It was one of those incendiary and provocative statements. ‘Our enemy number one are The Equatorians. That is why we fought, used their intellectuals for our benefits, turned their ladies into machineries for procreation, colonised them and used their resources to settle in our colonies. Those who are dreaming about federal government, you must know that our colony is the first priority. We will not leave our colony and Equatorians will never go free. Practically, as of today, our number in some Equatorian villages or towns is about 3 times more than the number of the native people’.

Those are his words verbatim. It appeared on June 8, 2014 at 11:45 pm. Is this acceptable in a nation? Where is the difference between Nazism and this philosophy?

That is a mind-set that is not only tribalistic but falls in the category of Nazism. Any respectable people now will feel revolted by ideas like that.

Can we now put it that this is the way Dinka reason? I think NO; this is a demented and very unsophiscated person who is posing to speak on behalf of a people of varied philosophies and interests.

The Dinka have a great deal of contribution in the journey to liberations and so are the other 63 tribes.

It is not possible for a single tribe to single-handedly fight on behalf of 63 other tribes, in fact should only 1/3 of the 63 tribes reject such notion, it is doomed before it takes off the ground.

That is why we are a mosaic. Every community has a specialty and you cannot compare them. But people like Mading, are going to destroy South Sudan.

The same way Salva Kiir is doing when he spoke to their youth and told them they fought for this power and they have to keep it. Misinformed people followed that logic and it makes me wonder how poor they are. This cannot happen.

The world is global and you cannot dominate any tribe because their representatives the world over will react. And when they do so, you will be questioned at the level of United Nation.

That is what we are supposed to be, people who work together with the global society. Less than that you are ferial nation and who will respect a ferial nation?

So I do not believe Martin Mading represents the Dinka nation. That would have been impossible to imagine. Where he got that from, the answer is above.

He was totally misinformed on the reason for the struggle of South Sudanese. He went to fight, if he ever did, for exactly the opposite reason why most South Sudanese went to fight.

His narrative is different and with narrative like that, South Sudan cannot stand as nation. I am very confident on that conclusion.

If anyone should try to build a nation on such bad, racist, tribalist and obviously undemocratic principle, they are not going to get anywhere, not in South Sudan but also anywhere in the world.

Do we have to remind people on this? I think it is necessary. The quickest people but at the same time hardest to change are in Equatoria.

Even the Brits found Equatoria difficult to occupy. So they used the churches to calm the people. Any war in Sudan or South Sudan not supported in Equatoria is doomed.

Again, I am not being chauvinistic. I base myself on real evidence. For Garang to get where he got, he has to come to Equatoria. Haaa, that is the reality.

Conversely, if people in Equatoria feel bad it is impossible to hold a government in Juba. And now we feel bad. That government is going down. That preferential advantage is not what we play on. We want to work together with our brothers and sisters in all South Sudan.

We are keenly aware the different contribution you are bringing to the table. That is why we are mosaic and respected one. A few times I used to see it happen in Kampala or Nairobi.

Whenever you see somebody paying bus fares for people behind them, they are South Sudanese. That was obvious. In Khartoum we saw the same generosity.

So together we can make a better South Sudan. But for now South Sudan has to be salvaged from Salva and he has to go.

I could tell you something in the lines that follow. Garang and Salva would have been nowhere without Equatoria.

Because the link with Museveni which proved crucial especially in the battle of Aswa, Kaya, Pogee, Owinykibul, Yei and until close to Juba could never have been possible without the mediating link of Equatorians.

Forget about their meeting in Dar El Salam. People on the ground did the real connection because previously Dr. Garang had Ethiopia and Mangistu as his powerhouse.

When Mangistu was taken out in Ethiopia, SPLA was on the run and by 1993, when William Nyoun Kuach defected from Pageri, nothing remained of SPLA fighting force.

That was re-echoed in Rumbek during the meeting of the leadership. And Salva was the one who challenged Dr. Garang on his administration and Uyay Deng Ajak clearly said there was no more army to fight.

Had it not been for the Equatorian boys and Nuer, Torit was going to be recaptured or Kapoeta for that matter.

The commander who entered Kapoeta we know him and the same commander entered Torit. We know these things but we have been silent. No more.

Fellow compatriots, the best direction is to work for a government we wanted to have in the first place, one for which that first bullet of independence was fired.

One that respects the rights of our South Sudanese people and promotes peace. Such a government will make South Sudanese respectable in the international community.

We have lost too many in the process of finding a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not of a tribe, by a tribe and for a tribe.

We have lost too many and too much and have come too far for us to give up and we shall not give up until we get it.

Should those who now fight, politically or otherwise for such a people’s government fatigue out, or be bought out, history shall remember them harshly and the dead shall not forgive them.

South Sudan at the end of it all shall not fall, for many of her children are nationalists not against tribes but for all tribes, thus out of many, only ONE!

By R. Modi
Juba, RoSS.

South Sudanese community in UK says SPLM must step aside

Radio Tamazug, LONDON (27/Jul/2015), SSN;

The South Sudanese community in Britain said the ruling SPLM party must step aside and allow for new leadership in a transitional period.

The community made its decision at a peace, reconciliation and national unity conference in London on 18 July.

“The SPLM led government has violated the interim constitution, it plunged the country into serious political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis and therefore should accept out of ‘Love and compassion’ handing over the power during the transition back to the people,” read a statement from Benjamin Taban Avelino, Chairman of the South Sudanese Community in UK.

The UK community recommended that the African Union and the United Nations should help the people of South Sudan to enact an alternate interim administration.

“The patience of our people has run out and the majority have lost trust and confidence in the political system that has gone out of touch,” the conference decided.

“The government no longer serves the people equitably nor does it protect the interest of all its citizens, while the self-inflicted war destroys us. The SPLM/A led government and opposition should not scramble over power, but to know that it is the right and responsibility of the citizens to either withdraw or grant power to the government, power must not be grabbed by the barrel of the gun.”

They added that the regional bloc IGAD which is mediating a peace process in Addis Ababa cannot impose a transitional government onto the people of South Sudan as has been proposed. The group said peace must come from the people.

“The 30 month transitional period is for a long time, without the agreement of South Sudanese people,” the group said. “The IGAD imposed government would never be owned by the people. We must have the right to entrust a government that would be desired, supported and honoured by the people.”

“South Sudanese people should have the sovereignly superior power over the land, state and the government, they should be honoured to rectify and validate the peace agreement,” they added.

The conference said South Sudanese people and the diaspora must be included in the Addis Ababa talks to come up with “homegrown solutions that can truly deal with the problems created by the SPLM.”

The principle guests at the meeting were Bishop Paride Taban of South Sudan, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rt. Revd. Dr Rowan Williams, and former Ambassador of UK and EU representative to Sudan Dame Rosalind Marsden.

Radio Tamazuj photo: South Sudanese women protest for peace in Juba

https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/south-sudanese-community-uk-says-splm-must-step-aside

Tiananmen Square tragedy copycatted in South Sudan fratricidal conflict with Kampala’s nod

BY: Peter LoKarlo Ngrimwa, Australia, JUL/28/2015, SSN;

Twenty six years ago the world was profoundly horrified by what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre in the heart of Beijing in which protestors including students were massacred by Chinese troops for what the authorities in Beijing termed counter revolutionary riot”.

Drawing an inspiration and enthralling parallel of that chilling incident more than two decades on, the government army of South Sudan teamed up with its allied militia forces have emulated the feat of Tiananmen Square by deliberately running over and crushing fleeing civilians with battle tanks in South Sudan’s Unity state.

The report, published by Human Rights Watch (News24), has inculpated the South Sudan government troops of committing atrocities against unarmed and destitute civilians which could constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In a separate report prepared by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group, the South Sudanese government forces have been responsible for scores of killings, rapes and extensive pillaging and burning of civilian property (Business International Times, 22 July 2015), while the USA that helped create the world’s newest country alongside the global community watches on with folded arms, only eagerly waiting to punish any third world country that may adopt punitive measures against the practice of sodomy, alternatively known generally gay rights.

Courtesy to Uganda army’s lethal counterinsurgency strategies that were once applied by Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) on the Acholi civilian population in Northern Uganda who were faulted by Kampala for complicity in the Rebellion led by Joseph Kony against the state.

Those countless murders and mutilations of civilians were all blamed on the LRA by the government of Uganda.

Such feudalistic practices run counter to the very essence of contemporary civilized standards.

Brazenly engaging in a sheer chicanery and Advocatus diaboli, the South Sudan’s government is desperately attempting to deny any wrongdoing and instantaneously seeking to hold the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group and the UN Agencies that reported the wanton and unmatched abuses by the government army responsible for what it calls “false reporting”.

Lamentably, the world is diffidently watching the gruesome massacres in South Sudan with less concerns and infinitesimal receptivity.

In a related note, it is unreservedly inconceivable and credulous to hear certain individuals swiftly pointing an accusing finger at foreign countries as being responsible for the furtherance of the conflict in South Sudan.

You can’t just intentionally go on rampage conducting mass murders, rape spree, castration of young boys, looting and burning of ethnic Nuer village settlements and hastily turn around to blame foreign countries for lengthening the duration of the civil war overlooking your obvious outrageous role and shortcomings.

Have you and the government in Juba for a single moment ever thought of embracing and inculcating a pacific culture and at least a patina of fair play in the country?

Perplexingly, the military spokesman of the South Sudanese army has now put on a brave face and unapologetically talking about the need to launch an investigation into the mass killings in Unity state, sounding as if it was the first time such a spate of brutality has ever occurred.

It is repulsive and exasperating experience. South Sudanese have on numerous occasions been treated to such repeated blatant pack of lies and can’t accommodate this classic travesty anymore.

However, I am still inclined to argue that the exit of the Ugandan military from South Sudan is the panacea and would indubitably pave the way for rapprochement in South Sudan and consequently leading to the creation of a transitional unity government in the country, but anything less than that would certainly stretch further the boundaries of violence and exacerbate more anguish.

With the presence of the UPDF, the government in Juba would always be tempted to believe in winning the war militarily, as long as there is bountiful support from Kampala.

Upsettingly, the President of Uganda has been misguidedly made to believe that if the UPDF could not defeat the SPLA-IO, at least it must maintain the status quo in order to keep open for a while the trade routes to South Sudan.

I think this perception appears to be a production of an outright erroneous scheming which is ill-advisedly premised on gross misconstruction of the political realism in South Sudan.

In my last correspondence to President Museveni, I sensibly cautioned the Ugandan head of state against pursuing a capricious military option in South Sudan’s conflict as it is evidently a futile quest.

Uganda has never been a super power before and would probably never be one in the region in future. The verity is that, the UPDF has only been chasing around rag-tag outfits like the LRA and the Somali Islamic militant group.

The real taste of battle the UPDF have experienced and lost alongside the combined forces of South Sudan government troop and the Sudan rebel soldiers from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) was the encounter for the second recapture of Bentiu by the SPLA-IO in 2014.

The bush war of the 1980s and the insignificant support extended to the SPLA against Khartoum which were reciprocated by John Garang by destroying LRA bases mostly in Eastern and Central Equatoria states were way back.

Likewise the UPDF was forced out of the DRC for similar adventurous undertakings including prowling.

Relatedly, Uganda army would likely be ejected from South Sudan militarily, judged by the potency and combat capability of the SPLA-IO on the one hand and the current fallacious trend of political thinking and ambition of the government of Uganda on the war in Kampala’s next door Southern neighbour on the other.

The recent argument presented by President Museveni that he would withdraw his forces from South Sudan in the event of an IGAD’s alternate force being ready to deploy in the restive country is quite flimsy.

There would never be an IGAD army deployed in South Sudan, it won’t happen because the member countries comprising the IGAD could never synchronize their conflicting interests and furthermore, if deployed, all South Sudanese would treat such a collective force as an army of occupation, and it would unquestionably meet the same fate as the UPDF today.

The mega atrocities happening in the three South Sudan states would not have befallen without Uganda’s military interloping.

Besides, the Tiananmen Square type of abuses recounted in the first few lines of this article might not also have occurred if the UPDF had not bolstered the war endeavours of the South Sudan government troops and equipped the latter with the diabolical modus operandi for the ongoing counterinsurgency operations against the ethnic Nuer civilian population in Unity state.

Finally, the IGAD as the political entity entrusted to resolve the South Sudan’s civil unrest and secure peace for the country does not seem to marshal the collective will to address this ticklish issue, as visibly seen from its conflicting functions.

Most of these countries operate on the basis of ensuring their individual interests and hence fewer efforts are offered towards halting the hemorrhage in South Sudan.

It is a public secret that Uganda is fueling the civil war in South Sudan and is involved in gross human rights abuses including carpet bombing of civilians and yet it is a member of the IGAD and regrettably tasked with the duty of ending the war.

What a monumental double standards on display? Would the Troika members and IGAD plus also see from the same vintage point and through the same skewwhiff spectacle?

SPLM/A-IO does categorically reserve the right to piquantly denounce the IGAD for refusing to place Uganda on its tray of pending business and also for not being serious enough to resolve the South Sudan problem.

The leadership of SPLM/A-IO should adopt further measures by possibly seeking the individual counsel of other parties such as President Jacob Zuma of South Africa; Buhari of Nigeria; Cameron of UK; and Obama about the lopsided approach of the IGAD in handling the peace process in South Sudan, urging these leaders to understand that Uganda is not qualified to be a participant.

Finally, Juba soldiers who are governed by their own unruly impulses at the behest of the police state have committed numerous unthinkable violations of human rights in the country and accordingly, the government of South Sudan that initiated the killing of innocent civilians in Juba on 15 December 2013 must be held accountable.

By the way, in 2011, the Western powers went on hurriedly to invoke Chapter Seven (7) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), for use against the government of Muammar Al Gaddafi, basically for the death of a handful of demonstrators at the hands of Libyan security forces in the street of the country’s Eastern city of Benghazi.

Today more than a thousand times that figure of civilians in Benghazi have lost their dear lives in South Sudan. Is human life worth differently from one part of the world to the other, “Interest” aside?

Peter Lokarlo Ngrimwa
Former Lecturer,
Graduate School of Business and Law (GSBL),
RMIT University
The Emily MacPherson Building
Building 13, 379-405 Russell Street,
Melbourne, VIC, 3000
Australia
E-mail: ptr_lok@yahoo.com.au

SPLM-IO Rep. in Canada against Uganda in AU Peace & Security Council

SPLM’s Office of Representative to Canada
________________________________________

The SPLM/SPLA’s Office of Representative to Canada expresses deep concern over the inclusion of Uganda by the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU-PSC) in seven (7) member States committee to study the Report of African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan.

The SPLM/SPLA’s Office of Representative to Canada would like to reiterate and echo the SPLM/A’s chairman and commander in Chief’s strong objection to Uganda inclusion in seven (7) member Sates committee. Our objection stem on the fact that Uganda is party to the conflict in South Sudan since December 2013 alongside the Government of South Sudan. On this basis we therefore call on the African Union to immediately remove Uganda from the list of the seven (7) member States and replace her with neutral country.

It’s common knowledge that Uganda is not a neutral body in South Sudan’s conflict but self-imposed to enemy to the people of South Sudan which has more than one has used an internationally banned cluster against civilian populations in South Sudan. We felt the inclusion of Uganda to the seven (7) member States committee by the African Union shows serous lack of impartiality and biases on the part and this is not acceptable.

Besides, the SPLM/SPLA’s Office of Representative to Canada has learned that the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan has released the long waited report on the 19 months conflict in South Sudan. We applauded the decision taken by the African Union for releasing the report but the SPLM/A was dismayed to learn that our office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia was not served with a copy.

In our view, this is another clear violation of trust by African Union. For it’s true that the SPLM/SPLA is an equal partner with the government of South Sudan in this conflict and we ought to be involved in any decision about South Sudan’s conflict and be serves with any document pertaining peace or otherwise.

In this regard, even though the SPLM/SPLA believed it has not committed atrocities during this conflict, we trust that the African Union Commission of Inquiry attempt to report on both parties’ activities in combat and therefore there is no way SPLM/SPLA shouldn’t be serves with a copy of the report.

Summing up, the African Union has violated two pertinent trust codes on the get go. As a result, the SPLM/SPLA as movement wishes to state that we have lost trust on the African Union behaviors and questions its impartiality should it not correct these mischief.

James Nguen Nyol
Public Relations Director in the SPLM/SPLA’s Office
of Representative to Canada
July 25th, 2015
Press Statement

A Voice in the Wilderness of South Sudan: Women of South Sudan

From: Amal Ajang, JUL/24/2015, SSN;

We the women of South Sudan, shout with one voice in solidarity with our sisters, mothers, and daughters in Juba, Jonglei, Upper Nile, Rumbek and Abyei.

We shout with one voice that December 15, 2013 shall not be repeated in the history of South Sudan again.

We the women of South Sudan shout with one voice, when there is no vision, the people perish and the country suffers.

We the women of South Sudan, shout with one voice:
We are against war, and against those who have started and caused the war.

We the women of South Sudan, shout with one voice:
No to War. No to Genocide. No to Corruption. No to nepotism.

We the women of South Sudan, saw what the war has done to our nation.
When our mothers and aunties were raped, you raped all the mothers and aunties in South Sudan.

When our sisters and daughters were raped, you raped all sisters and daughters in South Sudan.
When you killed our children, you killed the future of South Sudan.

We the women of South Sudan, stand tall and strong, and shout with one voice:
We will never be defeated by rape, killings, destruction or uprooting.

We the Women of South Sudan, have seen how our nation came to existence.
We saw the long queues of thousands of our people standing patiently for many hours, for unique moment in our history, to cast their votes for the independence of South Sudan.

We shout with one voice, saying:
Our independence is our human right.

We cannot divide our Nile and take it to our tribal land.

We shout with one voice:
No to division of our mother land.
No to tribalism in our mother land.

We the women of South Sudan, shout with one voice:
Peace is indivisible, if one citizen is killed; you killed all citizens of South Sudan.

We the Women of South Sudan, shout loud with one voice:
Yes to Peace in our Mother Land
Yes to Healing and Reconciliation.
Yes to Justice

Written by Amal Ajang, inspired by the women in the UN camps in South Sudan.

Laws in White House are not applicable everywhere, Susan Rice MUST know this

By Simon Yel Yel, Juba, South Sudan, JUL/24/2015, SSN

Quote: “The US-led western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights within individual countries acts from a directly opposite position in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principles of sovereign equality of states, and trying to decide for everyone what is good and what is evil,” Says Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign affairs minister;

Barefacedly, alone among the governments in the world, the Americans believe that their nation, the US, is an ”exceptional” country and Americans are “indispensable” people and require sovereign government to follow its laws even when Washington’s laws contradict the laws of other sovereign countries.

It was 9th July when the US redefined media propaganda reached the highest peak. The usual mumbo jumbo propaganda of the US on twitters and TVs moved to YouTube when the National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice downloaded what she called “message to people of South Sudan” on the solemn fourth anniversary of our independence.

Indeed the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing the government of President Salva Kiir by consistently portraying South Sudan in the eyes of the world as a failed state and Kiir as a murderer and despot who wants to be in power forever.

The White House has been making great use of mass media propaganda to get the job done since the beginning of the ongoing war.

First, they’ve controlled the narrative of what is happening in South Sudan and use it as a platform to misinform the people.

This is critical for the following reasons. One, because it permits the White House to sweep the December 15th foiled coup attempt in Juba into the dustbin of American memory and world at large and, never to be seen again.

Second, major western media like CNN, Fox news, BBC, ABC and Sky news plus Al Jazeera are now shamelessly spewing out Americanized propaganda and they are doing their job very well; submissively regurgitating managed news misinformation trash, malevolently burying hard truths on what happened and what is happening now in South Sudan.

These media pundits have spectacularly succeeded in renaming every good thing that the South Sudan government does.

With all this mass media propaganda, still the White House extends the propaganda to the beloved people of South Sudan via YouTube.

On 9th July, the National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice posted what she called “message to the people on South Sudan” on YouTube as her gift on the 4th anniversary of South Sudan independence to South Sudanese.

In her 10 minutes video, she brazenly said, “Over the past 19 months, the government has abdicated its responsibilities, failed to protect its citizens, and squandered its legitimacy. Instead of negotiating a resolution to the conflict, it has subverted democracy and unilaterally extended its mandate.”

Look at how the White House is playing with South Sudan? One may wonder and ask Susan, is it a message that you really want to tell South Sudanese that the gov’t has squandered its legitimacy, subverted democracy and unilaterally extended its mandate?

Really, really Susan? How did the gov’t subvert democracy and unilaterally extended its mandate when the US was the first country to reject the election to be held in May 2015?

Charles Twining, the charge de affairs at the US embassy in Juba, once said on 4th December 2014, “the donors do not expect elections to take place in South Sudan next year, despite the insistence from government.”

On 18th January 2015, he called a press conference at the US embassy and said: “We as the government of the United States together with other donors look at multiple issues and we feel that time is too short. As we look at the possibility of elections, we truly do not see how an election can be prepared in such a short period of time. The constitution calls for a census before elections. There is so much that needs to be done. There is also the insecurity in the country. Can everyone have the access to the ballot box?”

What else do you expect the gov’t to do given what Twining said above? Do you want the gov’t to sit and fold its hands and wait for time to come when people will have access to the ballot box without extending the mandates?

Why do you (Americans) like giving one thing a different color, calling it black today and white tomorrow?

Even the rebels rejected the gov’t call for election. “We don’t believe the elections the government is talking about will be free and fair because there is insecurity in the country and many people are displaced. We will not take part in it,” rebel spokesman Brig. Gen. Lul Koang Ruai once said.

Also the official opposition party leader Dr. Lam Akol rejected the election: “It is very clear that during democratic elections it is the people who will vote but due to war situation, people are displaced. About two million are displaced and areas are not secured – then who will vote? So elections can’t be held under these circumstances.”

He went further in an interview on Jan. 14 2015, saying, “There must be peace so that elections are free, fair and credible. There is not a single requirement of a democratic process for holding elections before peace. We will not be part.”

With the above given statements, is there raison d’être that the elections MUST be conducted? Methinks not.

I thought you would have congratulated President Kiir for implementing the Arusha agreement by revoking the dismissal of the G-10 and reinstating them in the SPLM.

No wonder, I knew the US won’t congratulate the president on implementing the Arusha agreement because the so-called EU and troika diplomats didn’t congratulate president.

Is South Sudan the first country to extend the presidency and parliament mandates because of the insecurity?

Are you aware that the Lebanese parliament has extended its mandates from Nov 2014 to 2017 because of insecurity?

South Sudan has its own different laws and it is unbecoming for the US to dictate its law on South Sudan.

In conclusion, I want to make it very crystal clear to the United States and her allies that they should change their neo-colonistic policies and respect the sovereignty of South Sudan.

The time when you dictate your conditions to the world has passed and there is a need to exit from the axiom of assuming self-anointed role as “masters of the world,” deluded by the belief of exceptionalism.

It is better to respect nations’ law than to scare them with sanctions and so forth.

The time of imperialism has long gone. It is high time for the West to start building relations based on equal rights, mutual respect and mutual consideration of interests not only with South Sudan but with other countries.

Otherwise, the world will one day rise up against this imperialistic diplomacy of interfering with other nations’ internal affairs.

South Sudan has its own laws and it is imperialism if the US can apply its law on South Sudan indirectly by rejecting what South Sudan government and parliament did in the interest of people and peace.

Simon Yel Yel is a concerned citizen and he can be reached at maandeng2017@gmail.com or 0955246235.