Archive for: July 2015

Acknowledging the pain of others

BY: KUIR ë Garang, critic and writer, JUL/24/2015, SSN;

This is one of those articles that sounds really naïve and unsophisticated; but it’s undeniably necessary and true. I posted a video on my Facebook page a few days ago and some of my Nuer brothers and sisters were enraged. While their anger wasn’t unfounded, I do believe there should be a safe, necessary manner in which anger needs to be exercised within a larger context of societal, national future.

However, I’ve realized the short-sightedness with which we configure our anger and its resultant consequence.

We’ve become a population that focuses on the satisfaction of our immediate visceral reactions without the need to consider the potential effect of our anger, and what we say at the height of our polemical fancies….after all is said and done.

No matter the intensity of our anger, hurt and loss, it is crucial to remember that the noble way to mourn and honor one’s lost relatives is to engage in a discourse that’d frustrate any repeat of the past.

However, what we seem to care about now isn’t the dreadful past and the possible bright, promising future but the here and now and what we feel.

“I feel anger and a sense of hatred so I’ll make sure I satisfy that!”
The more we cultivate our hatred, magnify our pain and deny the pain of others, the more the hurt we feel becomes entrenched as a cultural phenomenon.

Unfortunately, talking about the potential for future inter-tribal cohesive coexistence sounds like an untenable joke to some people given the magnitude of the anger they feel now.

But none of us has a choice: living together is the only choice, the end gain!

Regardless of what we feel or think, togetherness is the ultimate end.

But there’s one thing South Sudanese need to remember. In any sociopolitical conflict, healing or the possibility of living together as a multi-tribal country rests on acknowledging the pain of those who’ve been hurt.

And it’s no secret that the following are acknowledged facts:
1) The conflict started due to President’s mishandling of intra-SPLM problems
2) SPLM leaders overestimated their influence and underestimated the power behind the president.
3) Nuer were targeted after the mutiny in Juba by President’s militia.
4) War is concentrated in mostly (not exclusively) Nuer areas.

In spite of these accepted realities, it’s very crucial for the Nuer brothers and sisters to remember that non-Nuer members have also suffered in the senselessness of this conflict.

The more we deny that others have suffered the more we foment the entrenchment of hatred in our nation.

As long as others don’t deny that Nuer were massacred in large numbers in Juba, it’d be ideal for Nuer to advocate for the loss of their loved ones while acknowledging that others too have suffered and continue to suffer.

Denying the pain of others is not only dishonest, but also detrimental to the future of South Sudan.

The culpability story doesn’t end at the point where we come to the conclusion that the SPLM and the President started this war. We have to remember that we also exacerbate the problem through evangelism of divisive language and policies.

No one is going to live in comfort if we instigate or fuel inter-tribal hatred.

Satisfaction of one’s anger feels good at the moment but all conscionable people should consider long-term effects of that state of mind when anger creeps into our sociopolitical consciousness.

It’s undeniable that corrective measures geared towards finding out structured, conscionable and remedial methodologies are unequivocally necessary.

However, focusing our fancies on the immediate delight and enjoyment of anger geared towards others will only position us perpetually in the same sea of hateful stagnation.

The only road to reconciliation is to make sure that others acknowledge our pain while taking the necessary initiative to acknowledge the pain of others.

Failure to do so will only have us drink from the sea of bitter reality: perpetual insecurity. Let’s grow up!

Truth…but responsibly!

Kuir ë Garang lives in Canada. For contact, visit www.kuirthiy.info

South Sudan government troops crushed civilians with tanks- HRW

DAILY NATION, NAIROBI, JUL/22/2015, SSN;

South Sudanese government troops crushed fleeing civilians with tanks, then reversed to check whether they had killed them, carried out public gang rapes and burned people alive, a rights group said Wednesday.

The report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) has shocking allegations of atrocities committed by government forces in the ongoing 19-month-old war, documenting “deliberate attacks on civilians” that it said constitute war crimes.

“They were running with the tanks after the people, and then after they hit them they would roll back over them, to confirm that they were dead,” one woman told HRW.
Attacks were carried out by government troops and an allied militia from the Bul Nuer tribe.

Another witness, a 30-year-old woman, said troops in a tank hunted down her nephew.

“I saw him… he was crushed before he reached the river… we were running together, he ran in order to hide,” she told HRW.

In Summary
***Attacks were carried out by government troops and an allied militia from the Bul Nuer tribe.
***Rebel forces have also been accused of carrying out atrocities, including rape, killings

CASTRATING

Another described finding the squashed bodies of her two male relatives.

“Their bodies had been grinded,” she said, one of a string of testimonies documented in the HRW report, titled They Burned It All, based on interviews with 174 victims and witnesses from the northern battleground state of Unity.

Other victims recount government soldiers castrating a man and a 15-year old boy, all part of a deliberate tactic to drive people out of the villages, HRW said.

HRW documented murders “of civilian women and men, including children and the elderly, some by hanging others by shooting, or being burned alive”.

The civil war began in December 2013 when President Salva Kiir accused his former deputy, Riek Machar, of planning a coup, setting off a cycle of retaliatory killings that has split the poverty-stricken, landlocked country along ethnic lines.

The government side, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), launched a major offensive against rebel forces in April, with fierce fighting in Unity, once a key oil-producing area.

Rebel forces have also been accused of carrying out atrocities, including rape, killings and, like the government, the recruitment of armies of child soldiers.

There was no immediate response from the army, which has previously dismissed allegations of rights abuses.

Earlier this month the government said it was investigating UN reports that troops raped then burned girls alive, but has not yet issued its findings.

The Odds of IGAD-Plus: Is peace really possible in August 2015?

By: Lul Gatkuoth Gatluak, JUL/20/2015, SSN;

While writing this article, preparations are underway to reconvene peace talks between South Sudan warring parties. One’s purpose or specific intention to write this article, is to remind readers about the culture of negotiations, political compromises as well as the grave dangers laying ahead for the people of South Sudan if war continues to intensify.

This time around, the sponsors of the upcoming peace talks had provided a serial sequential schedule that they termed as “the IGAD plus Peace Process Timetable”.

According to this sequential segmentation, IGAD Plus Envoys, which are going to comprise of 19 members, will meet this week starting today on July 20 to 23, 2015 in order to acquaint or serve themselves with IGAD Plus Draft Peace Agreement proposals on South Sudan peace initiative.

In their gathering, the team will approve the Draft or make any necessary changes pertaining to the peace proposal. Then, on July 24, 2015, the government of South Sudan and the SPLM/A-IO rebels will be called to converge in Addis Ababa to be served with the IGAD plus Draft Peace Agreement proposal.

After a brief get together ceremony to mark the official start of the talks, the parties will be given 10 days to go over the draft and discuss it with their respective leaders in Pagak and Juba respectively.

Hence, on August 5, 2015 the parties will be called back to Addis Ababa again to negotiate on the draft peace agreement proposals. After both delegations re-engage with mediators, two or three days later, they will be joined by their two Principals.

The process of the negotiation is that, the two parties will negotiate to improve the text drafted by IGAD Plus and provide a better language which will be agreed by the two parties.

If no agreement by the two parties, the language provided by IGAD Plus will be the one to remain and be signed. On August 10 or so, the IGAD plus Summit will be called to witness the two parties’ signature to the Peace Agreement.

Based on the above sequential timetable, one wonders, is peace really possible to be attained in South Sudan in August 2015?

Before one could dive deep to pinpoint some negative consequences, an ill-defined peace could bring, it would be good to shade light on past negotiations.

When the war broke out, envoys from Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Somalia and Uganda converged in Juba trying to find ways to help tackle the new nation’s crisis.

Theirs and the international community pressure came to life when on January 6, 2014, government and rebel delegations met in Addis Ababa to iron out their differences so that peace comes back to South Sudan.

First, the two delegations met separately with mediators at a hotel to pin down the points they would negotiate. Second, both sides met with the Ethiopian foreign minister for a ceremony to mark the official start of the talks before actual negotiation started.

The urgency of the talks was so sensitive, given that guns were booming and many innocent lives were being lost.

In that early stage of negotiations, the two warring parties were asked to present their grievances, rebels had three agendas, which were (1) release of the detainees, (2) withdrawal of foreign forces, including Ugandan, Darfur and SPLM-North fighters which Salva Kiir has invited to crash down Riek Machar’s rebels and that, (3) Salva must step down given the fact that he has lost legitimacy for ordering his private militias to massacre Nuer in Juba.

To the rebels, resolving these issues would clear the way for further discussions. However, government delegation carried only one agenda, which is “let Riek Machar surrender unconditionally so that peace returns”.

Then, IGAD mediators had only two items on their agenda, these are the cessation of hostilities and the status of the detainees in Juba. South Sudan government rejected all three rebel demands.

After lengthy discussions, the ceasefire deal was signed on Thursday January 23, 2014 by Nhial Deng Nhial the head of the government delegation and Taban Deng Gai, head of the rebel delegations, under watchful eyes of IGAD mediators and International community observers.

Immediately, such deal was dishonored.

The second and other sessions, including the closed door face to face talks between President Salva Kiir and the rebels’ leader Dr. Riek Machar ended up in Addis Ababa with disagreements on nine issues, declaration of permanent ceasefire, release of report of the Enquiry committee on Human rights, wealth sharing, settlement of debts, permanent constitution making process, dissolution of the current Assembly, power sharing establishment of national executive council and national council of ministers.

It looks like the culture of political compromises has not been employed by the parties.

In any negotiation, you don’t get 100%. For example, during the CPA negotiation, discussions were heated on power sharing protocol where SPLM/A’s delegations were serious on the rotation of the presidency and how the capital Khartoum should be divided in half, one side could be used as the seat of the government of southern Sudan and the other side as the seat of the Sudan government.

The two parties agreed only on general principles for the power sharing in government which include conducting an election during the interim period. They couldn’t agree on rotating the presidency and splitting the capital.

After the peace talks had broken down, the next round of talks were scheduled to take place and General Sumbieywo introduced a new format to accelerate the pace of negotiations by involving the top leadership to break deadlocked issues.

He drafts the compromise plan and gives it to the parties for observation as a basis for discussion at the upcoming opening session similar to what is now being proposed. At that time, the SPLM/A accepted his compromise plan and the government rejected it.

The government delegation denounced Sumbeiywo’s plan as hopelessly flawed which favored only SPLM/A position on separation and very soft on unity. Omar Hassan al Bashir complained that unity hasn’t been given much room.

The document was strong on secession which is the only concession they must offer toward the end of the interim period. He also could not allow self-determination for the south if southerners are demanding such demands as splitting the capital Khartoum during the interim period.

After bitter unproductive discussions, negotiators made up their mind to set aside some of documents.

In mid-August 2003, talks resumed again in Nanyuki Kenya where the two sides immediately deadlocked by the issue of whether to continue talks on Nakuru’s document or a new document could be proposed as the basis of the negotiation.

In order to break the deadlock, foreign minister of Kenya, Kalonzo Musyoka, suggests face to face discussions between top leaders of the parties to the negotiation; something Taha and Garang agreed to do.

His suggestion was seconded by western observers; they thought that direct negotiation between Ali Osman Mohamed Taha and Dr. John Garang De-Mabior might accelerate the search for lasting peace in Sudan.

The two leaders were locked up in direct negotiation at the tourist resort town of Naivasha, in central Kenya. At that juncture, there was no passing the torch to anyone else any more. The two leaders were facing each other on critical issues working on making progress or admit failure.

Profoundly, comprehensive Peace Agreement was entirely a complex document dealing with security arrangement, wealth sharing, and power sharing with modalities that included the Machakos protocol and the resolution of the conflict in three marginalized areas. Yet, the well-defined CPA tackled important differences between South and North.

In our current situation, one would assert without doubt that South Sudanese have been sharply divided due to the bad leadership, systematic human rights abuses, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity committed by the top leadership of the country.

If South Sudan is going to survive as a strong Federal democratic State, several needs should be addressed, which will include democratic constitution, flexible federal system of governance, and a democratically elected Transitional National Government based on secret ballot of one man/woman vote.

Failure of creating a viable Federal democratic State, the danger we are now longing to erase, will resurface before the end of the tunnel.

Any political stumbling blocks in South Sudan that could occur during or after interim period, could produce more dangerous and serious consequences which will yet affect civil population greatly.

Without well-defined democratic political guarantees, there could be another outbreak of war between the tyrannical regime in Juba and the SPLA rebels.

We all know the war in south Sudan has been described since its early inception as an ethnic tribal war, which involves ethno-centric hatred that targeted one ethnic group.

Failure to identify the main causes of the conflict as being grossly the lack of a permanent democratic constitution to guarantee safeguards for all citizens, lack of the good governance, the rule of law, and the persistent denial of access for minority of the South Sudanese tribes to the political and economic mainstream by one ethnic group, which had created nepotism as a means to enrich themselves.

This will result into another ugly political event in the country; which means people of South Sudan will slip backwards.

In that regard, we shall not accept any settlement that falls short of creating a “Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan” that facilitates the creation of the rule of law, and provides equal socio-economic and educational development for all citizens.

Exclusion of any group could trigger a bloody war. It is obvious that, there are still unhealed wounds in the hearts of many people who have lost loved ones in the Juba massacre.

Literally, South Sudanese are divided, and the division between them started from the top leadership through power struggle, political and ideological differences, and tribal loyalty and its primordial identifications.

In that regard, South Sudanese nationalism is expressed in terms of tribe affiliation rather than as a unifying force to enhance the creation of the one national interest.

There is lack of equitable power sharing, resources sharing, and the denial of some minority tribes to be included in political and economic beneficiary of the country.

This indicates that retaining an undemocratic leader, and criminal who ordered the massacre of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the power struggle in the SPLM party, someone whose crime against humanity is suited for the International Criminal Court indictment, to allow him to continue ruling with an iron fist is uglier than you could imagine.

However, in the culture of negotiations, unwanted resolutions are accepted in order to avoid further destruction. This assertion is solely for the thought of resolving the conflict constructively.

It is noticeable that rebuilding trust under Salva Kiir is impossible, but, we need to move beyond the limit of impossibilities in order to settle this would-be 20 months or two years old conflict.

We also expect the murderous igniter of Juba massacre and his cronies, to concede to all reforms our movement had put forth such as the idea of Federalism, adding of 11 more States to the current 10 and amalgamation of the South Sudanese army just to name only a few.

We expect him this time around to avoid some of his everyday vocabularies such as, “I refuse, red-line, if I die,” and his intransigence, “how would you feel if I signed an agreement for two armies in the country?; would you be happy?” and so forth.

Failure to incorporate Federal Constitution that has basic laws to protect all citizens, guaranteed human rights, and social equality for all, freedom of expression, press, assembly and other democratic values could undermine the legitimacy of the peace.

In summing, worldwide agreements are signed and if these agreements aren’t well-defined and suited with the causes of the conflicts, dissipating, fragmentation, and dishonoring of the agreements are always nearer.

In that regard, mediators are expected to be serious on efforts of democratization and address each group’s political grievances amicably.

We need to keep in mind that South Sudan has been divided by tribal, political, and ideological differences; if there is any failure on the part of the IGAD-Plus in providing necessary needed change in the country in any agreement they wanted to impose on South Sudanese, the possibility of peace to be derailed away is far greater than we might have anticipated.

Very Respectively:
Lul Gatkuoth Gatluak
The author is a political commentator: he should be reach at either lulgatluak7@gmail.com or simonlul2000@yahoo.com

Countering lawlessness in South Sudan

BY: Elhag Paul, JUL/20/2015, SSN;

In the article, ‘SPLM, a curse to South Sudan’ I argued that this organisation has no idea of what to do with South Sudan. ‘To all intent and purpose (it is) confused without any identity of what they (it) stand(s) for.’ The only thing that keeps it going is the entrenched culture of violence it introduced and normalised in the country. As a result South Sudan has been in a state of lawlessness for over three decades now.

In order to capture this state of lawlessness and suggest a solution to it, I shall highlight six incidents to make the case clearer. In November 2007 SPLA soldiers shot dead 3 senior police officers in Yambio in their offices because they refused to release a detainee to them.

In the same year, the then minister of finance, Mr Arthur Akuein Chol, was fired for embezzling nearly sixty million dollars. He was arrested and remanded in prison. However his tribe’s mates in the security services violently freed him from Juba prison while on remand. Soon after the unlawful violent release, Mr Chol was appointed to the Upper House of the parliament by President Kiir. To this date he serves in that august house.

In 2009 President Salva Kiir awards Pigi County in Jonglei state to the Jieng people dispossessing the Chollo people of their ancestral land. These events happened before South Sudan attained its independence.

We see state agents and institutions violently assaulted by SPLA with impunity. We see a criminal freed violently and illegally from state prison by his tribe’s mates and rewarded by the president with a responsible post in the legislative assembly. We see the President dispossessing citizens of another tribe for whom he has a duty to protect in favour of his own tribe.

After independence in July 2011, South Sudan ploughs on without any change in its governance. In December 2011 an alliance of Jieng and Nuer targeted the Murle people with an open notice circulated in the social media declaring an intent to “wipe out” the Murle as a final solution.

While in Equatoria, the Jieng systematically dispossessed the Madi people of Nimule, from their home land with the support of the government. The Madi tribe’s leadership and its influential members have routinely been killed by SPLA Jieng soldiers.

In the summer of 2013 President Kiir forms a militia with the help of the then governor of Northern Bahr El Ghazal state, General Paul Molong Awan, against the advice of the then Chief of the Army, General James Hoth Mai. In December of the same year, President Kiir unleashed this force on the Nuer people in Juba and the surrounding areas.

We see the state failing to protect the Murle people from being “wiped out” by the tribal alliance of the Jieng and Nuer. The Murle had to fend for themselves and to their credit they did very well in holding their corner.

We see the powers that be sanctioning the dispossession of the Madi people from their land in Equatoria by the Jieng. The government deliberately ignored the aggression on the Madi people by the Jieng. Worst still, we see the president running an illegal militia parallel to the national army.

From these few selected snippets of numerous stories, something glaringly stands out. In spite of the fact that all of the suspects in these cases hail from one tribe and are known, they have not been arrested, or investigated or prosecuted to show that indeed law and order exist in South Sudan. All the culprits involved are protected by their tribe’s mates and the government. They roam the streets posing continuous serious risks to peaceful people.

All these point to one thing. South Sudan prior to independence and after independence has been in a state of chaos. There has never been any law and order in South Sudan but tribal disorder and chaos.

Surprisingly this chaos is designed, hatched and promoted by the so-called Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) composed of judges, lawyers and intellectuals. Please get a sense of the mindset of the JCE by reading their recent letters. Here they are: ’Jieng Council of Elders reject imposition of peace in South Sudan’ http://paanluelwel.com/2015/04/01/jieng-council-of-elders-rejects-imposition-of-peace-on-south-sudan/ and ‘Response of the Jieng Council of Elders to the latest IGAD proposal on power sharing’ http://www.southsudannation.com/response-of-the-jieng-council-of-elders-to-the-latest-igad-proposal-on-power-sharing/

So, what is going on in South Sudan is what the enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau calls the state of nature – an environment where the armed uses brute force to stamp his wishes on the peaceful and unarmed.

As you can see what has been going on in South Sudan is contrary to what the Troika and the UN have been saying about South Sudan. They repeatedly and relentlessly call South Sudan as a young democracy and a legitimate system thereby reinforcing the ongoing lawlessness.

Now this lawlessness has a history covering over 3 decades which must be taken into consideration if peace is to be achieved in South Sudan. This starts from 1983 with the inception of SPLM/A – an organisation that has been lawless to the core waging war against Khartoum supposedly to establish a “New Sudan” of multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious order, but also consolidating power into the hands of a single tribe, the Jieng.

To deeply understand the arguments advanced in this piece and the true nature of the SPLM, the reader my wish to read the work of Dr Peter Adwok Nyaba, ‘Politics of Liberation of South Sudan’ and also the work of Dr Lam Akol Ajawin ‘Colonialism, Resistance and Autonomy’ among other written critiques of the SPLM/A.

During the Machakos negotiation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), a golden chance availed itself to stop SPLM/A from continuing with the chaos and to transform itself for the better but this was lost when the talks assumed the modal of peace negotiation between two principals or what is commonly referred to as peace between “elites”. This discriminatory and oppressive modal eliminated all the democratic forces representing the various political groups in north Sudan and south Sudan.

Principally, this theory is not new at all. In 18th century, monarchs in Europe deployed it to exclude their subjects (the people) from participating in political discussions that affects their lives. Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory of ‘Social Contract’ was a direct response to this undesirable model of conflict resolution.

The monarchs at the time argued that they had a divine right to legislate on behalf of the people without the people representing themselves. Rousseau’s response to this nonsense was that sovereignty lies in the people and essentially the people must be the shapers of their destiny.

Therefore, the adoption of the “elites” model in the Machakos negotiations in effect pushed the forces of democracy out narrowing the talks to the men of arms. The net result as we know now has been consolidation of dictatorship in both Sudans with lawlessness reigning in South Sudan. Not only that but wars broke out in both Sudans meaning the CPA was ineffective in bringing peace.

The implosion of the system in Juba in December 2013 was not a surprise to South Sudanese, it was expected. While the events of that particular period are sad and painful, it should be taken as an opportunity and here let me borrow the words of Ms Helda Johnson, the former United Nations Representative of the Secretary General to South Sudan, to describe what needs to happen. South Sudan needs to be “rebooted”.

Rebooting South Sudan does not need IGAD’s current approach which is more of what happened in the CPA. As Albert Einstein correctly said such a repetition would be insanity.

“Insanity” according to him, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result.”

We can not employee the same strategy used during the CPA that ended up empowering the very parties perpetuating lawlessness to realise peace, law and order. Unbelievably, this is what is going on now with IGAD-Plus.

It is wrong to speculate that power sharing and narrowing the talks between the SPLM/A factions will bring peace. The very notion of sharing power and wealth in the same country between a fractured party is manifestly wrong.

It implies that governance should be based on appropriation of power and resources to certain groups rather than for these resources to be used by the political group for the benefit of the whole country as it should be.

Such approaches employed by IGAD encourage vicious competition for meagre resources which means other non-state actors will begin to mushroom across the country to claim their share thus perpetuating instability and war-lordism.

However, one of the drawbacks with the current IGAD‘s approach is that it tends to hide the real problem which is tribalism which fuels the lawlessness. It is good to talk about deals between elites, but it is important to know: who are these elites?

Using the term elite in African context can be misleading. The Oxford dictionary defines elite as “A select group that is superior in terms of qualities to the rest of a group or society.”

This is essentially a Eurocentric view which normally looks at elites as people emanating from different ethnic backgrounds but with similar experiences and interests in a country. Unlike in Africa, where political leaders usually come from a tribe and want to dominate for the interest of the tribe.

IGAD appears to be using the elite model of brokering peace in South Sudan to promote continuation of dictatorship in the new country.

The question to ask is: does SPLM/A really have superiority and quality? The obvious answer is NO! However, if one peers deeper into this organisation, the reality is that it is a tribal organisation and so its various factions as tribally oriented.

For example, take SPLM/A in government, the president is a Jieng, the minister of foreign affairs is a Jieng, the minister of defence is a Jieng, the minister of home affairs is a Jieng, the chief of police is a Jieng, the chief of prisons is a Jieng, everywhere is headed and staffed by Jieng.

Similarly with the SPLM in opposition everything and everywhere is staffed by the Nuer.

Turn to the peace talks under IGAD, the bulk of the representatives of both factions are composed of the two groups with both heads of delegations with their spokesmen. The bitter fact is that 62 tribes are marginalised and excluded from the affairs of the country.

Who then represents this silent majority in the IGAD peace talks? Therefore what goes on in IGAD is not peace talks but deliberate empowerment of two ethnic groups to lord it over the majority of the 62 ethnic groups. It is difficult to see how a lasting peace can be achieved under IGAD.

A careful examination of the IGAD talks suggests that, it is not about bringing peace to South Sudan. Its latest peace proposal being floated is the increasing evidence the talks are primarily about politics and the interest of the IGAD member states and others far afield.

The insistence on a deal between the warring factions of SPLM/A whose combined population is less than 20 percent of the country speaks for itself. This medieval monarchical method of conflict resolution is a disgrace to Africa at large and South Sudan in particular.

How could Africans (IGAD) wilfully promote a hopeless Eurocentric theory which the Europeans themselves have trashed, buried and ditched centuries ago in a new 21st century state of South Sudan?

It is startling that the Troika are backing a non-democratic approach which strives to entrench totalitarianism in the country they love to refer to as a young democracy. This song is misleading because it encourages the dictators in Juba to continue with their misrule.

If the Troika truly believed in promoting democracy in South Sudan they should be seen to promote practices that encourage and lay democratic structures.

Such practice would necessitate the Troika to recommend and encourage an inclusive pluralistic process bringing all South Sudanese together to truly sort out the mess of SPLM/A once and for all. Not what is going on right now in Addis Ababa, Nairobi and Arusha in tandem.

In a sense, a pluralistic approach is not only to promote democracy but to also avail the South Sudanese a chance to make their own ‘Social Contract’ which they have never had the opportunity to do because the current South Sudan was born out of vehement opposition to Khartoum’ Islamic system by the African tribes in the Sudan.

The latest IGAD proposal will most likely not be signed as all the signs are that the talks may fail like that of 6th March 2015. If by sheer luck or shrewd arm-twisting it should succeed, then it may not bring the long-awaited peace for reasons already elaborated above… namely the repair and reunification of the SPLM/A and its failed structures that generated and will continue to generate instability in the country.

It is possible that the dogged refusal by IGAD supported by Troika to apply democratic practice to the talks in Addis Ababa may be driven by the fear of the unknown.

The international community through IGAD appears to prefer the talks to be limited to the SPLM because such a process excludes stakeholders and directs the talks to achieve a desired outcome.

The main purpose of such a manoeuvre is to ensure the interest of the involved members of the international community is not compromised or lost in a multi-stakeholder’s process that may produce actors whose intent is to truly work for the benefit of South Sudan.

In the case of South Sudan, the international community appears to prefer business with the ultra corrupt murderous SPLM/A than the peace loving people of South Sudan.

So, they may be thinking it is better for them to patch the SPLM/A up because it serves their interest. They do not want to see a situation where power shifts from the SPLM through the talks which can lead to a true change of political play leading to a potential loss of interest of the member states of IGAD and beyond.

The political corruption of IGAD countries distorts the reality of South Sudan politics. For example, Uganda’s overt destructive activities in South Sudan.

On one hand it is an active participant in the war using banned weapons such as cluster bombs and helicopter gunships in eviscerating South Sudanese and their properties in the war zones. On the other it pretends that it is a peace maker and a friend of the people of South Sudan.

Given what is going on, any talk by the international community of standing with the people of South Sudan is a mere facade and face saving gimmick.

South Sudanese are on their own and they should be prepared to go it alone to make their own peace. The earlier this point is grasped by South Sudanese, the quicker a solution can be found from within.

However, as IGAD-Plus is now in charge, if it truly wants to achieve peace then it should counter the lawlessness in South Sudan by considering the following suggestions:
1) The IGAD-Plus talks to be inclusive rather than dragging on with a wrong and a failed process based on a deal between supposed “elites”.
2) The objectives of the talks must be about resolving the core issues generating problems in the country notably: tribalism, state driven violence against citizens, corruption and lack of law and order.
3) Reform of the entire security sector with emphasis on representation of all ethnicities in the various organs of the sector.
4) Accountability, preferably through the current international legal structures as the crimes committed in South Sudan is of an international nature.
5) To make maximum impact to discourage corruption, the UNSC should freeze accounts of all South Sudanese who have in excess of 2 hundred thousand dollars. South Sudanese know that before 2005 hardly any person of South Sudan origin had that amount of money.
5) NGOs to be discouraged from shielding the government from its responsibility to provide services.
6) The AU report into the violence in South Sudan in December 2013 must be released. Further delay clearly will mean denial of justice to the victims. The adage “justice delayed is justice denied” applies here.
7) IGAD needs to consider the invaluable contributions of South Sudanese intellectuals, the Diaspora and the people of Equatoria in brokering peace. Position papers from these groups have already been submitted to IGAD.

Finally, South Sudan has been lawless for over three decades. During this period it has bled and lost over two million people, majority of whom died at the hands of the SPLM/A.

The latest bloodletting initiated by President Kiir in December 2013 setting the country alight needs to be resolved through a modern multi-stake holders process and not the medieval “elite” process adopted by IGAD.

If IGAD truly wants to solve the South Sudan problem it should change course of direction now and do the right thing for the sake of the region generally and South Sudan in particular.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com

Uniting people of South Sudan through development work

By Jacob K. Lupai, JUBA, JUL/16/2015, SSN;

A lot has been sung about unity of people of South Sudan as though unity is all that is needed to address the mounting problems the country faces. There is hardly any mention of a mechanism that brings unity.

Disunity is blamed on war as the only evil and peace is sung as the only way to achieve unity. However, there was peace before between 2005 and 2013. It is not clear whether there was then unity among the people of South Sudan.

Nepotism, corruption and insecurity were rampant. Land grabbing was at its peak and marauding cattle keepers heavily armed to the teeth, terrorized peaceful farming communities with impunity. The rule of law was flagrantly violated. Murderers hardly faced the death penalty because they were on death row endlessly for unknown reasons.

From the above highlight the absence of war does not necessarily mean people are united. Even in peace time there may be bitterness beneath the surface in people when the system of governance is manipulated to favour others.

How then is absence of war means people are at peace and united? In the absence of war the unity of people can be sustained through fairness and equitable development work. For example, the construction of a highway between Juba in Central Equatoria, Bor in Jonglei and Malakal in Upper Nile will encourage easy movements of people, goods and services, thereby promoting trade for mutual advantage and eventually unity of people.

Construction of a highway does not need to depend on the central government. The three states of Central Equatoria, Jonglei and Upper Nile can take the initiative to construct the highway. After all it is now ten years since the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005 and when has the central government constructed a highway in South Sudan linking the states.

It is only the USAID that has constructed a tarmac highway linking Juba to Nimule in Central and Eastern Equatoria respectively. This brings us to the system of governance, either a centralized or decentralized one for effective delivery of services. This is discussed later in the article.

Uniting people through development work is not only limited to construction of highways. Development of trade between states is equally important and should be highly encouraged. For example, Western Equatoria and Lakes can develop trade on agricultural products and livestock respectively for comparative advantage and mutual benefit.

Trade between states is likely to bring people closer together where contacts are increased. People will get to know each other better and this may promote mutual understanding and trust. In this way people from the different states will develop confidence in each other.

This may act like catalyst for unity of people with the same aspirations to improve their living standards.

People of one destiny

There is a slogan that reads, “One Nation One People” highlighted on billboards and in the media. This is meant to reflect what South Sudan is, one nation and one people. However, it is not clear whether critical analysis of the slogan was made.

I will strenuously disagree that South Sudan is “One People” and I am not even so sure whether South Sudan is “One Nation” as the slogan wants people to believe. For sure South Sudan will never be “One people” even if the prophets rise from their unmarked graves to preach once more, may be this time on the banks of the Nile.

South Sudan is composed of 72 ethnic groups or nationalities. Arguably South Sudan is definitely not “One People” but it is composed of people of “One Destiny”.

The slogan, “One Nation One People” is only a dream that people may need to work very hard to realize it in practice. It is relevant to know that people in South Sudan are divided along regional, tribal, ethnic and clan or even family lines.

Liberation struggle for freedom

As people of one destiny South Sudanese in their different ethnic groups or nationalities were united in a protracted liberation struggle for freedom from oppression, marginalization and treatment as second class citizens. The different ethnic groups fought alongside each other against what was perceived as the common enemy.

Oppression, marginalization and mistreatment made the people of South Sudan to forge a common front of unity regardless of their different ethnic backgrounds. Basically the people of South Sudan did not struggle for freedom as “One People” but they jointly, probably with different agendas, struggled as people of “One Destiny” against the perceived common evil of oppression, marginalization and mistreatment.

South Sudanese are people of “One Destiny” in contrast to the misleading slogan that they are “One People”. What happened next after freedom had been achieved is anybody’s guess.

Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972

After a protracted armed struggle that lasted 17 years, people of South Sudan at last got a breathing space. This was through an agreement called the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 which granted the former southern provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile a local autonomy.

Under the agreement the three provinces became known as the Southern Region. Among other things the agreement was for efficient administration and the development of the Southern Region which was neglected for too long.

Barely 10 years into the agreement cracks began to appear in the leadership of the Southern Region. It seems Southern Sudanese then did not know how to manage the little freedom attained through the agreement.

There were accusations of tribalism in the regional government. The challenge was how to attain unity in heterogeneous Southern Region. Attaining unity was to recognize and accept the principle of peaceful co-existence of people with diversities. However, this was not the case.

Accusations of tribal domination, hegemony and corruption became ever louder and there was also a louder call for decentralization of the Southern Region.

Eventually the Southern Region was decentralized amid stiff opposition from those who had everything to lose in their easily acquired privileged positions in government and in business. The Southern Region was divided into three regions of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile which were the former three southern provinces.

Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005

As the Southern Region was being decentralized another armed struggle was taking place in Upper Nile Region. Those who were bitterly opposed to the decentralization of the Southern Region flocked in droves to join the new armed struggle.

As the armed struggle gained momentum its rank and file was swollen up with the various ethnic groups in South Sudan. It was obvious that the various ethnic groups fought the enemy together as people of one destiny but not as one people.

From the bitterness of decentralization it was clear that there was no question that the people of South Sudan were fighting the enemy as one people.

The new armed struggle lasted 22 years when a comprehensive peace agreement was signed in 2005. The agreement gave the former Southern Region now called Southern Sudan 6 years of interim period followed by a referendum.

In the referendum the people of Southern Sudan would be asked whether to remain united with the North or to opt for an independent state of their own. In January 2011 the people of Southern Sudan spoke loudly. They voted overwhelmingly, about 99 per cent, for independence and in July the self-governing Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan.

The vote in the referendum was the real liberation of South Sudan by the participation of all its eligible citizens. The unfortunate noises made by some few misguided individuals that “we liberated you” are nothing but the advertisement of total ignorance and sheer ethno-centricism which is inherently anti-nationalism in modern day South Sudan.

Post independent South Sudan

The people of South Sudan voted overwhelmingly for independence because they wanted to be free at last. They had yearned for development and services. The alternative was to remain in shackles forever. Since the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005, the people of South Sudan did not fare any better. Poverty was high and insecurity was of major concern. South Sudan was not food self-reliant.

Urban and rural roads were in appalling conditions of utter neglect. Corruption became part of the culture difficult to eradicate. In all, the peace dividends expected were not forthcoming. It was a huge disappointment after so much protracted armed struggle with the loss of millions of precious lives.

The worse to devastate South Sudan was yet to come when an internal division within the ruling party in government, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), exploded enormously into an open armed confrontation in the city of Juba. The sheer greed for power and hence control of resources is to blame.

Also, to blame is the impatience and insensitivity to the consequencs of the open armed confrontation on unity of the country.

There will never be any peace in South Sudan when the focus is only on power sharing. Fundamental is institutional reform in sustaining unity. Power sharing should be the second priority.

However, there seems to be deep ill-feeling that the SPLM may never be the same again. In view of irreconcilable differences, the leadership of the SPLM may need to reconsider their positions in the best interest of the country.

System of governance

According to the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 Artricle 47, South Sudan shall have a decentralized system of government with national, state and local government level. The question to pose may be, to what extent is the decentralized system effective on the ground.

Article 48 (1) (d) on Devolution of Powers stipulates that the principle shall be the pursuit of good governance through democracy, separation of powers, transparency, accountability and respect for the rule of law to enhance peace, socio-economic development and political stability.

Article 48(2) (b) says that the national government shall respect the powers devolved to the states and local governments. This seems to be the reality in theory. In practice the national government may be so powerful that the system is virtually a centralized one. The national government can remove elected state governors with no warning.

National ministries may transfer staff to the states without the knowledge of the states concerned. National ministries also claim to be in-charge of what they apportion to themselves as national projects in the states with hardly any definition. Failure to develop projects of any significance, the existing projects in the states are now claimed to be national projects.

For decentralization to be meaningful it has to be exercised on the ground. Decentralization in theory is not helpful in sustaining unity. Decentralized governance has been accorded a central place in the discourse on development. This calls for improved people’s participation by way of effective decentralization through local self-governments. In contrast to a centralized system, decentralization is seen to promote efficiency, effectiveness and equity in delivery of services to people.

For South Sudan to be a successful story but not a failed state, the adoption of a federal system of government is essential, characterized by the principle of strict separation of powers and functions between the federal government and the states. Interference in state affairs should not be permitted. Both should be vested with the three branches of power, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Each level of government should be responsible and accountable for its own acts and decisions.

Currently the states in South Sudan do not have judiciary and this limits the power of the states to prosecute criminals, making the provision of justice to victims of crime in the states difficult. The states should also have the power to raise taxes for development. In addition the federal government can grant financial aid for particular important investments in the states.

Unity through development work

When the guns went silent as a result of the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005, the feeling and understanding of being people of one destiny appeared to have evaporated into thin air. As if they couldn’t believe it, the agreement brought freedom unseen of to the people of South Sudan.

The South had its own army and self-government comparable to any government in Sub-Saharan Africa. Besides marginalization by the North was becoming a thing of the past.

The freedom seemed to have neutralized the people of South Sudan. There was no longer a magnetic pull strong enough to make South Sudanese to have another vision of people as of one destiny.

Although poverty was glaringly evident and underdevelopment was felt everywhere, the people were oblivious. The political war was won but the economic war was yet to be won. One would have hoped this was enough to make the people of South Sudan to consider themselves as people of one destiny and the struggle continues.

Contrary to expectations naivety crept in at an alarming rate that greed for power and wealth turned people overnight to be traitors to Dr John Garang de Mabior’s vision of a New Sudan. It was like people had gone to war simply to come and loot public and private resources with impunity. However, during the interim period the perception of being independent through a referendum was so overwhelming that people put up with all the negative behaviors of the insensitive ones.

After the attainment of independence through the referendum the focus should have been on the prosperity of the country. Naturally the negative behaviors cannot be multiplied in independent South Sudan for the unity of the country will be in jeopardy. An appropriate way is to formulate a development programme that is focused on promoting national unity.

For convenience there are two main cultures in South Sudan, farming and pastoralism. These two cultures always clash and the consequences are unlikely to foster national unity. National unity is at stake when one culture is greedy for power and control of resources for the sake of domination to rule.

The challenge is how to harmonize the two cultures for mutual advantage in promoting national unity. Development of infrastructures and promotion of trade between farming communities and pastoralists will go a long way to bring these people together and this may promote mutual understanding. Many may know which states are predominantly of pastoralists and farming communities. Linking all major towns in pastoralists and farming communities through highways, waterways and in the future through railways can do the trick of realizing national unity. Airways may be unaffordable to the poor of either culture.

Unity through development work can be real when people are development oriented and serious. States should pioneer investment in development projects to rip benefits with movement of labor across states to tap the knowledge, skills and experience of the highly qualified in South Sudan. They should not wait for the central government.

Conclusion

Uniting the people of South Sudan through development work is not a concept that cannot be realized in practice. It is something that can become real with some ingenuity. South Sudan is rich in various resources.

The only challenge is that South Sudan is a nation of consumers who prefer individual development at the expenses of the country. This may explain the high level of corruption and theft of public funds with impunity.

According to South Sudan Development Plan 2011 – 2013, corruption in some government institutions is prevalent. Nepotism as a form of corruption is also cited as a major hindrance to good governance.

Hardly any consideration is given to national development. For example, agriculture is always cited as the backbone of the economy of South Sudan.

Agriculture therefore should have been developed for self-reliance in food production so that South Sudan should not have to spend millions of US dollars on food imports from the neighboring countries. However, in the National Draft Budget for Financial Year 2014/15 the budget for agriculture and forestry is 3 per cent of the total budget.

The budgetary allocation to agriculture is below what is expected given that agriculture is the backbone of the economy of the country. With favorable climatic conditions and multiple sources of water, South Sudan could be the breadbasket of the region. However, to increase production 10-25 per cent of the total budget should be allocated to agriculture.

In conclusion, South Sudan has every reason to be a strong united and vibrant country by uniting its people through development work when there is a vision and political will.

Jacob K. Lupai is the author of the book: South Sudan, Issues in Perspective published in 2014. The book is available in St Joseph Bookshop and in JIT Supermarket in Juba, and at Juba International Airport. For students who would like to borrow the book, copies owned by Juba University are available in the library.

Green Army Brigade – SPLM-IO Wau Ngoginda: Only True Federation

MG/ Ashhab K. F. Ukanda
Commander, Green Army brigade, SPLM/A IO / Wau Ngoginda.
Loyal to Dr. Riak Machar Teny 15.July 2015

Any solution for the problem of South Sudanese, should address the major grievances of South Sudanese people including the minorities in every corner of the country. Solutions that concentrate to the majority leaving minorities behind will not be fair and guarantee permanent stability.

The implementation of the SPLM Vision of taking the town to the people which targeted the minorities and turned into grabbing of the land and destruction of farms in some states, must be review and senior official in the government who are behind the fueling, must stopped arming those loyal to them and carrying out the destruction.

Democracy must be prevailing and respected as provided in the constitution. South Sudanese people are to be seen practicing their right provided by the constitution. Media houses and journalists are to be protected, seen doing their work freely, and are to be consider as the mirror where the nation sees itself and put things correct and not as enemy.

South Sudanese people are to be treated equally before the law. Protection should be provided equally to all of them and not like what we are seeing today, pastoralists are allow to take arms for what they call it protection for their cattle, while farmers are not allow to take arms for the protection of their farms.

We can see the SPLA providing protection to armed cattle keepers while causing destruction in farms, and farmers remaining without protection.

True federalism is the only way for the survival of stable South Sudan, it should be implemented correctly and fully to guarantee just participation of South Sudanese people in the building of their nation, all people should get their part in the system, and not like what is happening today in Western Bahr Elghazal State, all the key posts are taken by the people from the neighboring states, Warrap, Lake and Aweil.

The really people of the State are marginalized and oppressed. They don’t have a say in the affairs of their state.

The constitution of the county is the concern of each and every South Sudanese. As they participated in its making up right from the beginning, they should also be consulted in any case of amendment, other wise any amendment without their consent, will not represent their will, and any decision taken in the line of the amendment will be illegitimate.

We have been seeing the government declaring general amnesty from time to time, but how honest is the government to its declarations? How many innocent are arrested and kept with the National security within this general amnesty without legal procedure? How many times, we saw senior officials in the government insulting those responding in the national media?

The power that was delegated to the executive and legislative by the people of South Sudan through the previous constitution is already expired. They don’t have the right to make any amendments in the expired period as far as extend their period without the consent of South Sudanese people.

This regime is not any more a democratic elected government; time has come for South Sudanese People to come out with the new mechanism to establish new fair system in the country for the betterment of their future.

South Sudan crisis overlaps SPLM re-unification Project

BY: BOL Ruach Rom, (in the bushes of South Sudan), JUL/14/2015, SSN;

Brief background:
The Sudan’s People Liberation Movement (SPLM), currently the ruling party in the Republic of South Sudan had formally been formed in 1983 as a political wing of Sudan’s People Liberation Army (SPLA) to fight against yokes colonialism and agonies of Arabizationin and Islamization in the previous united Sudan.

When the black African race of the Sudan felt marginalized from Arab domination, few South Sudanese elites initiated rebellion that later drew wider participation of people from Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, Abyei and some elements in the North also joined the movement under ‘proxy objective of secular Sudan’.

Alex De Waal, Executive Director of the World Peace Foundations and a Research Professor at the Fletcher School, in his article, “When Kleptocracy becomes insolvent: brute causes of the civil war in South Sudan,” I quoted six crucial points, ‘the movement started with spontaneous rush to arms, and the SPLA’s rank swelled extraordinarily fast.1′

Dr. John Garang in one of his interviews once said, ‘We did not start as a Movement in the classical way of Latin American Liberation movements with a small group of men. We started as a mob. We have been in a series of reforms, reforming a mob.’

The South Sudanese leftist hardliners affiliated to former Ethiopian Communist dictator Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam centralized a military-political movement verged on nihilism, exemplified in their war songs, example of the SPLA Locust Division chanting slogans of ‘even your father, gives him a bullet.2

And usual military doctrines that ‘your father and mother are the barrel of your gun, you must live through barrel of your gun to accumulate wealth (food, wife, abducted children, cows, properties, title of respect, etc..)3.

Alex De Waal continued; ‘Inverting its original intent, the SPLM/A became a magnet for rent seekers. In reality, however, corruption had permeated the armed struggle from earliest days.

Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba cites a shocking case of how food rations for conscripts in Ethiopia – which may in fact have been aid initially destined for refugees – was sold, contributing to the deaths from disease and starvation of many hundreds of young recruits.4’

Over the years, SPLA officers became oriented towards an apparently unending supply of international humanitarian aid, which could be stolen with impunity.5

‘Looting food aid was elevated to military strategy in the 1990’s, when the contending factions of the SPLA staged hunger camps to attract humanitarian relief, which was then stolen,6.

Alex De Waal lamented: “Therefore, the attempt to smash off the marginalization of the North through communist built-Ideology of SPLM/A did not prosper instead cracked the movement nine years later into 1991 genesis.”

On August 28th, 1991, Dr. Riek Machar Teny, the current chairman and commander in chief of SPLM/A-IO, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, the current chairman of SPLM-DC, Late Uncle Joseph Oduho, Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba, John Luk Jock, Richard K. Mulla, Gordon Koang Chol and some other former senior rebel commanders split from SPLM/A Mainstream and formed SPLM/A Nasir Faction under three reform agendas: self determination for the people of South Sudan, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Late Dr. John Garang led SPLM/A Torit Faction on brute agenda of secular Sudan along with those of late William Nyuon Bany Machar, Salva Kiir Mayardit, James Wani Igga, Kuol Manyang Juuk, Late Yousif Kwo Mekhi, Malik Agar, Yasir Arman and several others but had afterward corrected their past and adopted self determination for the people of South Sudan in their manifesto of 1994 Chukudum National Convention.

In early 2002, both factions ceased hostilities and reunified under SPLM/A with self determination as a common objective of the movement in Nairobi, Kenya. Nevertheless with concentration of powers under late Dr. John Garang De Mabior, chairman and commander in chief of SPLM/A, General Salva Kiir Mayardit, the then president of the Republic of South Sudan rebelled in 2004 that smoked out ‘Yei crisis’, this move was drastically extinguished and diffused with the help of Dr. Riek Machar, the facilitator of Rumbek conference of November, 2004.

In Minutes of Rumbek Conference, Dr. John Garang De Mabior made this statement “to begin with I wrote two messages: 1. was on 14/11/004, No. 001/11/004 to address the following accusations/rumors that there was a meeting held in Nairobi under the chairmanship of myself where Cdr. Salva Kiir would be replaced by the Chairman with Cdr. Nhial Deng Nhial, that I went to Kampala and met with Cdr. Pieng and ordered him to arrest Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit, that Cdr. Malual Majok went to Ramciel to collect forces to go and arrest Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit in Yei; they are all lies and big propaganda initiative.

The second message was on 23/11/04 calling for this meeting which we are now convening today and where I want to make a general briefing about the signing of peace agreement next month in which each and every one should be informed accordingly.”

The ‘Yei crisis’ was a deliberate acts by Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit to vocal on corruptions and brute administration of Late Dr. John Garang but eight months latter Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit happened to be the father of corruption and with all his might, he employed state machineries to defend the status quo.

In November 2014, Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit made a surprising decree dissolving all SPLM Structures except his office contrary to his below critics to late Dr. John Garang De Mabior.

Please read his statement reacting to corruption malpractices and the Chairman’s administrative loopholes in 2004, Cdr. Salva Kiir vocal criticism ‘if we are National Leaders, which I don’t believe we are because we have no cohesion within our leadership structures, let us be sincere with ourselves. After meetings are concluded, we run to foreign countries. There is no code of conduct to guide the Movement’s structures. When the Chairman leaves for abroad, no directives are left and no one is left to act on his behalf. I don’t know with whom the Movement is left with; or does he carry it in his own brief case? The Chairman killed the National Executive Council (NEC) by creating the Leadership Council. Does he want to revive the Political Military High Command? The leadership council creates a situation where all are directly reporting to the chairman. Those around the chairman don’t tell him the opinion of the public. The chairman is everything, from a finance officer to one at lowest level. Corruption, as a result of the lack of structures, has created a lack of accountability which has reached a proportion that will be difficult to eradicate.’

In January 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) negotiated settlement had offered a provision of plebiscites to the marginalized people of South Sudan to determine their fate of either form part of Sudan or create a country of their own.

Likewise, the CPA had guaranteed a special status for popular consultations to the people of Abyei, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile to either joint South Sudan or remains in united Sudan.

In January 2011, South Sudan declared its independent with vote counts of over 98 percent in favor of independent. It is important to mention that popular consultations for other mentioned locations expired with the terms of the comprehensive agreement.

Though the people of Abyei in 2013 unilaterally underwent a local referendum claimed to have resulted to join the Republic of South Sudan but it had not involved international observers and funny enough, the puppet government of Salva Kiir Mayardit turned deaf hears to their claim.

The causes of current civil war in South Sudan is summarized into seven by Dr. Riek Machar Teny, historical speech at Maiwut County’s conference in December 2014 as:
— (a) concentration of powers in the hands of president Salva Kiir Mayardit that produced ‘Yei Crisis’ twelve years ago,
— (b) Insecurity and ethnicized conflicts in Greater Upper Nile States, Warap, Lakes, Western Equatoria and Western Bhar el Ghazal States
— (c) Poor Economics Policy where the country depends ninety eight percent entirely on oil revenue. The rich agricultural sector, wildlife conservations and tourism and other non oil revenues are neglected,
— (d) Rife corruption in the government: the diversion of four billion US by 75 individuals in early 2012, Dura Saga scandal in 2013, according to Alex De Waal “the payroll of SPLA in 2011 hit 240,000 whereas other organize forces (policemen, prison warders, wildlife guards and paramilitary reserves was 90,000 making a total of 330,000. SPLA internal audit suggested minimum of 40,000 “ghost soldiers” salaries were pocketed by their respective commanders.
— (e) Tribalism and Nepotism: the government of president Salva Kiir employee only relatives and friends for decent jobs which increase theft in his own office of over 18 million USD. Civil servants are not contracted on merit but on whom you know basis.
— (f) SPLM dysfunction: the government directs and leads the party, i.e. the ruling government moves the SPLM and not vice versa. This proof to South Sudanese that the SPLM/A ruling cliques still believes and lives on its past egos of killing, unlawful detention and torture, arson and loot individuals and nation’s resources to accumulate wealth,
— (g) Regional and International Isolations: the government of South Sudan has fail IGAD, AU and unable to poke its nose into the membership of East African Community and other Regional and International bodies.

Therefore, the eruption of December 15th, Salva-made crisis was a well calculated move by Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the submissive President Salva Kiir Mayardit to threaten national integrity of a young nation in order to loot its resources and wealth in the name of Insecurity.

While the wild cats in rubber stamp parliament and SPLA top commanders clap at the nasty Museveni–Kiir superficial might to raid the oil money forging insecurity; the law implementers’ institutions i.e. Judiciary and Anti corruption refrain from their mandate and remain spectacles of the game at distance fearing dismissal and intimidation.

Both Museveni – Kiir oil money raid thwarts premature rebellions in Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile and Darfur to abandon their quest for secular Sudan and instead managed their forces to turn guns against opposition forces in South Sudan.

The oil money went as far as luring in rebels from Chad and Democratic Republic of Congo besides immense Russia, Egypt and Israel military support of the government to crush rebellion.

The Arusha Intraparty Dialogue:
The Arusha SPLM re-unification Initiative is a Museveni’s crook pilot project designated to reduce the scale and magnitude of ongoing crisis back into a small desk of SPLM Leadership to roughly address the root causes, correct their pasts, apologize to one another, reinstate exile leaders to their previous positions in the existing SPLM structure, organize a joint rally to make public apology to the citizens of South Sudan and later on pushes for piecemeal national reconciliation and healing.

After President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda realized that IGAD led peace talk progresses in its last thematic discussions to address root causes of the conflict and succumb to the agenda of reforms, he went straight to conspire with Tanzania CCM and ANC parties leadership in order to hijack this noble regional peace initiative by diminishing it into an intra-party dialogue in Arusha, Tanzania. President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni lives in dichotomy of pocking in South Sudan’s oil and fears of any constitutional changes may jeopardize his reign in Uganda.

One can predict the outcome of trio intraparty dialogue in Arusha to ends up discussing the SPLM basic documents: manifesto, internal rules and regulations, code of conduct and the constitution as causes of the current crisis forgetting the fact that these four documents elapsed and forfeit their credentials after December 15th, 2013.

Any forum that persists to detail on such documents is prolonging the suffering of South Sudanese citizens. This SPLM house has been set ablaze by its founders spearheaded by totalitarian dictator Salva Kiir Mayardit where each and every one of its member went away with its part.

Can you imagine how this party is broken up into eleven factional particles namely: SPLM-IG, SPLM-IO, SPLM-FD, SPLM-DC, SPLM-North, SPLM-Abyei, SPLM peace Forum, SPLM-United, Agwelek forces, SSDM Cobra and SSLM/A. As some of you might be aware that a fish starts rotting from its head downwards, Gen. Puljang of SSLA, Gen. David Yau Yau of SSDM/Cobra faction and Gen. Johnson Olony of Agwelek were all reintegrated into SPLA ranks in early 2013 qualifying the heads as SPLM/A and tails remain SSLA, Cobra and Agwelwek respectively.

The author posts six questions to be answered by viewers as followed: Is it a historical party that should be reunited during this critical time when we have over 100,000 citizens in open spaces at UNMISS camps?

Nearly 700,000 crossed borders and took refugees in neighboring Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan and an estimate of 4.5 million displaced in urgent need of humanitarian assistance?

Will this SPLM mini forum discusses what killed over 20,000 Nuer innocent citizens in Juba and elsewhere in the country?

Will this trio intra-party dialogue consider compensations and reparations of an estimate loss of more than 100,000 south Sudanese and foreign mercenaries who have been perished in this nineteen months old conflict besides unaccountable loss and damages of their property?

Does reinstatement of former leaders to their various positions in SPLM structures as done to Pagan Amum Okiech and his cohort resolves current crisis? Is the proposition of public apology by former group of ten or eleven to south Sudanese resolves this cynical tribalise political conflict?

Ways forward:
For permanent settlement of the current Salva made crisis, the writer appeals to IGAD plus led peace process, Troika, African Union and members of UN security council to address root causes of the conflict, seal of the accountability, Justices and human rights abuses in competent court of law outside the Republic of South Sudan, adoption of Federalism during the transitional period and beyond, Introduce institutional reforms, mandate on two separate armies until the end of interim period, avails bill for compensations and reparations of war victims, wider power sharing ratio nation-wide not limited to Greater Upper Nile Region, Urge African union commission of enquiry to release the report of investigation for committed war crimes and crimes against humanity so that Justices in a hybrid court outside South Sudan takes its judgment, Dissolutions of illegitimate Kleptocracy governances: Executive, both Upper and lower parliaments, Judiciary and to install in the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGONU) that could fully implement the agreement until election epoch.

The opinion expressed in this piece is a sole responsibility of the author; it does not reflect the party affiliated to or the publishers.

Bol Ruach Rom is a concern South Sudanese citizen residing in bushes of South Sudan and could be reach through: guanchueni@yahoo.com ,
___________________________________________________________
References:
– Alex De Waal online article on When Kleptocracy becomes insolvent: brute causes of the civil war in South Sudan,
– Historical speech by Dr. Riek Machar Teny, Maiwut Conference in December 2014,
– Minutes of historical SPLM/A Rumbek Meeting in November 2004

The Unholy Alliance being made against the Equatoria people

BY: R. MODI, JUBA, JUL/14/2015, SSN;

Back in 1855, Russia used the infamous ‘Unholy alliance’ words to describe the destabilizing alliance between Western Europe and the Turkish Empire against the interest of Russia, Greece, and the Balkan States. Later it referred to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact against Poland, which sparked off the Second World War.

At the moment, as far as South Sudan is concerned, there is this unholy alliance between Salva Kiir and Museveni. I am not sure Ugandans see it as such. The area of concern is how the brothers and sisters in Northern Uganda view this alliance.

It goes without saying that the people in Equatoria and those in Northern Uganda share a common history, but also are tied by blood.

And in fact if there is any relationship between Uganda and South Sudan, the people in Northern Uganda and Equatoria are the bridge that made it possible for a substantial relationship to exist.

It is substantial in the sense that there is sharing of common culture and ethnic lineages as opposed to finding ourselves merely living side by side. This is not meant to delink the people of Northern Uganda from their compatriots in the South, West and East of the country. In fact quite to the contrary.

Those who know history a bit will agree that the Banyoro Kingdom provided the link between north, south and West of the country. So it is a natural relationship that eases out in a seamless fashion.

The people in Equatoria are the same people as in Northern Uganda and the people in Northern Uganda have a natural tie with Banyoro and they in turn have a natural link with the rest of the continent-wide Bantu Communities.

In this way, we are all connected and beautifully African all the way to South Africa, however each ethnic individuality needs to and must be conserved not destroyed through imperialism.

Our nationhood is not at the expenses of annihilation of other ethic groups for the benefit of solidifying the foothold of a single tribe. The point of linkage is always natural and substantial, interdependent and mutual, a symbiotic relations.

So you, our friends in Uganda, should begin to know this unholy alliance has a purpose. It could be the fate of Northern Ugandans and Equatoria people.

This set is substantial enough to claim recognition in the politics of the Great Lakes area. Some people who work on zero sum theory will see this as a threat because the people in the area have a strong identity. Characteristically they are strong, patient and technologically able.

The iron technology was used here for centuries and how to extract red iron oxide was also used here for a long time. That created a link with the Bantu because people here sell the red ‘oka’. They possessed the knowhow of how to extract it. But God has given all of us wisdom so that we can live together and create a web of interdependence.

The problem we are now facing is the drive to dominate others, the predatory insatiable desire to rob others worse of their nationhood to include even ancestral lands, which are the very soul of African persons.

These colonial and malicious drives are wrong, have caused the current destruction and will lead to total failed state if those who invented it insisted on this ideology.

History has shown us again and again that attempts to build on the ideology of imperialism are totally wrong and counterproductive and have yet to succeed anywhere.

The Nazi tried and it failed miserably. The Fascist tried it and it equally failed. The Brits did it in a mild way, but soon realized it is not going to work.

Why not examine our very own history with the Jalabas who have tried, killed and starved our people to death, numbering in millions, but ultimately miserably failed.

The graveyards of history are full of imperialists and their victims but importantly their ideologies also!

Mahatma Gandhi, the man Churchill called the half-naked Fakhi proved undoubtedly that no amount of weapons can change the resolve of a people. Examples of such are endless.

But appeals to our sisters and brothers in Northern Uganda are that this unholy alliance is against us all including you.

Especially for my friends in the army, do not act on the basis of orders. You are a moral being. Don’t do what goes against your conscience. You cannot hurt your own people.

This is now a clear principle based on Nuremberg and Rwanda. A lot has been written about it that it is not enough to say I acted on orders.

Your moral compass is respected and to not hurt your own people because of two leaders whose moral probity is highly questionable.

This same appeal applies to our men in the uniform from both sides of the warring parties, do not kill Civilians just because the leaders above you say so, these are your people no matter from which of the 64 tribes they are from.

Without them there is no South Sudan for you to be an army of.

At one point Uganda was applauded when it stopped genocide in Rwanda. That was good. But now, Uganda is supporting a government who carried out genocide, a fact only denied by Kiir and those who actually participated in the genocide directly of indirectly.

It is like 180-degree turn by the very same Ugandan government. Why such a seeming metamorphosis?

If Uganda followed her track record in Rwanda, it could have reacted on the right side and would have held its moral authority; perhaps it could have brought the two brothers together instead of driving them too far apart, as is the case now.

It is either you are one time on the right side of history or later on the wrong side. But it cannot be both.

For a politically astute person like Museveni, the only reason this turn-around happened is the intent for Northern Uganda to be captured and kept under the foot. Whatever form it will be captured in, we do not know.

But in South Sudan we shall hold our own and stand up.

You our brothers and sisters, know what is happening in Yei, Morobu, Kaya, Nimule and Juba. Some of you are badly treated while visiting our country in cities and towns like Juba, Yei, and Bor etc.

This has to stop. When it will not stop, it is going to affect the whole region of Equatoria. Your own future is at risk just like ours. We are all connected.

Do you remember the story of Banyanya? Those are people north of Karuma, Uganda. We are open for discussions and working together for peace. You are also treated in the same way because people fear you. They should not because we have proved again and again we are not hostile or expansionist or imperialists.

In fact as Nilots we prefer purity of blood. If anybody comes from another community we don’t hide their identity neither do we forcefully assimilate nor deny them the privilege to become one of us but it is all at the free will of the individual, this is what is lost in the current paradigm in Equatoria.

Let us work with you to see the Great Lakes change. Should we sit down and allow this to continue? Must we forget that a government comes and goes but the people stay and are here forever to endure?

If the people endure, it’s not the question, if the ruler dies, it’s a matter of time, but critically it’s how badly damaged and torn apart the people are left by such villainous and unscrupulous leaders. This is the question; and the answer is in the hands of “we the people.”

BY R.MODI
JUBA, RoSS.

Accountability in South Sudan can’t wait for peace – but could foster it

BY: Ken Scott is Amnesty International’s research consultant for South Sudan, THE EAST AFRICAN, JUL/12/2015, SSN;

On July 9, South Sudan observed its fourth anniversary as a state. I say “observed” because there is nothing to celebrate.

Since conflict broke out in mid-December 2013, South Sudan has become one of the neediest, most tragic places on earth.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed, in schools and hospitals, churches and mosques, even in guarded UN camps for already displaced persons.

On June 30, the UN reported grave acts of brutality against civilians by government forces in Unity State, including burning people alive in their houses.

Unicef recently concluded that “violence against children in South Sudan has reached new levels of brutality,” citing the gang rape and the murder of girls as young as eight and the castration of boys left to die.

Although the UN and international community have repeatedly voiced “outrage” and called for an end to the conflict, peace efforts to date, led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, have failed. Recent talks sponsored by President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya also showed no tangible progress.

Among the root causes of the South Sudan conflict are an unfortunate culture of impunity and a historical absence of accountability. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 failed to address gaps in accountability resulting from decades of civil war with the North.

After 18 months of killing, mayhem and rape, the South Sudan government has done nothing of significance to hold any of its own officials and forces accountable for violations committed and in fact obstructs international efforts to monitor human-rights abuses and investigate probable war crimes.

IN SUMMARY:
****Maybe the warring parties in South Sudan will cease or at least reduce their attacks on civilians, churches and schools when they see serious international criminal investigators on the ground with a robust protection force and every intention to indict and bring to justice those responsible for so much human misery****

There has been no shortage of speeches calling for accountability, but a tragic shortage of real action. A year ago, there was already consensus among South Sudanese civil society and international actors including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for some type of hybrid court, but no such mechanism has yet been established.

The principal reasons given by the international community for not taking more action over the past year are the desire to give peace efforts a maximum chance of success by not naming persons allegedly responsible for the violence, and to show deference to the African Union in the hope for a genuine African accountability solution.

All of us hope that genuine peace can be established in South Sudan — a peace that is more than a ceasefire between rival elites, a peace that will addresses the country’s real issues and needs.

However, accountability cannot wait any longer. While some have expressed the view that the violence against civilians will only stop when such a peace is established, the prohibition of crimes against humanity and the rules of international humanitarian law are meant to prevent and stop such violence even while an armed conflict continues.

It may not be possible to achieve a complete peace in the short-term, but that does not and cannot mean that mass violence against civilians must, in the meantime, simply be accepted as “just the way it is.”

It is not true that justice and accountability can only be addressed once peace has been established. An investigative Commission of Experts was established for the Balkan wars in the 1990s three years before the Dayton peace accords were signed.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established two years before the accords. International investigators were on the ground and evidence was being collected while the fighting continued.

The International Independent Investigation Commission to investigate the murder of former prime minister Rafic Hariri and 21 others was established by Security Council resolution in April 2005, four years before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was created in 2009.

The conflict in South Sudan must be addressed in a similar fashion. There is no need to wait for a fully developed peace or until a full-blown court or tribunal is established. Indeed, the people of South Sudan cannot wait.

There is ample authority in the UN Charter, Chapter VII, for the creation of a hybrid accountability mechanism for South Sudan, and, since 2011 and as recently as 28 May, the UN Security Council has made at least eight Chapter VII findings that the situation in South Sudan constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

Adequately resourced criminal investigators must be on the ground in South Sudan as soon as possible before more evidence is destroyed, concealed or otherwise lost. The US Secretary of State John Kerry said almost a year ago, “We’re well past the point where enough is enough.”

If that was true a year ago, it must be doubly true now. How many more South Sudanese civilians must be murdered and young women sexually assaulted before real, concrete actions are taken to obtain sustained security for all?

In early May, the United States pledged $5 million to help set up an accountability mechanism for South Sudan. This pledge must lead to concrete action now. A strong and sustainable international mandate can lead to justice and perhaps real steps toward justice can lead to peace.

Maybe the warring parties in South Sudan will cease or at least reduce their attacks on civilians, churches and schools when they see serious international criminal investigators on the ground with a robust protection force and every intention to indict and bring to justice those responsible for so much human misery. The time to act decisively, to stop the violence, is now!

Ken Scott is Amnesty International’s research consultant for South Sudan. He is a former senior prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and currently a special prosecutor at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Martin Kenyi: A Hero created by the Govt. of South Sudan

BY: Rigorberto Kenyi, JUL/10/2015, SSN;

Things that have happened since August 2014, in regards to Gen. Martin Kenyi Terensio, are enough to raise eyebrows. This man appears to be special in the eyes of the government of South Sudan.

It is not about his defecting to support Dr. Riak Machar, for many generals have done so. But for reasons not clear, Gen. Kenyi appears to be a special focus of the government or their agents.

Firstly it was denied that he defected. The usual SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army) spokesman claimed he was out of the country for treatment. As it is always the case this was a fabricated lie.

Soon to be contradicted by the visit of the Vice President of a sort, 1st Lt. Gen. Isaac Mamur and Gen. Aleu Aleny Aleu asking the people of Nimule to tell Gen. Kenyi to come back. It was a bit strange because the decision of Gen. Kenyi is not determined by the people of Nimule.

In any case the government doing so would appear to be a justification of what followed: the arrest, torture, intimidation and humiliation of the Ma’di Community. As I write today, soon after the speech of the Vice President, Mamur, Aleu and the division commander of the area, more than 21,000 Ma’di Community members have crossed the border and registered in the refugee camps in Adjumani district. This happened even before firing a shot in the area. That is strange!

Continuing from that point, one can ask why they have to do this. Was it the domino effect that people in the northern part of the country have been moving south so those in the south will move further south?

That is not the case. What happened was because of Gen. Kenyi, all Ma’di area was militarised. Army units were deployed in every village. They occupied schools, water points and even health centres. They made life extremely difficult for people, especially women who go to get water.

Even people who go out to harvest, or hunt were being killed. The case in point was the woman who was gang raped and killed in Opari in January. She went out to harvest her crops.

Those of you who are reading this article and have the capacity for mental picture can imagine what people were going through. Those of you who regularly read the articles in newspapers will also know how many Ma’di leaders were arrested, tortured and detained.

Even Human Rights Watch Africa recently published article about the situation in and around Nimule, in connection to the defection of Gen. Kenyi.

One would wonders why this person is treated in special way, in total disregard to his right to decision, identity as a person not related with the corporate entity as Ma’di.

In that very line of reasoning, why is his personality attached to his house? If he has rebelled, the house did not rebel. The house has a legal personality independent of the moral personality of Gen. Kenyi. The house could exist or desist without Gen. Kenyi. The house does not choose the political identity but lives within the ruling system, whatever that may be.

In fact now, as it can be proved, the house did not follow Gen. Kenyi in rebellion but remained loyal in Juba. It is vulnerable and needed to be protected by law because it has a legal personality.

Now that is where the problem is. The law did not protect the house and the question looms large, ‘is there the rule of law in South Sudan?’

We may fish in history to find the answer, as South Sudan belongs to the zone of common law. So we could take a detour to see whether or not, there is jurisprudence in the matter.

The easiest one is the case of Dr. John Garang and Republic of Sudan. You can see it is enough to make someone laugh. His house in Khartoum was not destroyed when he rebelled. Equally, there are so many commanders and officers who defected, including Salva Kiir, whose property in Sudan and South Sudan were not destroyed.

Furthermore, there is a high population of Dinka in northern Sudan who were not mistreated on account of Dr. Garang because he rebelled. And if somebody mistreated them, later Dr. John used to create this story of the lost boys but he as he did not emphasize the Jebelein Massacre, with majority being Shilluk, everybody condemned such acts by a government because there is no association between the rebellion of Garang and the Dinka Nation or South Sudanese People.

All of this is conceptually possible on the basis of the rule of law. In a place where there is the rule of law, these things do not happen. But if we want to tell where the rule of law does not exist, we look at these indicators.

South Sudan will fail in all parameters or the critical indicators of the rule of law. Comparatively, Khartoum, despite its Islamist government, did not fail in all of the key parameters of the rule of law.

Therefore, it is very understandable that security units can destroy the house of Martin Kenyi. Anybody who wants to come forward to argue the contrary is welcome.

You can only do such thing as destroying the building of a person if there is no rule of law. If there was one, there should have been a decision of the judge specifically stating that the property has to be destroyed, for whatever the law court found necessary.

In the absence of the same, governing decisions are done by individuals who depend on their whims and feelings.

Is this a country which has a respectable place among the community of nations? The answer is definitely no.

We all know, that South Sudan claimed to be democratic. With democracy, as Churchill stated, it is not a perfect system but there is none out there that is better. So among the community of nations, South Sudan can rightly be qualified as a failed state.

Regardless of what some people are arguing, the evidence collected at small level that matters, clearly shows South Sudan is a totally failed state.

Stating it differently, it does not have state institutions that function according to the will of the people or the standards of international community and protect people, their freedom, their hope for betterment of their lives and their properties.

Functional government is not restricted to defending the territorial integrity or airspace or terrestrial boundary. In other words, anybody who wants to do business with South Sudan, cannot be sure when the president or the security are going to change their minds. Some people have already experienced that anomaly.

The Vice President kept saying we are a new country we need to be given time. Pure nonsense! You build yourself up when you were fighting. So if you are not ready to govern now, don’t misgovern. Just leave it to other people. That is the simplest rule of politics.

If we have to point out where the rule of law really failed, we do not have to go far. Just drive the street of Juba and you see this SPLA Number plate breach the law and drive with all four hazard lights on and pass at red light at intercession.

Just go to Kenya, to Ethiopia, to Uganda even to Sudan which people consider as poor in democratic standards, are you going to see these behaviours?

What is this style of driving implying…. Mr. president or Vice President, or Mamuur or Malong or Kual Manyang? Is this really a country with government?

In the colloquial Arabic we call it ‘fouda.’ Can a respectable government rule by ‘fouda’? Was that not the reason we fought?

Those days when we used to sit with you, Salva, Mamur and Kual, we talked a lot about ‘fouda.’ But now see where you proved very helpless or unintelligent.

It is really a stupidity and the SPLA representative or whoever called themselves to be, cannot even see the simplest thing. That is more than enough.

Somehow when Idi Amin was ruling Uganda it was said to be similar. But that did not go that far. So the current South Sudan is even below Idi Amin’s Uganda.

Is this really a country that can enter into the community of nations, which are respectable and respect the law of moral properties? The answer is definitely NO.

Something has to change. You are creating a bad legacy. At least people who came up after Adis Ababa Agreement proved to be real governors. Evidently there was no militarism and looting.

This SPLA group proved to be full of looters, as they rightly want to describe themselves. There is no way to follow this step. Dr. Riak and Gen. Kenyi are on the right line.

Logically, there are two points to take into account if one has a wandering mind to reach to what we called conspiracy theory. The point is Gen. Mamur is in charge of security in the country. So when the people destroy the house of Gen. Kenyi, it implicated Mamur.

Did he order it? If not, as the minister of security, how could this happen in his watch? Based on that there is a suspicion on Mamur. The government wants to see how he reacts to this thing.

The same theory can be stretched to include Gen. Clement Wani. How is it possible that things like that happens in the capital under your watch? The President is well covered by the constitution.

This is the area of Governor Clément’s jurisdiction. If all these are put together the conclusion is just one: the government is desperate. It is trying to cause conflict among Equatorians.

So Martin Kenyi does not need to take this event seriously. It has raised his profile and exposed the government. What needs to be done is to keep focus on the future and also keep working with people who can do analysis whether political or otherwise. Because the government’s strategy is subtle. It has even recruited expatriates to speak on its behalf.

Reading the article of Eric Reeves, sounds like propaganda to paint Riak as a bad guy. It says nothing of the monstrous atrocities committed by South Sudanese army. I wonder why an intellectual like Reeves has not commented on the scourge of people in Nimule?

Is it because they did not know or as he mentioned it the other time, these are the useless majority?

Records have already shown that the people in Nimule have the longest grievance with this government. But people who purported to speak out like Eric Reeves have simply ignored it so as to reduce the conflict in South to power struggle between Nuer and Dinka.

It is time to say no. The problem in South Sudan is fundamentally on the GRAND NARRATIVE of nation building. In other words, who is in and who is out and how do we move forward from here. Same thing that was decided in the American Republic.

It is not about Dr. Riak or the events of 90s. It is not about Salva or Kenyi. It is what South Sudan is and who belongs and who does not belong.

That means the idea of federal system is good. People have to define themselves not somebody to define them. Those who are working against the current are wasting their times.

Tribal association as we know now is just a waste of time. There is only one clear solution, THE RULE OF LAW.

Since it can be seen through, there is no worry. Go ahead, General Kenyi, Dr. Riak Machar, Dr. Alfred Lado. We want you to put South Sudan on the map of countries who respect the rule of law!

The system that you advocate should be really transparent and based on the rule of law. If not, you too will lose the same way because South Sudanese are not happy for being taken for a ride.

We have enough people with intelligence, valour and philosophy to demand a good system of governance and work for it. It can take any number of days or years to achieve it but finally it will be achieved.

Those who are settling for a temporary solution are self-deluded and as usual, there are too many deluded people. Men and women of South Sundanese origin will foot the bill.

My warning is that South Sudanese have sacrificed for more than 70 years already. They are still able to sacrifice for more years in order to get a country and a nation of their choice which is also respected.

Not the banana republic of Salva Kiir where Museveni is the ruler. For all of you, regardless of your tribe but so long as you advocate the rule of law, I salute you. Let us take a look at the house of Kenyi as an evidence of a system struggling to keep the wrong system in place.