Archive for: April 2016

Riek Machar accuses President Salva Kiir of blocking his return to Juba: LATEST

LATEST ASSORTED REPORTS, WED/APRIL/20/2016, SSN;

South Sudan’s rebel leader Riek Machar is accusing President Salva Kiir of “violating” the security arrangements necessary for his return to Juba.

Dr Machar’s office said the government in Juba had imposed a limit on weapon importation by the rebels yet the issue had already been agreed upon.

“There is no reason for the government to refuse these number of soldiers travelling ahead of the Chairman (Machar). The kind of weapons we want to transport to Juba are the weapons they already have there,” Dr Machar’s spokesman James Gatdet Dak told the Nation.

“We are going to be a separate army under the transitional government and we should have our own weapons. If there is a lack of commitment to end this conflict, then it is the government in Juba which is not committed,” he added.

Dr Machar delayed his return to Juba after President Kiir’s government declined to grant permission for more weapons and rebel troops transportation to Juba from Ethiopia.

Speaking on Aljeezira TV from Pagak today, Machar said it was president Kiir who is obstructing the peace agreement by his refusal to allow the SPLM-IO chief of staff to travel to Juba with his contingent of thousands of troops and their weapons.

The rebel leader, who was due to arrive in Juba to be sworn in as Mr Kiir’s deputy, has pegged his acceptance of the new job to the transportation of his troops.

***** In Summary:
The two sides were to establish a transitional government to last 30 months after which there would be elections.
This week, the rebel leader had asked to travel with 200 guards, Juba allowed only 40, a move that forced him to cancel his return. Juba allowed in 1,370 troops and has refused to admit a further 1,530*****

Dr Machar was supposed to travel to Juba on Monday and postponed it to Tuesday before his office issued a further “indefinite” postponement.

ELECTIONS

As part of the peace agreement Mr Kiir signed with Dr Machar in August last year, the two sides were to establish a transitional government to last 30 months after which there would be elections.

But the deal midwifed by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) created two commanders-in-chief and two separate armies as the leaders work on a unification program.

Dr Machar has asked to transport 1500 police and 1,410 soldiers with their weapons, which include machine guns and other equipment.

Juba allowed in 1,370 troops and has refused to admit a further 1,530.

This week, the rebel leader had asked to travel with 200 guards, Juba allowed only 40, a move that forced him to cancel his return.

South Sudan has been at war since December 2013.
The UN Office for the Coordination Humanitarian Affairs has estimated that 50,000 people were killed and two million others displaced by the violence.
A report by African Union investigators led by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo revealed that both sides engaged in cannibalism, sexual assault and use of public radio to foment hatred and violence. END

Kiir must accept Machar with what he has unless he doesn’t mean what he says!

By Dr. Gatluak Ter Thach, Nashville, TN, USA, APR/19/2016, SSN;

People in Juba and around the globe stayed late last night because they were hopeful to receive the First Vice President Designated, Dr. Riek Machar to finally arrive in Juba, South Sudan and be sworn upon his arrival for the country to achieve a harmony after 2 and half years of a distrust and disastrous conflict that has affected communities in all sectors.

Friends who had never been in contact to each other for a long time started to reach out to each other last night across divided communities to reengage themselves as reborn members of a destroyed country for reconciliation and trust building.

Though the weekend was difficult for me personally since my family lost immediate members, as well as hearing Murle Massacring of the peaceful Gajaak community in Ethiopia, which caused lives of over 200 people in addition to 100 children abducted, I was in a superb mood in wishing innocent people of South Sudan realizing a peacetime they were waiting for.

With all these excitements, the government of South Sudan on the other hand, through her spokesperson, Mr. Makuei Lueth, seems to be playing a different game than what the whole world has known how to play.

The SPLM-IO Chairman, Dr. Riek and his Gen. Chief of Staff, Gen. Simon G. Dual, were denied enter into Juba yesterday, according to Mr. Makuei, because they were coming with extra soldiers and their unallowed weapons. The government of South Sudan in Juba wants Dr. Riek and his Chief of Staff, Gen. Simon G. Dual to come to Juba with 40 guards and “walking sticks,” I believe and not their appropriate weapons.

Mr. Makuei claimed the government would not allow Dr. Riek and his Chief of Staff to come with additional soldiers since they have 1370 with their light guns already in Juba as guard protection and security of the Juba.

My question to Mr. Makuei is, when did Juba government renegotiate the figures of security forces of the IO? Where did new numbers of IO troops of 40 destined for Juba renegotiated that Mr. Makuei was talking about?

What I know from the document for sure and I believe still what everyone knows is that IO team is approved for 2910 combined forces in Juba for a security of the city and protection of their Chairman. These forces were supposed to arrive in Juba with all of their arms before the IO Chairman and his higher level commanders arrived.

When did this agreement change? I believe the figure still stands at 2910 from which the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC) transported 1370 of them. Why would it be wrong for Dr. Riek and Gen. Simon to come with a few extra hundreds of their agreed forces since they are not going to exceed their approved 2910 since any number in a surplus of 1370 and remains below the agreed threshold of 2910 of Addis Security Arrangements’ Workshop is within the agreement framework?

Why would appending of a few hundreds of the IO to come as the Chairman’s personal security guards and Gen. Chief of Staff be an issue when it is already agreed upon in the signed document?

Mr. Makuei and the government stated they have called upon the international partners to place pressure on Dr. Riek to “come with civilians” since they are the ones who will work in his office, and if Dr. Riek does not do that it will be a “violation of the peace.”

Is Mr. Makuei really kidding? What magic would he use to allow this dream to come true? The government also wants IO to come with light weapons since IO would not be allowed with “arsenal arms, inter alia, anti-tanks, laser guided missiles and new machine guns.”

Mr. Makuei and the team in Juba must adhere to the signed peace and not anything else, but this demand makes it difficult for the people of South Sudan to easily achieve the peace dividends they are eager for.

It is true some of these guns may not be appropriate for a city life, but does government forget it has all these plus weapons and many more already in the same city, and if the peace partners want to build a real trust among their arms, IO should come with their armaments but create a partnership environment whereby forces are looking forward reunification of their ranks as national arms of the same country instead of looking for themselves as forever enemies?

It is through a trust that allows warring parties to live and re-engage in peace, as well as work toward a common objective and not on intimidation or threats.

Unless the Juba government has a hidden agenda; otherwise, the man must be allowed to come to Juba with what he has in order to rebuild a working trust among warring communities. Please do not delay the peace; it is badly needed by all affected citizens of South Sudan!

Gatluak Thach, PhD is a concerned member of South Sudan. He can be reached at gatluakt@yahoo.com.

The JMEC’s Role in South Sudan Pre-Transitional Period and in TGoNU

By Mabor Maker Dhelbeny, JUBA, APR/18/2016, SSN;

According to the legal framework, signed on February 1 2015 by the parties in the presence of their Guarantors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the “GRSS” and the “SPLM/A-IO” had agreed to form a body known as Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC). This body, however, is tasked with not only crucial but also critical role during and after the pre-transitional period.

The “JMEC” will be responsible for monitoring and overseeing the implementation of the compromised peace agreement; direct the parties to recommit themselves and adhere to the agreed timelines and implementation schedule including the task and mandate of Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU).

But the question that begs itself is that: “Do the parties stick to the agreed timelines and implementation schedule of the Agreement?” Definitely, the answer is a big “NO”, why because one of the modalities used by the mediators as conflict resolution in South Sudan is the word – “Compromise” in which the Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army In Opposition (SPLM/A-IO) were compelled by the international community and regional bloc to sign it out of their will but for the sake of peace.

In “Compromise”, as the method of conflict resolution, the “GRSS” takes sixteen (16) ministries, gives ten (10), two (2) and two (2) ministries to the SPLM/A-IO, SPLM-FDs and other political parties respectively.

Furthermore, the GRSS takes some of its forces outside Juba at a distance of 25km and gives space for deployment of 1, 370 SPLA-IO forces in the capital. As a major step towards implementation of the agreement, the GRSS also provides accommodation to the SPLM/A-IO Advanced team and the SPLM-FDs in Juba. This demonstrates that the word “Compromise” – means give and take as the method of resolving South Sudan crises.

The establishment of “TGoNU” according to the above framework would have been in July 9 since last year and not in April 2016. The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) signed on January 23, 2014 has suffered many violations from both side. The “CoHA” provided that all warring parties shall cease from hostilities until the declaration of permanent ceasefire.

However, “CoHA” seems to have been an anchor of the transitional security arrangements in the “ARCISS”. Under chapter II of Permanent Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements (PCTSA), Article 5 provides that all military forces – with exception of the republican guards, forces to protect military barracks, bases, warehouses and Joint Integrated Police (JIP) within Juba shall be redeployed outside a radius of 25km from the centre of capital to the agreed demarcated areas during the pre-Transitional period.

This phase has successfully been implemented by the “GRSS” and therefore, it’s up to the “CTSAMM” (Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism) to verify, confirm the compliance and report to the “JMEC” so that its Chairperson should inform the “IGAD” (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), “AUPSC” (African Union, Peace and Security Council) and “UNSC” (United Nations Security Council) on the progress of peace implementation and how government is committed.

The “JMEC” should also inform the “SPLM/A-IO”, especially its leader about the ongoing implementation of the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCISS) on the side of the Government. This is because lack of trust still exists between the two warring parties – the “SPLM/A-IO” and the “GRSS”.

Within three (3) months of the Pre-Transitional Period as stipulated under Article 13 of the “ARCISS”, the “NCAC” – (i.e. National Constitutional Amendment Committee) would have incorporated the “ARCISS” into the Transitional Constitution 2011 and thereof the “GRSS” Justice Minister supposed to have received the draft amendments to the TRCSS prepared by the NCAC and presented to the Council of Ministers within 7 days while the Transitional National Assembly shall have ratified amendments to “TRCSS” within 30 days.

And finally the President shall have assented to the amendments within 90 days of Pre-Transitional Period has indeed missed the timeline. These scheduled timelines stipulated by the “ARCISS” are not met as planned.

Unfortunately, the contentious issues which include the Presidential Order # 36/Oct/2015 that created 28 states and number of presidential advisors were supposed to have been resolved through consensus by the parties. But due to lack of consensus, the parties could not make it by themselves and thus remained as the stumbling block to the “NCAC”.

While the “JMEC” has reportedly been calling the Order which created 28 states – a “complicating factor” therefore, the “IGAD” in its 55th Extraordinary Meeting released a communiqué on January 31st which resolved that the Boundary Committee shall be formed to handle the matter if the two parties have failed to resolve it amicably.

Such issue of newly created states may not only be resolved by the Boundary Commission but it may also require referendum from the civil population across the country. Perhaps, these may be contributed factors to “JMEC” frustrations and disappointments during implementation of the compromised peace agreement.

In 1990s, Liberia happens to have fallen under the sporadic rebellion by many warlords including Charles Taylor, until “ECOMOG” – (i.e. Economic Community of Military Monitoring Group) invited Professor Amos Sawyer to be the President under the Interim Government of National Unity (IGNU) in order to re-kindle the dialogue on a new Constitutional reconstruction.

But, Sawyer gave up his efforts and felt reluctant due to the parties’ lack of political will to forge strong coalition and too much of disappointment.

So my humble pleading to all leaders of this great nation is to implement peace by working hand in hand with the JMEC’s Chairperson. If the government takes no heed to his advice, Mr Festus Mogae, the Chairperson of “JMEC’ will leave no legacy behind that will set our country free from transitional regimes to democratic practices.

Conclusively, the “JMEC” role provides under chapter VII of the “ARCISS” indicated that this body will be the one ruling the country not H.E. the President Kiir Salva Mayardit or the FVP Dr Riek Machar Teny in the presidency.

In an analytical way of thinking however, the formation of the “TGoNU” within this month of April may oblige the “TGoNU” to cede some defined powers or functions to “JMEC” in order to break deadlocks and to ensure the implementation of peace.

The fact that “JMEC” may seek and request reports from any transitional institutions, articulated its supremacy over the “TGoNU”.

This mechanism has been designed by the IGAD-PLUS and its partners as an indirect form of governance under trusteeship – i.e. AU Trusteeship, hence that’s why a prominent African personality in person of H.E. Festus G. Mogae, the former President of Botswana, has been appointed by the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government in consultation with IGAD-PLUS Partners to lead the affected conflict South Sudan through monitoring, overseeing, evaluating and reporting the progress of “ARCISS” implementation to the concerned world authorities.

The Writer is an Advocate & Legal Consultant in Juba, the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached via his email address: mabor.lawyer@gmail.com

Lack of Willpower and obstruction of the Peace Accord by the Juba Regime

A Letter to: H. E. Hailemariam Dessalegn, the Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and Chairman of the IGAD, Office of the Prime Minister,
Po Box 1031
Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Date: 15 April 2016, SSN,

Subject: Lack of Willpower and obstruction of the Peace Accord by the Juba Regime;

Your Excellency,
The South Sudan’s Peace implementation process would most likely be doomed in the face of what plainly amounts to an established lack of willpower on the part of the regime in Juba to ensure the timely execution of the peace accord concluded between the contending parties to the conflict in South Sudan given the indifferent and the familiar lackluster stance adopted by the IGAD and Troika pertaining to their collective de jure role that calls for the non-obstruction of the implementation of the South Sudan’s Peace Agreement by all parties to the conflict.

Today the peace process is hanging by a finger nail, as the tribal regime in Juba continues to infringe on and obstruct the peace execution process on a consistent basis. We cite the following matters and violations by the Juba tribally-constituted and orientated authority as blunt indications of the regime’s unwillingness to put a halt to the civil war in South Sudan:

a) A number of humanitarian organisations rendering assistance to the displaced population in various parts of South Sudan bear first hand testimony to the regime’s insensitivity to the plight of the suffering civilians in the rural areas of the country. Thousands of civilians have been murdered, raped, and had other grave abuses meted on them on account of their ethnicity or perceived political bonds with the SPLM-IO in the rolling conflict in South Sudan as confirmed by HR Report Designated “South Sudan: Army Abuses Spread West”, 6 March 2016. The country’s Minister of information who is the official spokesman of the tribal regime justifies those indiscriminate attacks and awful abuses on the civilians as necessary operations against criminal elements. Neither the IGAD-mandated Joint Monitory Evaluation Commission (JMEC) nor the neglectful Troika and the inattentive African Union have condemned this oafish conduct of the callous regime in Juba.

b) While the peace agreement calls for both parties to the conflict to embark on Permanent Ceasefire Arrangements including cessation of hostilities, disengagement, separation and withdrawal of forces including allies of both parties (forces, militias) in the theatre of operations on the basis of the 23rd January 2014 CoH Agreement, and report compliance to Monitoring and Verification Mechanism (MVM), the Government in Juba still maintains its allied forces from the Justice and Equality Movement and SPLM-N that are currently engaged in fighting the government of Sudan. In a blatant disregard of the permanent cease fire, Juba consistently launches attacks on civilian settlements in Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr El Ghazal states and simply gets away with all these crimes.

c) In the past few weeks the regime has fully demonstrated that it does not recognise the SPLM-IO as a vitally important and indispensable stakeholder in the peace accord in the country. The arrival in Juba of the Deputy Chairman of the opposition SPLM-IO was never mentioned in the regime’s controlled media. Furthermore the so-called National security services of South Sudan prevented the population of Juba from thronging the airport to welcome the deputy opposition leader Lt. General Alfred Ladu Gore at the airport. Infuriatingly the members of the secret services went further to arrest, detain and torture the members of the press team of the SPLM-IO. Absurdly, the government has decided to dictate what the Chairman of the opposition leader the SPLM-IO, Dr. Riek Machar would and would not be permitted to do once in Juba. In effect this draconian conduct of the Police state would be likely imposed on him, which would literally extend to severe restrictions that include barring the Vice President from making public comments or he might even be put under detention as his body guards are lightly armed and would definitely not be able to withstand encirclement by battle tanks. Again the JMEC is muted and merely focuses on the formation of the Government of National Unity as it upfront fixation, as Festus Mogae hardly understands the twisted philosophy and perceptual configuration of the tribally-constituted regime in the country that solely believes in the total domination and subjugation of the rest of the other remaining 63 ethnicities that reside in the Republic of South Sudan.

d) The demilitarization of Juba and the others cities of Bor, Malakal and Bentiu as stipulated in the peace agreement has simply been given a cosmetic treatment by the government. It is also a blatant lie that there are currently only 3,420 government soldiers garrisoned in Juba (Sudantribune, 13 April 2016) in accordance with the peace accord. The government has never honoured the peace agreement as it claims and would not respect it. The government had earlier maintained that it would be difficult to demilitarize Juba because it lacked funds. Later the same regime claimed that it was negotiating with the natives and the custodians of the land and areas to be used for deployment of its soldiers. It now so sounds frivolous and downright eccentric to declare that the demilitarization of the capital city of Juba has been accomplished. To the contrary, thousands of additional armed tribal soldiers have been moved from Bahr el Ghazal state to Juba in what could evidently amount to a brazen disregard for the accord in that respect. The reality is that few soldiers were redeployed to a few locations around Juba on a rotational and camouflage fashion just to hoodwink the world into believing that demilitarization has indeed been accomplished.

e) The outlandish assertion of the repressive police state and its bureaucracy in South Sudan that the creation of the 28 states in the country was a popular demand by South Sudanese, is futile, deceptive and an idealistic postulation that does not have a counterpart in the realm and confines of paranoia integrity. Thus far, there has been no plebiscite or referendum conducted in the country to determine the size of South Sudanese for and against the 28 states. This is simply a hoopla campaign mounted by the government and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) to impose their unidimensional and narcissistic philosophy on South Sudanese. If the 28 states decree is implemented, it would create another civil war, as millions of South Sudanese mainly the Nuer, the shilluk in Greater Upper Nile,and the Fertit group in the Greater Bahr El Ghazal States would have had their ancestral lands stolen by the Dinka in the name of what the government in Juba absurdly refers to as “The demand of the people”. Besides, the power sharing ratios in the conflict affected States of Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile as well as in the remaining seven (7) states as enshrined in the peace accord would be slanted in favour of the Dinka government.

The SPLM-IO would certainly not accept this apparent risk of rushing into forming the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) without clear safeguards that ensure the viability of the government and stability of the country once it is constituted for the next 30 months’ period.

Your Excellency,
A full blown civil war could likely occur in South Sudan at a scale far larger than the government’s feigned coup which was designed to liquidate its political opponents that finally sparked the civil war back in December 2013, unless the superintending parties, namely, the IGAD, the Troika the UNSC and the US government that has invested so lavishly in the creation of South Sudan as a sovereign nation, through the sustained efforts of an individual politician like Dr. Susan Rice move back to the drawing board to chart out a painstaking strategy that ensures the prevention of violence that could conceivably be created by the Juba tribal regime that has vowed to remain in power for eternity.

Given this grim scenario the 1,370 police units and lightly armed body guards of the SPLM-IO deployed in Juba would not be able to withstand a combined government and mercenary coordinated force more than twenty times the thin figure of the SPLM-IO soldiers, unless A more credible deterrent force from the SPLM-IO replete with defensive paraphernalia including tanks, antitank and aircraft systems are equally deployed in Juba. Such would guarantee the viability and sustainability of peace until the end of the period for the interim government of National Unity.

On a parallel note, a neutral force from either the African Union or from other parts of the world and duly sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council should be deployed in Juba and other cities in South Sudan as suggested before, and the demarcated mandate and role of such a contingent would be to restrain the Juba regime from creating another civil war in the country as it did in December 2013 against the opposition that the government had earlier vowed to extinguish altogether.

It is long overdue that the IGAD has yet to recommend the regime’s firebrand like Paul Molong and “others” who had instigated mass murders in Juba from 15 December 2013 to the 31 December 2013, for international sanctions and possibly to the International Criminal Court for further investigations for war crimes and gross abuses of human rights committed in South Sudan as documented in the Final report of the African Union commission of inquiry on South Sudan that designates the mass killings in Juba as “coordinated state policy”. (https://radiotamazuj.org/sites/default/files/auciss.final_.report_0.pdf).

Apparently, the external stakeholders that include the Troika, the IGAD the African Union and other parties have no inkling about the nature of the regime they are dealing with in Juba. It is highly advisable to primarily fully grasp the political and tribal contour of the South Sudan conflict before leveraging Dr. Riek Machar to travel to Juba and form a government of National Unity with a party that intensely believes in the opposition leader’s outright demise and the comprehensive destruction of all opposition elements in South Sudan.

The Chairman of the opposition risks having his residence surrounded by government tanks on his arrival in Juba and he inevitably becomes a hostage to the tribal regime that could fancifully dictate to the opposition leader new terms on the realization of the 28 states’ decree and other matters central to the supremacist tribal cartel ruling the Republic of South Sudan.

Thank you
Peter Lokarlo Ngrimwa
Former Lecturer, GSBL, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
On behalf of South Sudanese Nationalists in Australia.

Copies to:
1) Ambassador Susan Rice, US National Security Advisor;
2) H. E. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, President of the Republic of Kenya, State House, Nairobi;
3) The British Embassy in South Sudan, Juba;
4) Embassy of the Republic of Sudan, Juba;
5) Representatives of Troika member countries;
6) Alpha Oumar Konaré, the AU high representative for South Sudan;

Kiir and Malong are two sides of the same coin

BY: Dr. LAKO Jada Kwajok, APR/18/2016, SSN;

As much as peace in South Sudan is within reach, resumption of war and descent into chaos is much closer than you think. The return of the opposition leaders to Juba would have naturally filled every heart with optimism. However, this is not exactly the case in the current environment engulfing the country.

What accurately depicts the situation is what I call as a state of cautious optimism. The Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) is an opportunity for the regime to allow the country to climb out of the hole dug by its catastrophic policies. Squandering this precious chance for achieving a lasting peace would lead to one thing only which is a definite and rapid fall into the abyss.

A common theme among the regime’s supporters is the scapegoating of the President’s aides and colleagues in the cabinet for all the shortcomings of the government. Some would even say that the President was let down by people he trusted but failed to deliver.

What they neglected to explain is – why did he keep all his cronies despite mounting failures? And why no one was dismissed for good or ended up in jail? Those who were relieved from ministerial posts were made Presidential Advisors, Ambassadors with or without portfolios or just allowed to go into hibernation in the SPLM party at taxpayers expense.

Moreover, no one among them seems to have the courage of questioning the President’s personal responsibility regarding the dire situation in the country. It’s a misleading notion aimed at presenting the President favourably and rendering him the false image of being a fair-minded person.

The fact of the matter is that President Kiir is no different from his cronies.

Last week, the media outlets circulated troubling remarks from the Chief of General Staff, General Paul Malong, I quote, “I will wait to see how he would be the president in our presence. He would be a president in my absence.” He was referring to the expected arrival of Dr. Riek Machar in Juba to kick start the formation of the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU).

The word “absence” in his remarks could mean one of two things – either he would resign his post or that Dr Riek Machar can only be President over his dead body. The former is less likely than the latter as there is no way that he would leave his post without being fired. His words displayed a massive ego and implied authority over the regime’s decision-making process.

In a democratic government or indeed any government, such remarks would have cost him his job. A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation was sacked by President Kiir with a decree read over SSTV.

The reasons for dismissal were not given. However, many observers have attributed it to a document signed by him and sent to the UN High Commission for Human Rights, in which he referred to Dr. Luka Biong, who hails from Abyei, as a Sudanese national.

It was a lie meant to mislead that UN organisation. The former Minister indeed made a mistake, but it’s quite trivial in comparison to what other members of the cabinet did but allowed to keep their positions. The said document affected one citizen and not the whole Abyei community – it did not point out that Abyei belongs to Sudan.

Furthermore, the regime did join the Sudanese government in rejecting the unilateral referendum conducted by the Abyei civil society in 2013 that overwhelmingly supported joining South Sudan. That decision by our government though met with dismay from the general public was not perceived as an admission that Abyei is part of Sudan. What the former minister signed did not mean a change in policy or that our government has forsaken Abyei to the Jallaba government.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that there are ulterior motives and a double-standard policy behind the dismissal of the former minister. With that being said, I am not by any means defending the former minister – he is an integral part of the corrupt and failed regime that has destroyed the country.

Coming back to my main topic, those remarks by Malong, should have led to immediate dismissal from his post. It’s a problem because what he said is very antagonistic to the single most important policy benchmark required to be adhered to by the government which is full implementation of ARCISS.

The problem with those utterances is two-fold. Firstly, there is nothing in the agreement that would prevent Dr. Riek Machar from becoming President of South Sudan should the position become vacant for whatever reason during the transition. Also he is entitled to be the Acting President While President Kiir is outside the country or in the event of being incarcerated by illness.

Secondly, Malong’s job description does not give him the right to wade into matters related to government policy. His job is purely non-political, and we have an example of his predecessor, General James Hoth Mai, who had run the military by the book.

Needless to say, Malong has overstepped his authority on several occasions. His outrageous statement in August 2015 that the regime would rather follow the footsteps of the likes of Al Qaeda and Boko Haram than to sign the peace agreement hasn’t been forgotten. That statement alone should have resulted in a swift dismissal because of its enormous implications.

I was amazed that in a world where a war is being vigorously waged against international terrorism that includes the above infamous terrorist organisations, Malong’s statement drew negligible or no reaction at all from the international community. Perhaps the formidable powers that are engaged in the global war on terror, regarded Malong’s utterances as empty threats from the Military Chief of a government that was saved from collapse by a foreign force.

Lack of action does not mean what Malong has said was entirely ignored. It has already tarnished the regime’s image as a government harbouring elements with terrorist inclination. The consequences may come in the form of difficulties in securing loans from the international monetary institutions, problems with admission into international organisations and plenty of others.

However, the most bizarre situation though was Kiir’s refusal to sign the peace agreement in Addis Ababa on 17/08/2015. The reason he gave was that he needed to go back to Juba for consultation with his colleagues in the cabinet. It was a move unheard of in what is known as state protocols.

The typical approach is for the head of the negotiating team to travel to Juba for consultation with the President in the event of a stalemate during the negotiation. The president only attends the negotiation venue at the final stage prior to signing the deal.

The whole thing was unprecedented because he is the top man in the government and as people say “the buck stops at his desk.” That leaves one to conclude that the president does not have total control over the decision-making process and that other strong players have to be brought on board before a final decision could be made.

The above scenarios have led to speculations about who runs the country. If Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin could be relieved of his duties as stated above, why not Malong who has apparently committed much graver mistakes? The fact that he gets away with any destructive statement and remark indicates one of two things.

Either that President Kiir totally agrees with him, or he is the real centre of power in South Sudan backed by the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE). In either case the prospects for a lasting peace is quite grim. South Sudan would be better off with the likes of Paul Malong kept out of office.

Unfortunately ARCISS does not prescribe removing those who are overtly anti-peace from their positions. Nonetheless, the formation of the TGoNU should offer the tools to tame Malong and his cohorts. It will be inexcusable and detrimental for the opposition to allow Kiir and Malong to do business as usual.

Dr Lako Jada Kwajok

JUBA Accuses Machar of trying to bring more troops and arms… hence delayed arrival again

Different Sources, APR/19/2016, SSN;

South Sudan’s government says that SPLM-IO Chairman Riek Machar did not respect his commitment to arrive in Juba this week as planned.

The Juba-based government said that it made all necessary preparations for the reception of Machar in Juba this week, according to a press statement by the Ministry of Information.

The statement accuses Machar of trying to bring with him to Juba “an arsenal of arms, inter alia, anti-tanks, laser-guided missiles an heavy machine guns.”

“The protection force of the 1st vice president designate of 350 is already on the ground with all their armaments. He does not need any additional armed forces or arms in Juba,” reads the statement.

For their part, the SPLM-IO have blamed logistical problems for the delay of Machar’s arrival.

According to a statement issued by his office yesterday, Dr Machar couldn’t move from Pagak, eastern Upper Nile State, because of “incomplete logistics”.

“The chairman and commander- in-chief of the SPLM/A in opposition Dr Machar will not travel to Juba today as planned due to incomplete logistical arrangement,” the statement reads in part. Dr Machar was supposed to be sworn in as the first vice president, a key part of the peace process that seeks to end a two-years civil war.

BBC AFRICA, APR/18/2016;

The expected return of South Sudan’s rebel leader Riek Machar to the capital, Juba, has been delayed for a second time because of rain.
He had been due on Monday morning, to take up the post of first vice-president, a key part of the peace process aimed at ending more than two years of civil war.
His spokesman said he was initially delayed because of logistical reasons.
Head of the rebel negotiating team Taban Deng told the BBC the initial delay was because a second plane was needed for Mr Machar’s army chief, who had been due to travel on Sunday.

TheEastAfrican: APR/18/2016: South Sudan rebel leader Riek Machar’s highly-anticipated return to the capital Juba, to take up the role of vice president, was delayed on Monday, his spokesman said, citing “logistical reasons”.

“We are committed to the peace agreement, but there have been logistical issues and the first vice president, Riek Machar, will come tomorrow,” spokesman William Ezekiel said.

Machar’s return to Juba and swearing-in as President Salva Kiir’s deputy will mark an important step in a floundering August 2015 deal to end the country’s civil war.

The agreement is seen as the best hope yet for ending more than two years of fighting that have left the world’s youngest nation in chaos and pushed it to the brink of famine.
=============================================================================

By WALTER MENYA, DailyNation, Kenya, SUNDAY, APR/17/2016;

In Summary:
*The return of South Sudan rebel leader Riek Machar to Juba is anxiously anticipated even as uncertainty remains less than 24 hours to the significant step in the August 2015 peace deal to end the civil war.
**Despite Machar indicating he would be in Juba on Monday, sources at the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, told the Nation that there were outstanding issues that could delay his arrival.
***At least 1,370 soldiers and key political leaders allied to Machar’s SPLM-In-Opposition have arrived in Juba as part of the August 2015 peace deal ahead of his return to take up his vice president position in the transitional government.
****This is expected to ease tension and end the conflict that has taken an ethnic slant – largely involving Kiir’s Dinka and Machar’s Nuer communities – and triggered a humanitarian crisis in the country that gained independence from Sudan in 2011. More than 700,000 people are thought to have been displaced, with at least 50,000 arriving at Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya.

Despite Machar indicating he would be in Juba on Monday, sources at the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, told the Nation that there were outstanding issues that could delay his arrival.

The official at the commission, which is chaired by the former president of Botswana President Festus Mogae, said the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement government of President Salva Kiir (right) “has not made all the arrangements Machar wants before his return”.

At least 1,370 soldiers and key political leaders allied to Machar’s SPLM-In-Opposition have arrived in Juba as part of the August 2015 peace deal ahead of his return to take up his vice president position in the transitional government.

This is expected to ease tension and end the conflict that has taken an ethnic slant – largely involving Kiir’s Dinka and Machar’s Nuer communities – and triggered a humanitarian crisis in the country that gained independence from Sudan in 2011.

More than 700,000 people are thought to have been displaced, with at least 50,000 arriving at Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya.

Machar’s deputy Alfred Ladu Gore arrived in Juba on Tuesday, but the Nation has learnt that top of the issues Machar’s side wants addressed before his return are his security and swearing-in date.

The rebels have apparently indicated that they want Machar to assume office immediately he arrives in Juba before holding talks with President Kiir on the formation of the transitional government.

Thereafter, the two leaders would visit the mausoleum of John Garang, who is acknowledged as the father of the nation, as a sign of unity.

However, the government appears to have its own plans, a stand confirmed by South Sudan Charge d’Affaires in Nairobi James Morgan.

“He will not be sworn-in immediately but after the final touches to the agreement are verified. The President will not meet him on Monday, but they will of course meet after the two parties and other stakeholders decide and deem it necessary to do so,” he said by phone.

“When we went to Khartoum in 2005 with John Garang, he was not sworn in immediately.”

The Machar camp has also been apprehensive about security. The initial plan was that Machar would fly directly from Nairobi, where he and some of his allies have been based, to Juba.

However, he inexplicably flew to Ethiopia before travelling to the South Sudanese town of Pagak, a rebel stronghold, earlier in the week.

The fluid situation has been heightened by fears that top SPLM generals were reluctant to work with Machar – and could be plotting to arrest him.

The situation was not helped by the arrest on Tuesday of 16 people, part of the rebels’ advance team, who were gathering in Juba to wait Mr Gore’s arrival.

Kiir’s spokesman Ateny Wek Ateny said they were arrested “for moving around without coordinating with security personnel”.

Even though they were released, Amnesty International on Friday called on the government to end arbitrary detentions.

Amnesty said it had compiled a list of 35 men detained in the Jebel neighbourhood of Juba for months.

Morgan was cagey about whether President Kiir’s government would send a team to receive Machar.

“You know Machar’s men have been in Juba since end of last year. You also know Machar’s people inside the UN Mission in South Sudan will be there to meet him. Besides, the government has set up a reception committee,” he said.

Meanwhile, Kenya’s Foreign ministry has urged the protagonists in South Sudan to respect the peace deal.

“Each has an obligation to abide and implement the agreement,” PS Monica Juma said.

The agreement was signed in August 2015 after a threat of sanctions from the UN.

Besides the formation of the transitional government, the agreement also called for fighting to stop immediately though there have been sporadic attacks.

LATEST: ‘Messy’ peace hope as South Sudan readies for Machar’s return

By AFP, Posted Thursday, April 14 2016, THE EAST AFRICAN;

IN SUMMARY:
The 1,370-strong armed rebel force completed their arrival into Juba last week as part of a long-delayed August 2015 peace deal, a prelude to rebel chief Riek Machar’s expected return on April 18.
Both Kiir and Machar are former rebel leaders who rose to power during Sudan’s 1983-2005 civil war between north and south — a war in which the men also fought each other — before South Sudan won freedom in 2011.
Juba saw some of the worst atrocities in the first weeks of war, but since then has been largely calm. With armed factions now inside the city, people are nervous.

On a dusty patch of earth cut into thick bush on the outskirts of South Sudan’s capital, hundreds of rebel soldiers who took part in a more than two-year civil war have set up a new base.

The camp is basic: a few blue tents in the baking heat, piles of cut grass to build thatch hut shelters, pit latrines and a few leaky water taps.

Here lies the best hope yet to end a brutal civil war that saw the world’s youngest nation spiral into catastrophe and pushed to the brink of famine, with tens of thousands killed, over two million forced to flee their homes, and multiple ceasefires shattered.

The camp, one of three in Juba, has no visible defensive positions or walls — and the rebels are edgy with all sides still heavily armed.

Rebel general John Mabieh Garr points towards a nearby government army base.

“(It) would be better if they stay distant from us, until we know the reality of the peace agreement,” he mutters.

The risks are great and the stakes high.

Symbolic step forward

The 1,370-strong armed rebel force completed their arrival into Juba last week as part of a long-delayed August 2015 peace deal, a prelude to rebel chief Riek Machar’s expected return on April 18.

Machar, who fled during the massacres that erupted in December 2013 when war broke out in Juba, is set to take up the post of vice-president — the same job he was sacked from months before the conflict erupted — and form a unity government with arch-rival President Salva Kiir.

“When Machar returns, it will allow the formation of the transitional government, the most significant step in the implementation of the peace agreement,” said Casie Copeland from the International Crisis Group (ICG) think tank.

While Machar’s arrival will be a major symbolic step forward, many warn that practical implementation of the peace deal will be a long and tough task.
There are other rebel forces still fighting who are not included in the peace agreement.

Machar’s arrival to Juba will mean the peace agreement is now on the right path,” said civil society leader Edmund Yakani, director of South Sudan’s Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation (CEPO). “But it does not mean the country is free from violence.”

No panacea
The conflict now involves multiple militia forces driven by local agendas or revenge, who pay little heed to paper peace deals.

“There are many questions as to the feasibility of the arrangement,” said David Deng from the South Sudan Law Society (SSLS).

Even the usually upbeat Festus Mogae, a former Botswana president heading the international ceasefire monitoring team, has warned that the “formation of a new government will not in itself be a panacea.”

ICG’s Copeland warned Machar’s arrival would be only one step in a “messy peace”, but that crucially it is backed by regional nations, putting pressure on the leaders to make the deal work.

Tensions remain deep, with the rebels accusing the army of boosting troops in the capital, which should be officially demilitarised within a 25 kilometre (15 mile) radius apart from units allowed under an August 2015 peace deal. The army denies the claims.

Violent kleptocratic system

Both Kiir and Machar are former rebel leaders who rose to power during Sudan’s 1983-2005 civil war between north and south — a war in which the men also fought each other — before South Sudan won freedom in 2011.

They come from the South’s two main ethnic groups — Kiir from the Dinka people and Machar from the Nuer — tribes that are themselves split into multiple, and sometimes rival, clans.

Civil war broke out in December 2013 when Kiir accused Machar of planning a coup, setting off a cycle of retaliatory killings that have split the poverty-stricken, landlocked country along ethnic lines.

Today the country is close to collapse with soaring inflation, oil production cut due to war and the income earned from it a fraction amid a slump in global prices.

“Unless the violent kleptocratic system that underlies the war and mass corruption is addressed, no temporary unity government will be able to end the war and associated atrocities,” said John Prendergast from the Enough Project campaign group.

“This conflict was in many ways driven by competition over the spoils of state control. Unless there are serious consequences for mass corruption and atrocities, the deadly status quo is likely to continue.”

Juba saw some of the worst atrocities in the first weeks of war, but since then has been largely calm. With armed factions now inside the city, people are nervous.

“People are clearly worried,” said Deng. “But people are also hungry for peace, and this agreement is, in reality, the only path towards that… so people are willing to accept the risk in the hope it will pay off.” END

Insight into Kiir–Machar upcoming power sharing government

By: John Bith Aliap – Australia, APR/13/2016, SSN;

The Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan also referred to as ARCISS, agreed in August 2015 in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa is hoped by its architects to end the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. Military showdown between Kiir and Machar who are they key principles in the war raged for nearly two years with devastating outcomes.

The conflict remains one of the most brutal conflict in the continent of Africa. Recent UN figures show that more than 730,000 people have fled into neighbouring countries, 1.5 million people are internally displaced and 50, 000 people are believed to have perished.

The peace talks in Ethiopia were the last attempt to bring Kiir and Machar on the dining table to share the national cake. All previous diplomatic efforts had failed, but the U.S. government which is also accused of having a deadly hand in the conflict pressed Kiir and Machar against the wall until they unwillingly signed the peace agreement for the interest of their people.

The final agreement, dubbed as “ARCISS” or “Imposed Peace Agreement” is seen by many as a result of skillful diplomacy and political trade-offs exerted on the main warring parties. However, while the agreement appears to be a path-breaking, war-ending and peace-keeping tool, it does not seem to be an effective framework to end the vicious cycles of violence in the baby nation of South Sudan.

Although ARCISS is crucial in giving the new country a set of principles, rules and institutions; it doesn’t appear to be providing a universally backed direction capable of guiding the war-wrecked South Sudan through the unchartered waters of democratisation and liberalisation – the two principles of peace-building.

However, given ACRISS’ uncertainty, it is important to assess its intention for the interest of my readers and the policy-makers in the areas of peace and state-building. With a war raging in Syria, Iraq, Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Sudan and Yemen such discussions are clearly timely and worthwhile to look into. The idea that Kiir – Machar upcoming “Transitional Government of National Unity” will silence the guns and lay the foundation of South Sudanese’ unity isn’t borne out of experience.

In December 2013 after Machar attempted to grab the power from his would-be boss, Salva Kiir, clashes occurred between their camps of supporters and the civil war quickly appeared on the cards. The international community backed by regional blocks such as IGAD and AU tried to end the bloodshed by setting up a Transitional Government of National Unity with Kiir behind the wheels and Machar as the passenger.

But while Machar and Kiir are forcefully made to swallow their pride and share the much contested power, the conflict on the ground between their tribal-based militias and sections of the security apparatus linked to them will likely continue unabated.

With Kiir–Machar known political rivalry, each side will be yearning to exploit the other in an attempt to seize control of J1 presidential palace; and the so called Transitional Government of National Unity will be a thing of the past.

South Sudan is not the only country in the world where bitter enemies like Kiir and Machar sit together in the government while their forces carry on the conflict. In Iraq for example, the government of national unity, mainly made up of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish was established, but the forces under their direct control continued with, not one, but a number of inter -ethnic conflicts.

In the case of Cyprus, the withdrawal of British and the gaining of Independence in 1960 was accompanied by a handful of uneasy power sharing deals, but these deals collapsed in no time.

So, Kiir-Machar power sharing government doesn’t appear as the step to the elimination of tribal division, but it’s rather an accommodation between the forces that are the architects and expression of these divisions as to how they can carve things up between them.

Kiir and Machar could share the cabinet in J1, while their forces continue to aggressively flex their military muscles on the ground in Jebel Kujur and Luri. Kiir-Machar upcoming Transitional Government of National Unity is a recipe for maintaining tribal status quo, it’s not for achieving reconciliation, or bringing together the tribally- divided communities across South Sudan.

Whether it quickly flies apart or maintained in a relatively stable form for a time will be determined by the intensity of the conflict on the ground, and not fundamentally political miracles performed by those who take their seats in the would-be Transitional Government of National Unity TGONU. Even if Kiir-Machar’s government survives for a lengthy period of time, this doesn’t necessarily indicate the end of tribal feud in South Sudan.

Kiir-Machar power sharing government will only institutionalise sectarianism and perpetuate the conflict in some form. The power sharing government that involves a sectarian politician like Riek Machar isn’t a solution, nor is it a step to a solution. ARCISS has only made Kiir & Machar, who had held opposing positions in a bloody war, sign a document which they may not have agreed with, but which will nevertheless stop them from bashing each other.

John Bith Aliap is an Australia-based political commentator and can be reached at Johnaliap2011@hotmail.com.

Gen. Paul Malong isn’t a Jump-over bull sacrifice for Dr. Machar’s return to Juba

By: Ater Garang Ariath, APR/12/2016, SSN;

Upon unnecessary delay of our first ever designated Compromise Peace Agreement and First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar Teny’s return to Juba, I have observed some wrong-headed South Sudanese citizens going on rampage in social media citing the Sudan’s Peoples Liberation Movement In Opposition (SPLM-IO) unmet calls for removal of the National Army Chief of General Staff, Gen. Paul Malong Awan Anei.

This continuous sentiment song sung by anti–General Malong’s camp within the Sudan’s People Liberation Movement In Opposition and their sympathizers must be confronted by South Sudanese peace lovers absolutely.

The parties to the conflict should strictly adhere to and implement the Compromise Peace Agreementin its entirety rather than trying to create U-turn through unrealistic media onslaught against Gen. Malong.

General Malong will never be jumped over bull sacrificed by the leadership for quick return of Dr. Riek Machar Teny to South Sudan just to join President Salva Kiir Mayardit for formation of the Transitional Government of National Unity as per Compromise Peace Agreement arrangement.

Any attempt to stimulate such a suicidal call is tantamount to pave headway for permanent collapse of this precious peace that gave upper hand to First Vice President to come for another presidential seeking trail.

The scheme designed by the so-called SPLM-IO propaganda specialists like Dr. John Garang De Mabior’s political wanderer child, Mabior Garang De Mabior will never reach a political vein of President Salva Kiir and act in favour of uncalled for political bonus for the sake of First Vice President return.

I am an independent South Sudanese political and peace Activist, of which I will never support any call that will paved way for U-turn at the eve of Compromise Peace Agreement implementation.

Therefore, at the bottom of my heart, with undivided love of my nation and its unique people, I vehemently opposed SPLM-IO outrageously call for removal of Gen. Malong from honchos of the national army.

I wondered! Why Mabior Garang, the son of our ever great man, a symbol of South Sudanese freedom fighters (Dr. John Garang De Mabior) behaves like a rogue as head of SPLM-IO Information Committee?

It is because of “will to power or what”? that stimulated Mabior to ignore already established mechanisms such as JMEC of addressing some shortcomings toward implementation of Compromise Peace Agreement on the resolution of conflict in South Sudan.

However, let us calling things by their names , rather than calling a spade a spoon, gone are days of speculations and media propaganda, which done huge damages to South Sudan as nation, especially by wrong-headed self-proclaimed South Sudanese political saviors like Mabior and the rest of his camp members.

Gen. Malong is not and will never be an obstacle to peace implementation in South Sudan, a nation that he suffered before its birth with undivided loyalty for the last thirty-four years (34 years) if my five senses are still accurate on historical years flashback.

Since he (Gen. Malong) first joined Anya-Anya two as member of Anya–Anya One remnants in 1982, after some members of that movement discontented with Addis-Ababa peace agreement of 1972, he never took wrong path against South Sudan people.

Gen. Malong was part and parcel of nucleus of what later expanded to be named Sudan’s People Liberation Movement-A (SPLM/ Army) in 1983 led by impeccable leader Dr. John Garang Mabior after enormous challenges of leadership struggle posed by those of Akuot Atem and Abdala Chuol.

It has been spotlighted several times by Anti-General Malong onslaught on social and traditional media platforms campaign, painted his portrait as Anti- Compromise Peace Agreement general in President Salva Kiir military and political camp, which is not true.

Nevertheless, General Malong wanted a peace that has no strings attached to it, which can definitely interfere with national interest and sovereignty of our nation, such as a obsolete call posted by Mabior Garang on facebook a day ago with ungrounded allegations saying that eight lorries full of armed Dinka new recruits were ferried to Juba from Bahr El Ghazal region by orders of General Malong.

What a great and white lie? Concocted by Mabior with huge intention of calling international response to build pressure up on President Salva Kiir administration to remove General. Malong, which will never happen, unless South Sudanese peace lovers and sponsors prepare a dustbin for this precious peace period.

This is a critical time for South Sudanese peace lovers and international sponsors to delve beneath the surface of South Sudanese politics and get by themselves, why General Malong is so pertinent to be part and parcel of the national army in the course of peace implementation period.

Just to be frank enough with reasonable sound-minded, General. Malong is not a sacrifice bull for genuine success of peace, which is intended to bring everlasting stability in South Sudan.

My dear fellow men and women in media platforms , on the one hand, free ,independent and pluralistic media provide a platform for debate on different opinions. One the other hand, media can be misused for propaganda purposes, to incite hatred and spread rumors and therefore artificially create tensions, of which those of Mabior embarked on now to create window for tension.

As South Sudanese young men and women like me and Mabior De Garang Mabior, our future is so bright that we need sunglasses, of which we should focus on positive role of media, such as peace building, conflict management and prevention, by impacting on public discourse.

Let us use five senses when we embark on political discourse for our national issues by examining all sides of the coin, with political consciousness and moral transcendent that value our diversity as nation.

At personal level, I acknowledged that two years conflict in our country has caused tragic losses of lives, destroyed the limited infrastructures founded during Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South, eroded economic resources and inflicted untold sufferings of our people.

This dark chapter in our history as nation, need to be hounded and put in dustbin by all of us , if we are serious in making a better history of our nation, where the welfare of our common men and women is our chief pride.

Mabior and the rest within Dr. Machar camp who think that removal of Gen. Paul Malong will offer them wide chances for political maneuvering to drive on with their agenda must be warned, they are playing with red-hot coal.

Penultimate, let us have a heavily weighed duty to our nation always, and avoid any headway to unnecessary war that will jeopardize the crucial and relentless efforts from international community and our friends in the region, trying to restore peace and political stability of our nation.

The war propaganda specialists within different warring camps should adapt our national-flag wavering attitude rather than drawing themselves into regional and tribal cocoon that plunged our nation in uncountable sufferings.

There are possibilities of shaping our headlines and history as South Sudanese people, if we dig deep for our real values, rather than specializing in shallow minded attitudes of our previous enemies.

I am not one of inner circle members of Gen. Malong Awan Anei and I will never be, but plain truth, truth and truth will save millions lives of our people, who desperately need peace and stability.

Any citizen of this great nation has ultimate obligation to tell any South Sudanese that he/she is naked, when he/she is naked, regardless of social position…bhala –bhala bhala.

Anti–war Activists will never tell Gen. Malong to step aside as national army Chief of General Staff if we really care and valued our nation progress in tranquility.

The urgent need to restore peace and security to the people of South Sudan who endured this conflict for far too long, is our chief concern as peace lovers, and we should pressurize both parties to form Transitional Government of National Unity without preconditions.

Notwithstanding, as concerned citizen for peace to be realize in South Sudan, Gen. Malong Awan position will never be compromised by the
leadership as string attached for implementation of Compromise Peace Agreement.

I hope the Information Committee headed by the so-called Mabior Garang in SPLM-IO is suffered from lock-in positive thinking ability, which is ultimate secret of becoming tough enough to face toughest trouble art of politics.

My dear fellow citizens , our political synopsis should reflect realities rather than engaged in social media , spreading rumors and propaganda against each others as South Sudanese people.

Albeit, since power is often measured by one’s prominence and ability to influence others in today’s world political then opponents and haters of Gen. Malong must swallow that fact, if they really have hearts and nationalistic spirits of peace and stability reception in South Sudan.

Hunger for power tendency will not lures people of South Sudan again to play with fire, which is already extinguished by our friendly nations, which initiated and support what now we called Compromise Peace Agreement.

What does Compromise Peace Agreement means to those SPLM-IO camp wrong-headed social media political activists? As per see, all parties to conflict have already forgone their conditions and no clause within agreement that demanded removal of Gen. Malong from his position.

Where this demand from removal of Malong emanated from? SPLM-IO leadership should be serious and engage on constructive criticism rather than reopening the agreement for negotiation, which was already signed without clause that demand removal of Gen. Malong.

I personally, appeal to international community and regional bodies to avoid making reference to such unnecessary political propaganda, which will fuel chances for this precious peace to escape from windows of “will to power” drive of those of Mabior and his accomplices.

If my First Vice President Dr. Machar is also behind this unrealistic scheme in regard to his delayed, then God forbid, the nation will never be compromised just on expense of others.

Those of SPLM –IO who fear Gen. Malong to head national army during transitional period are traitors and South Sudanese anti-peace progress and they should be finger-pointed at , because they are completely offline in regard to Compromise Peace Agreement implementation modalities.

The love of my nation (South Sudan) will never end and I always pray for these political wanderers South Sudanese within and in Diaspora for God to circumcise their hearts to care much of South Sudan and its people.

What are the Chances of South Sudan surviving in East African Common Market?

By: John Juac, Windsor, CANADA, APR/11/2016, SSN;

Over the past five years, South Sudan has made considerable efforts to participate in the global economy by applying for membership to strategic international and regional bodies, and some of those efforts have paid off. The new nation has now been admitted into the East African Community (EAC), a regional economic bloc consisting of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, increasing the membership of the common market to six, with a population of 162 million people.

The recent 17th Ordinary EAC Heads of State Summit in Tanzanian capital, Arusha, resolved to admit South Sudan into the regional trading bloc, even though its domestic industries are still in embryonic stages of development. Becoming a member of a regional trading bloc portends many benefits.

Latest Developments: South Sudan will Thursday, April, 14/2016, officially become the sixth member of the East African Community (EAC) when it signs treaties to join the regional bloc. President Kiir of South Sudan and EAC chairman, President Mangufuli of Tanzania will sign the accession treaty in Dar es Salaam.

In Summary:
**The signing will set in motion South Sudan’s assimilation into the regional bloc that is currently at a common market stage.

**In line with the treaty, the country will be required to immediately open up its borders for exchange of goods as well as labour and capital.

**The formal entry of South Sudan is a boon to Kenyan firms such as banks, insurers, manufacturers and airlines. (DAILY NATION, NAIROBI)


As some have argued, Africa’s newest nation has made the application against a backdrop of envisaged economic benefits from trade and commerce that it hopes to gain from having access to a much larger market. It also expects to take advantage of the community’s existing infrastructure: airports, railways, land roads and seaports to improve its access to regional and global markets in order to increase trade.

In establishing the EAC, member countries sought to provide themselves with a structure that would enhance their ability to trade with each other, as well as participate more effectively in the global economy.

According to the EAC secretariat on its website, the primary objective of the EAC is to develop a signal market in East Africa anchored on free internal and external trade. This means that South Sudan’s eventual integration into the EAC will benefit not only South Sudan, but also the other members of the community.

In fact, South Sudan is endowed with a significant amount of natural resources, which include oil, minerals, water, forests, rich agricultural lands, and the Juba ruling elite has also indicated that it is interested in establishing the type of large-scale commercial farming that could turn the embattled nation into the breadbasket of the region.

Success of this ambitious project could help reduce the region’s dependence on food imports and significantly improve food security. Nevertheless, while integration looks appealing, it also comes with enormous costs.

For one thing, South Sudan is likely to lose revenue from tariffs imposed on imports from the EAC member-countries and its domestic producers would face significant competition from the EAC’s more experienced exporters. Most South Sudanese have expressed concerns about potential lost jobs, income, business and industry to the more developed nations of the EAC.

The literacy rate is only 27 per cent in South Sudan, compared to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania at 87 per cent, 73 per cent and 72 per cent respectively. Furthermore, the EAC intends to eventually adopt a signal currency, harmonize fiscal and monetary policies, and ultimately evolve into a political federation.

What this implies for South Sudan is a loss of autonomy in such areas as the design and implementation of fiscal and monetary policies, as well as the ability to carry out other duties independently from all the other EAC member-countries.

The state officials have shrugged off all these concerns as silly. Joining the EAC has been a long-term plan for them, but South Sudan has not prepared itself to participate gainfully in the regional trading bloc. Unless the country provides itself with an internal peaceful environment that will facilitate trade, it is not likely to benefit from membership of the EAC.

In other words, the SPLM leadership has the challenge of implementing macroeconomic policies that support economic growth and creation of wealth. The macroeconomic conditions on the ground are perturbing path. With the shrinkage of the prices of oil exports in the world market, which accounts for as much 98 per cent of South Sudan’s budget revenue, the economic situation has worsen. The national currency has been depreciated, leading to expensive imports and spilling to high levels of domestic inflation.

The outcome is increased poverty levels and the daily struggle of the governments to maintain spending on critical areas such as the delivery of basic human services; the state of the South Sudanese economy depresses one.

In final analysis, the integration of South Sudan into a larger, more developed and complex market indeed poses a serious challenge to the country that is currently building an economy devastated by years of brutal civil war. The harmonization of fiscal, monetary and welfare policies could make it very difficult for South Sudan to undertake the types of policies target vulnerable South Sudanese citizens. Harmonization compels members to surrender authority over certain public policies.

Given that South Sudan is the poorest country in the community, membership may deprive it of the ability to solve problems unique to its economy. For example, the type of fiscal discipline required to achieve macroeconomic convergence in the EAC could be detrimental to efforts to strengthen South Sudan’s fragile economy. Since South Sudan is the weakest economy in an expanded EAC, it should be necessary for President Kiir and his followers to seek assistance from the community.

Otherwise, South Sudan must withdraw until a time when it is economically strong enough to become a member. The less developed South Sudan does not have chances against the more developed partner states in the regional trade-based on competitive advantage rather than a cooperative relationship. South Sudan must protect its vulnerable population, as well as develop domestic productive capacity in order to enhance the country’s ability to compete effectively.

Self-reliance is development from the inside-out, starting with needs at home. It is an approach which helps to minimize exchange with the outside but does not exclude it. Since few communities in South Sudan will ever achieve complete self-sufficiency, there will always be a need for some degree of trade with other communities in other countries. This is where collective self-reliance comes into play.

Collective self-reliance is a trading strategy which sets guidelines for what, when and how exchange can be arranged to avoid exploitation and unequal advantage of one partner over another. It is a strategy of exchange among equal partners for the purpose of building collective strength and wealth among a bloc of cooperating countries. It is now known and coming to be widely accepted that trade between unequal partners tend to benefit the stronger, bigger partner over the smaller, weaker one.

While in the short run a trade deal may seem like a good exchange for both partners, countless examples have shown that over time trade between rich and poor has led to dependency and greater impoverishment of the poorer party. It is what is known as the center-periphery dilemma, meaning that the more developed countries end up with a long-term advantage in the trade deal. For this reason, South Sudan needs to learn how to process its own materials to meet the needs of its people.

Where trade is necessary, it should be arranged to benefit all parties in the spirit of collective self-reliance. Collective self-reliance occurs through making trading alliances with parties at about the same level of development. The trade between the more developed and the less developed countries creates dependency of one upon the other, but the trade between equals for items which cannot be produced locally can help build collective strength through interdependence as opposed to dependence.

That was why the nations of the EAC, victims of global trade disparity, worked together to set up a trading bloc among themselves as a step toward collective self-reliance. The EAC has made significant progress toward integration during the last 12 years of it existence, and now a nation like South Sudan has joined the regional integration project when it is not at the same levels of development with those nations in the EAC. South Sudan stands not to benefit significantly from membership in the EAC and therefore must back off it

John Juac Deng
Journalist/writer
Juacd@yahoo.ca