Archive for: August 2016

The tragedy that is South Sudan and warring elite

By Makau Mutua, TheStandard, Kenya, 31/AUG/2016, SSN;

For years, I thought South Sudan was a victim society. History has a wicked way of dealing some people a cruel hand. Bad topography is one. Another is simply having bad neighbours – predatory and malevolent neighbours. Yet another is the cruelty of being colonised – internally, or eternally.

A greedy and myopic elite can be the final straw. But dynamics internal to a people can also do them in. Taken together, a combination of these factors can lead to damnation. That’s what I believe is South Sudan’s curse.

Everything – including the proverbial kitchen sink – has been thrown at South Sudan. It’s a tragedy that the elite in South Sudan can’t stop digging although it’s already in a deep hole.

One of the arguments made by the colonial empires was that the so-called natives lacked sovereignty of reason. That people who were not white – defined as “the other” – lacked faculties of the mind required for self-governance.

By the way, that’s the genesis of international law – as a legal justification to occupy and take territories occupied by “natives” in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. These lands were terra nullius – no man’s land.

This Eurocentric worldview held that non-whites were subhuman and that it was the duty of the white man – predestination, or white man’s burden – to raise backward peoples to full humanity.

This was one rationale for the colonisation and “salvation” of the native, the heathen, the pagan, the savage, the kaffir. Even the League of Nations and the United Nations ratified the legality of colonisation and put colonial peoples under the “trust” or “mandate” of the colonisers.

The period of the “trust” and the “mandate” was supposed to prepare natives for self-governance. Apart from pitting native and against native, this was one function of Lord Lugard’s Indirect Rule.

It was the same logic for Alliance High School – and other missionary or colonial schools – for native children. The idea was to “beat the savage” out of them and “civilise” them so they could first serve the empire, and later an African-ruled state, if it came to that.

That’s why we need to critique Carey Francis again. But I digress. What does all of this have to do with South Sudan?

I think Afro-pessimists and racists must be smiling in glee at the woes in South Sudan and Somalia. Especially South Sudan. A state of dystopia has descended on the poor people of that godforsaken country. I do not know any rational human being who didn’t celebrate the secession of South Sudan from Sudan.

That forced marriage – born out of rape – was doomed from the day it was conceived. The Arabised North owned Sudan where the black African South and the black and Muslim Darfur region were nothing but vassals for plunder. The trauma of decades – centuries – of dispossession is evident in the people of South Sudan.

My point is that those who believe that Africans are incapable of ruling themselves must be dusting racist colonial manuals over afternoon tea. These are the facts.

After years of brutal, genocidal wars, South Sudan walks away from Sudan. It’s blessed with abundant natural resources and untold gushers of oil. The so-called international community is itching to be part of South Sudan’s success. Investors flock.

Advisers on everything from infrastructure to governance flood the country. Kenyan teachers and other professionals, including builders and bankers, rush in to fill the skills gap. For a moment, the world lives in false bliss.

Then everything falls apart. Fighting breaks out between factions of government. Thousands are killed and many more flee. We are back to square one. President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar – two antagonistic individuals – ignite the conflict.

Alas, it seems that South Sudan didn’t need Sudan to tear itself apart. The world pleads for sense. Kenya and her sane neighbours – and there are not many – exert pressure on Mr Kiir and Dr Machar to put their own people first.

Nothing gives. Ceasefires are signed. Unity meetings are held. Mr Machar even returns to Juba to take his seat as Vice President. Then he flees again – and is replaced by his former comrades.

From where I sit, I can predict with certainty that Mr Machar or his lieutenants will launch a guerilla war against Juba. There’s no respite. What does the tragedy of South Sudan tell us about post-colonial states, and especially the dysfunctional one in South Sudan?

What does it tell us about predatory post-colonial elites who can’t see beyond the bridge of their noses? How do we answer the racist charge “we told you so?”

Is it the post-colonial state that’s incapable of redemption, or the post-colonial elite that’s the doom of many an African state? Can South Sudan save itself?

I am tortured. END

US–IGAD Endorsement of Dr. Riek’s Replacement and its Implications

BY: Joseph Oreste Odhok, AUG/30/2016, SSN;

At last there was a sigh of relief when the news of Dr. Riak‘s safe evacuation broke on August 17,2016. As the bona fide 1st Vice President, South Sudanese people and the world at large were eager to hear from him about his next move in relation to resurrecting the peace agreement.

Contrary to the people’s expectations, the US and IGAD surprisingly and to the disappointment of all, abruptly abandoned the AU’s summit previous position on SPLM/A – IO leadership which calls on reinstatement of Dr. Machar as the 1st Vice President to salvage peace agreement.

The US State Secretary John Kerry, uttered remarks in Nairobi on August 22,2016, in which he endorsed Machar’s replacement by Gai, saying there was a legal provision in the agreement that allows for such a replacement “in the interim.”

Kerry did not adequately explain his use of the phrase “in the interim” whether he meant Riek could be reinstated or not. His remarks were later reaffirmed by Elizabeth Trudeau, the US State Department Spokeswoman.

Following US position on the subject matter, IGAD through its Spokeswoman, Sharon Kaku, stated that “it was up to the South Sudan Government to decide who should be the Country’s 1st Vice President.” And “The decision would be accommodated.” She confirmed.

As a result of this abrupt shift in position of the Regional Group (IGAD) and its chief influential ally (US), President Kiir’s illusion of ruling the Country for life and subjecting its people under his tribal hegemony and oppression is now revived.

He is now strong enough to strike hard his opponents and march forward to consolidate his position. Last Week while being briefed by his security Aides, President Kiir warned against the call for Dr. Riek’s reinstatement by foreign diplomats.

In another development, Festus Mogae, the chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission –JMEC- has succumbed to President Kiir and promised to work with him and his deputy Taban Deng. “I will give advice and also listen and seek government advice for peace building in the country”. Mage said in a press statement after meeting with President Kiir and his new deputy Taban Deng.

This new development of events comes at the same time Dr. Riak was discharged from hospital and they seem well coordinated. However, what seems unusual this time around is the US acting in a unilateral fashion without its other two allies of TROIKA— UK and Norway.

The Question that poses itself is: Why the Dramatic Shift in US and IGAD Position, and What are the Implications?

When the Security Council Resolution 2304(2016) was adopted, authorizing peacekeeping force for protection of civilians, it was envisaged that South Sudan would cooperate and allow in the protection force. Threats of imminent arms embargo against the country, and imposing selected economic sanctions against the regime hardliners could have acted as a warning sign to the regime.

This strategy seemed not to work as the regime refuses to comply but instead puts forward its own terms. Demanding the UN renegotiate the provisions of the resolution before it accepts the force.

Their defiance was further bolstered by positions of Uganda and Sudan backing away from contributing troops to the force. The regime would have welcomed participation of its mentor and ally, Uganda thereby paving the way to accept the force.

It appears Uganda tactically knew what it was doing and Sudan distant itself to avoid accusations.

Reading from the mindset of Kiir and his military elite which is evidenced by their past and recent brutal actions against civilians and aid workers, the US fears the regime would proceed to commit most heinous crimes of unimaginable magnitude if the UN insists on sending in the protection force without the consent of its despot leaders.

Might be the US being the Country which drafted the proposal for the protection force bears the greatest responsibility and had to act according to what it deems suitable and necessary. Provided its action(s) is neutral and intended for realization of peace and stability of South Sudan. This, the US has done already through its continued support to IGAD and provision of humanitarian aid assistance.

It should have sought ways and means to augment its efforts and force the government to accept the protection force without preconditions.

It remains unclear as to why the US should come out loud and clear in support of Juba brutal and dictatorial regime, which until recently, combed the country’s bushes, in pursuit of his peace partner to eliminate him and eventually kill the peace agreement.

Could it be that the super powers are scrambling for the country’s untapped resources and that Syria’ scenario is likely to be replicated in South Sudan?

What is the need of presence of President Festus Magae and his JMEC when the peace agreement has already been nullified by President Kiir and Taban? And is it not ironic to talk of a protection force while you have endorsed the new government set-up which claims it has one army and one commander in chief that needs no foreign forces?

Answers to these question lie with the US and its allies but the coming weeks will surely tell us the true nature of things in the country.

The US and IGAD should have taken President Kenyatta‘s warning very seriously. He said “trying to isolate Riak Machar will not be in the best interest of peace”. He was speaking out of accurate knowledge of the realities on the ground.

The armed opposition force under Dr. Machar is intact and still loyal to him in their various locations. If the new 1st VP claims to have troops why doesn’t he visit them in their locations and attend to their needs? His recent attempts to sell his traitorous ideas to some armed opposition generals were a fiasco and were made public.

It is very unfortunate that some countries in the region still continue to support the regime either out of ignorance about the regime unwillingness to implement the peace agreement and its brutal actions against its citizens, or they so deliberately chose to work with it for their shared interests.

To succinctly state the fact, South Sudanese have been abandoned by the world and that it is for them to settle their own disputes using their home grown solutions. Call it a civil mobilization method as Mogae recently put it.

The Government is already on the offensive in many areas and its preparations are underway around Malakal, Renk and Maban counties.

Now with the hopes of peace now once again evaporated and the causes of the conflict remaining unresolved, while the people of South Sudan are left alone to settle their dispute, fierce and all-out war is imminent.

The SPLM/A–IO and the newly formed democratic revolutionary alliance are likely to team up against Kiir tribal militia and its mercenaries. I do not think the regime has got the capacity to fight a sustained war given its economic woes and the shaky nature of its political system. Especially when it is fighting against all the other ethnicities of the country.

What Sec. Kerry Said wasn’t an Endorsement to Gen. S. Taban Deng’s New Assignment

By Dr. Gatluak Ter Thach* USA, AUG/30/2016, SSN;

Sec. John Kerry of United States held a diplomatic meeting today with members of East African foreign ministers of five countries, including Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Uganda in his an exertion to push these countries to tackle challenges facing in their states. The agenda comprised of security issues among others affected South Sudan and Somalia, as well as the whole region.

Mr. Kerry also attended a press conference with the Kenyan President Kenyatta, where his rejoinder to a question asked in regard to the political exploitation made after the incident in Juba, South Sudan, which resulted into the decision that let FVP. Dr. Riek Machar of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in opposition (IO) left the country caused significant debate on Social Media.

The question enquired has to do of whether or United States would want FVP, Dr. Riek Machar return to South Sudan capital before protection forces arrive in the country.

Though United States proposed the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2304 to send to the protection troops to South Sudan for the protections of civilians and for the implementation of the peace agreement signed in August 2015, which Juba government had been unwilling to accept, Mr. Kerry likes to display a diplomatic card to avoid being seen hostile to Mr. Kirr regime in Juba.

This diplomatic response triggered discussions among South Sudanese who thought Mr. Kerry may have signaled a change in position when he said this: “With respect to Machar, it is not up to the United States, it’s upto the leaders of South Sudan and the people of South Sudan, the political parties and the neighbors to weigh in on what is best or what is not best with respect to Machar.

But I think it is quite clear that legally under the agreement, there is allowance for replacement and the transition of personnel and that has been effected with the appointment of a new First Vice President.”

In this regard, some debaters believed Mr. Kerry might have indirectly endorsed the controversial arrangement made by Pres. Kirr to replace Dr. Riek with Gen. Taban Deng Gai since he said it is upto South Sudanese and the region to figure out whether or not Gen. Taban can vacate the position for Dr. Riek to refill.

Unfortunately, this is not exactly what I think Sec. Kerry meant when he said, “it is upto the region, people of the South Sudan and political parties to weigh in on what is best or what is not best in respect to [Dr.] Machar” to imply that Mr. Kerry and United States has endorsed Gen. Taban Deng Gai.

What he really meant, I believe, is that people of South Sudan and the neighbors need a real peace signed by both Pres. Kirr and FVP, Dr. Riek Machar, and for the lasting harmony to emerge only when two leaders (Mr. Kirr and Dr. Macjhar) position interests of their people and the country first before their owns.

Everyone knows Dr. Riek commands over 90 percent of his supporters (military and sympathizers), who are eager to experience reforms made in the country. Pres. Kirr on the other hands has the equal support and the command of his branches.

For a survival of this signed peace in South Sudan, both leaders must work together to make it materialize and bring their divided fields into a single tukul. Sec. Kerry is not naïve on African affairs, especially the tribal politics of South Sudan.

He knows this culture. It is also true Gen. Taban can work well with Pres. Kirr since he might not bother about the reforms many of the South Sudanese wanted to be implemented for a country to subsist.

Reforms in a military and other sectors are significantly critical. For example, South Sudan does not have a trained and professional military. What it has currently is a sum of tribal militias trained to destroy and rape their country mothers and sisters. So sad indeed right!

A reform in the military is an essential aspect and a magnificent for the diverse young African nation. Gen. Taban, who already said he and Pres. Kirr agreed to merge both armies unconditionally by the end of May 2017, contrary to the security arrangement, is not a good signal to sustain this peace.

Articles 7.1 and 7.3 of ARCSS peace agreement signed in August 2015 illustrated instructions to integrate forces within 18 months, which do not support Gen. Taban’s talking points. This would be one of critical reasons that will make it difficult for Gen. Taban and the few friends to convince alerted majority of South Sudanese to buy in since they will not be seen for the implementation of the peace but as tools used to destroy the peace agreement.

According to the agreement, “the process of unification shall be overseen and monitored by the National Architecture. The Disarmament, Demobilization and Re-Integration of special needs cases shall be undertaken in parallel with the re-unification processes while the full process of DDR for ineligible candidates or residual forces as defined by the result of SDSR,” (ARCSS, 2015).

The key word is ineligible and the process to identify and accommodate them so they would not be left unserved. Is it possible to be achieved under Gen. Taban arrangement, and why would people think Sec. Kerry can pay a less care into this serious arrangement in the agreement when he knows the United States is overstretched with humanitarian a sector?

Mr. Kerry has also repledged again today 138m US dollars for the humanitarian assistance in South Sudan with signs that peace must be implemented. The United States has been the largest donor with a close to 2 billion dollars in the humanitarian assistance to South Sudanese people since an eruption of the current crisis in 2013.

As he said, the donation is not forever and leaders plus people in South Sudan must have to put their act together and say enough is enough, but this should not be done with a less care without acknowledging of a perpetual repercussion by allowing the interests of the few to continue endangering the lives of innocent citizens.

Presently, the choice for the additional force, which would be sent by neighboring countries after an eruption of fighting in July which claimed hundreds of thousand lives and resulted in rapes, including of Western aid workers, should be taken as an opportunity instead of how juba is taking it now.

Gen. Taban has advocated against the move which the United States government ferociously fought heavily for in order to restore armistice in the war-torn nation of South Sudan which Mr. Kerry reaffirmed today that the deployment of the 4,000 protection forces to South Sudan authorized earlier this month by the UNSC to be deployed as soon as possible for the protection of civilians, women and girls, as well as ensuring the implementation of the peace process.

“We need to move forward [to send protective forces],” Mr. Kerry. However, the government of South Sudan, from its Pres. Kirr, ” has resisted the planned deployment in Juba of a 4,000-soldier protection force” instead of agreement for the protection of their own people even though the country is unable to protect the citizens when the evidences can tell it all.

Current Displacement in South Sudan

· 2.5 million people (one in five) have been forced to flee their homes due to brutal war.

· Out of these, 1.6 million have been internally displaced in South Sudan

· More than 830,000 have sought safety in neighboring countries, mainly Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda.

· 4.8 million people are in desperate need for food and clean water.

Current Economic Crisis in South Sudan

It is fact that most people in South Sudan rely on subsistence agriculture based on crop production and cattle for basic survival. Those who have been forced to flee their homes have lost their means of feeding their families because they were forced to abandon their farms and livestock. According to economic experts in the country and in the world, South Sudan has flown into an economic “free-fall” characterized by food and fuel prices which have skyrocketed and an ever-rising cost of living. The trade and local markets have been disrupted and food stock has depleted.

Human suffering in South Sudan

South Sudanese’s ability to manage with rising food insecurity is being stretched to a breaking point that it is difficult for the poor families to support their children. The political and security crises in South Sudan are really the one of the world’s worst food and humanitarian crises. It is worse than anything else in the world though international media has harder time to copy it. Here are saddened stats for the nation:

One in three people are severely food insecure.

5.3 million people of an estimated 11m (2015) are expected to face severe hunger this year.
More than 686,000 children (one in four) under five are estimated to be acutely malnourished.
6.1 million people will need some humanitarian assistance by the end of 2016.
87% of people have no access to improved sanitation and only 47% have access to safe water.
Dozens of cholera cases have been registered across the country in July 2016.
Sexual and gender-based violence is rampant, and it is estimated that 15,000 to 16,000 children are currently recruited by armed actors.

In looking into these painful stats, I agree Mr. Kerry and rests of us would like to see these sufferings reverse sooner. If the regime in Juba cannot provide conducive environments for these populations to support themselves, why would the regime refuse to allow those who could help them meet their citizens’ needs?

The card Pres. Kirr and folks in Juba are play is “sovereignty.” Without going deeper into the English definition of this term, is South Sudan a sovereign or independent state? The UNMISS forces were in South Sudan before 2011. Ugandan forces were allowed to South Sudan from 2013-2015. The country has been heavily depending on foreign aids before and after the crisis of 2013.

In addition to mentioned stats above, the country lack infrastructure developments, such as roads, hospitals, basic education, etc. Most children of those with means attend schools in neighboring countries or in the West. The real definition of sovereignty is not what is being seen in South Sudan since 2011 upto now.

The country is not sovereign yet because it is unable to protect, serve and/or deliver what it means to be a sovereign state, and everyone in the world knows this fact.

Dr. Gatluak Thach lives and works in the United States of America and he can be reached:

Pres. Kiir, First Vice Taban Deng & Jieng Council of Elders: The Evil Trinity

Dr. Peter J. Kopling, MD, Juba, AUG/30/2016, SSN;

The deceit coming out of Juba is beyond belief. Flurries of abominable statements made from Juba have been enough to fool even the supposedly seasoned and world-renowned politicians the likes of John Kerry, the secretary of state of the United States of America, but not South Sudanese who know first hand the situation here on the ground.

It is important to outline certain timelines for those uninformed about the crude South Sudanese politics or rather lack thereof or ethnic one. It is essential to remember Juba did not want to sign the peace deal expressing serious reservations, indeed IGAD-Plus had to chase after Kiir and he signed it while profusely sweating here at the nation’s Capital rather than in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

But now Kiir and his gang claim they are happily and speedily implementing the peace deal, is someone fooling someone here? What aspects are they implementing and which of the reservations in the deal are they throwing away?

Were the implementations not meant to be a compromise as it was named, a midway between what Kiir and his tribal cohorts want and that of the Opposition, or by extension, most South Sudanese?

Kiir dislikes the peace deal such that he quickly cooked up the 28 tribal states in order to derail the peace deal and now he is implementing it, if so what?

Was the implementation suppose not to also address these 28 states he curved out for his tribesmen while the opposition wanted federal states under the 10 as stated in the agreement? How about the raiding of other peoples ancestral lands that will be returned to their rightful owners if democracy were to succeed?

What of power sharing as well as accountability to the crimes committed against south Sudanese majorly by Kiir’s Militia?

So where is Taban Gai’s stand on any of these core issues for the absolute majority of South Sudanese and how will he satisfy the genuine opposition who demand for things contrary to what Kiir wants?

Which of these core issues will remain firmly under Kiir and his JCE in this illicit marriage between Taban Gai and Kiir rather than a truly proven opposition to Jieng agenda set against south Sudanese?

Is it any surprise then they hate Dr. Riek Machar with all their souls and might and literally to death? If they can never forgive Dr. Riek for 1991, why will we forgive them for 2013 and 2016? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Now it must be pointed out that from the money of the people that was squandered by Kiir’s government, the JCE have enough resources to pass to their children from one generation to another, plus the opportunity to solidify grip on South Sudan’s Power base but also territories, all within reach at least as they see it.

The very vision articulated by Dr. Riek Machar threatens these things thus their abhorrence for him, how about Taban Gai, does he have what it takes to stand and oppose the JCE who gave him his position for which he betrayed his own people and the people of South Sudan, just for money and position?

This is what is at stake for the Dinka under JCE. What is however at stake for the rest of South Sudanese is the lost of lives, freedom, power and ancestral lands, cultures and languages, as the Jiengs are bent to ethnically displace and cleanse the rest of South Sudanese and resettle their kin as they have already done all over south Sudan.

This being the case, then there is no possible peace in south Sudan under Kiir-Taban-JCE, Evil Trinity.

It also need to be recognized that the JCE are highly educated bunch old devils that have no need to work for a living, thus from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed and even between sleep, all they do is cook and invent tricks to fool south Sudanese and the world of how to maintain their grip to power.

They only know how get rid true opposition heroes, the like of Justice Sule, Dr. Wani Tombe both dead, Governor Bakosoro, Clement Wani Konga, both politically disabled by none other than Kiir, leave alone what he did to Dr. Lam Akol, and but of course also the relentless and insatiable thursts to kill one they preached and convinced themselves in believing and propagate among themselves and their kins as the arch enemy of the JCE and the Dinka, Dr Riek Machar, has anyone ask themselves why?

Who is being fooled here to believe the problem in South Sudan is Dr. Machar?

If their Problem with Machar is because of 1991, Which they claimed led to their perceived delayed success of South Sudan’s independence, how about now the Massacre of south Sudanese by Kiir which exceeded anything that has happened in the soil of South Sudan under any other person, the Arabs inclusive?

Has Kiir not superseded Machar in any killings of any kind anywhere? We haven’t heard of Machar attempt against Kiir but Kiir against Machar now second time but numerous times in this last ordeal extending from J1 to the bushes.

Additional deceit they came out with is the talking point with straight faces that Riek Machar is violent and must renounce violence…. Very laughable if it was not that they actually got John Kerry and the gullible white people to buy into it.

These successes in deceits are partially possible because they have recruited white Intellectual mercenaries influencing Washington DC, these are Americans who have taken blood money at the expense of lives that are lost here daily in South Sudan.

Now let us recall, this recent Violence that erupted in Juba, without going into the obvious cleansing of Nuer from Juba by none other than the very Kiir who now is calling Machar violent. Machar had his home bulldozed with 18 bodyguards killed in 2013, while this time his tent was flattened by helicopter gunship and he had to run for his life yet again with numerous of his body guards killed but also his associates and the man arrived in Khartoum on injured, who is violent?

Suspecting nothing and still believing in brotherhood, Machar reported to Kiir’s house alas was a booby trap, Malong’s men ambushed the president’s very own house and started a gun fight right at Kiir’s own house and they wiped out half of Machar’s body guards. Who is Violent here?

The news is out now that it was the Americans that called Kiir and demanded the safe passage of Machar out of J1 thus Kiir personally had to assure that Machar got out of that trap alive because of the American pressure. Now who is violent here?

Indeed if the Killing of George and his Nuer Colleague, the fighting on Gudele road as well as the trap set for Machar at J1 were all unplanned, what then was the reason from pursuing Machar at J2 and the ensuing 5 day of unabated and constant attempts to kill him with his body guards having to fight back in self defense to the last man?

It is now reported that Kiir spent 1.8 Billion dollars in this recent attempt to Kill Machar. It is a misnomer to call this latest violence Kiir instigated in Juba a war, it was not a war, How could it be a war when the other side has just 1300 soldiers against 50,000 SPLA-Kiir that never left the city as was demanded by the peace deal for this very purpose? It was an assassination attempt against Riek Machar whose men fought back starving the attempt.

What do we make of Machar’s tent being totally destroyed, forcing him to head into the Bush? While in the Bush until his escape into DRC, was he not followed, battled all along and are the dead bodies from both side not witness to Machar ordeals all the way to the border with DRC where some of his very trusted official got gun down by the helicopter gunship, were all these Machar’s aggressions?

So my fellow compatriots, while the JCE succeeded to deceive the white people the likes of John Kerry, I am confident you are not fooled. It is very clear to us south Sudanese who is violent between Machar and Kiir.

I am from the greater Equatoria, Kiir has terrorized and killed my close relatives and those who survived many are now displaced in refugees camps some leaving in bushes dying either from Kiir’s guns or from diseases. These are not running from Machar but Kiir.

Machar has not killed a single person from my family or region but Kiir did and continues to do on daily basis and thanks to him, death has touched every family in all corners of South Sudan, from Balanda country to Azandes lands, from the lands of Murus, fajulus, Kakwa, Bari, Ma’di, Acholi, Latuko, Pari, Shilluk, and not even to mention the Nuer Land.

Now even after Machar is out of the country while Kiir-Taban and JCE Evil trinity claim to be implementing their phony peace, ask the women and children of South Sudan, they will tell you there is no peace and they still fear Kiir’s guns.

About Machar to stop practicing politics, where are we, in the ‘Luak?’ Is there no Constitution in this country? Is South Sudan a Dinka Village? Who on earth can tell another to not practice his constitutional and human right? Where do this people get their education, in Zimbabwe?

By all standards, Kiir and JCE have led our country over a decade with nothing to show, which tell us they have no political aptitude, the illiterate Kiir and his tribal JCE.

How about the latest JCE campaign that the regional IGAD leaders must not allow their territories to be for Machar to stage Violence, really? Could Kiir and JCE say this with straight face? How about practicing what you preach?

How about stopping violence, which is ongoing as we speak here in Juba? Arresting and killing those opposed to you. How about stopping the ongoing Killing in Upper Nile, in the Balanda nation, Western Equatoria, In Yei and the Ma’di Corridor on daily basis. How could they appeal for other state leaders not to allow their territories for violence while they pursue violence all over the territory that are under their hands?

The territory Kiir must worry about is South Sudan which he has turned into hell and he must stop using our national territory for harboring JCE and the Killer Malong.

In conclusion I would like to address Secretary John Kerry, Peace shall never come in South Sudan from the hands of Kiir-Taban Gai and JCE Evil trinity. You had the opportunity to end this by simply calling Kiir out but you failed but worse enabled them and we south Sudanese have taken notes.

Some one has advised you that the Dinkas are Majority and fierce fighters; if you dislodge them South Sudan will be unstable forever and become a Somalia. John Kerry, I said you have been ill informed and advised by the intellectual and PR Mercenaries.

Secretary Kerry, the Dinkas are less than 3 million, of the 10 Millions South Sudanese, we the others are absolute Majority (Oh you are told we can not come together, I say wait and see). It is also worth noting, once the top evil JCE crumbles, the Dinkas are not homogeneous, they will follow a nationalist who will join hands with the absolute Majority to move this county forward. But you lost the opportunity.

There shall be no peace until the Evil Trinity is dismantled, for they are violent, tribal with deadly intent against all others South Sudanese not just Dr. Riek Machar, that is what they want you to believe..

You shall watch this play out from your retirement comes January, hope you realize, you have added to and left a very dark chapter in the South Sudanese journey into nationhood. You might have recorded many successes in life but South Sudan is not one of them. Did it matter to you in the first place?

You have endorsed the Evil trinity and given it life in exchange for the lives of more South Sudanese, don’t they matter, Secretary John Kerry?

Dr. Peter J. Kopling, MD

Remembering the 20th Anniversary of the Glorious 28/August/1991 Nasir Declaration


“The only way a man can remain consistent amid changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same dominating purpose.” Winston Churchill, British Statesman (1894-1965);

Today, the 28th of August, marks the 20th anniversary of the glorious Nasir Declaration. On this day in 1991, three members of the SPLM/A Political-Military High Command, Dr Riek Machar, Dr Lam Akol and Cdr Gordon Kong, issued the Nasir Declaration to all units of the SPLM/A. The declaration signalled a clean break with the Movement’s policy of unconditional unity of the Sudan in favour of advocating the right of Self-Determination for South Sudan. The Nasir move adopted other important policy matters that were of concern to the Movement at that time: respect for human rights, establishment of civil administration in the liberated areas and to build the SPLM into a strong political party to lead the struggle.

These matters would have been discussed and resolved within the Political-Military High Command, the only known organ of the Movement, but many requests for the convening of that body fell on deaf ears. Hence, the split was unavoidable. In fact, the first meeting ever of the PMHC took place after the split.

Attempts to subdue the Nasir Move by the force of arms led to military confrontations in which many civilians lost their lives. It also happened that both sides of the divide committed mistakes that took the lives of many innocent comrades for no reason other than belonging to a particular tribe. These incidents are abhorrent and regrettable but the responsibility for them lies squarely on the shoulders of all the leaders of the SPLM/A on both sides.

In a meeting of the SPLA officers of Upper Nile Region in Kongor in 2004, I addressed the officers that the bloody events that accompanied the Nasir Move are to be regretted and the SPLM/A Leadership, including myself, have to accept responsibility for that. That position cannot and should not be taken to concern particular leaders or a community or two.

It applies to all, for no community in South Sudan has not been at the receiving end of the SPLM/A actions or that has not lost their loved ones, and there is no one ‘holier than thou’ in that fratricide. It is a chapter we need to close with a genuine spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation that does not make some of us feel as if they are on top of others.

Labouring under the propaganda of the adversaries, the SPLM/A-Nasir leadership failed to live up to some of its commitments and suffered from internal rifts and schisms. All that was the unintended dark side of the Naisr Move.

The brightest side is that, the Nasir Move changed the political calculus in Sudan drastically. Self-Determination, long buried by the northern political parties in 1965, resurfaced again like a phoenix from the ashes. To the South Sudanese, Self-Determination has never been a second option nor one in a “spectrum of objectives”. It has always been the sole objective, and they kept their eyes fixed on the ball. We believed that only an agreed peaceful democratic process could avail the opportunity for the Southern Sudanese to choose the political system that accords with their national aspirations.

We were vilified and scorned as the separatists, but we persevered for we know the tide of Self-Determination was unstoppable. Soon the government of Sudan signed to it in Frankfurt 1992, the SPLM/A-Torit adopted it in Chukudum in 1994 and the National Democratic Alliance gave it a nod in Asmara in 1995.

Thus, by the close of 1995, all the political parties in North and South Sudan have pledged themselves to granting the South the right to Self-Determination, a great victory which could not have been possible if there were no change of policy within the liberation Movement in 1991.

Also, at the close of the century, the gap on the other issues of difference in 1991 were getting bridged; the violations of human rights in the SPLM/A were acknowledged and being addressed, administration in the liberated areas was beginning to take shape and the SPLM as a political party was emerging.

On the other hand, at about the same time Khartoum had shown signs of reneging on the right to Self-Determination for South Sudan that it had promised in Frankfurt and The Khartoum and Fashoda Peace Agreements and enshrined in its 1998 Constitution. These were the factors that led to the reunification processes at the beginning of the new millennium, which in turn made the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement possible. T

his spirit of coming together was misinterpreted by some as “rejoining” rather than reunification of the Movement. This is how the point was missed, causing unnecessary friction within members of the Movement after the agreement.

Today there are people who claim to have alone brought about the independence of South Sudan, when we know that even last year they were dubbing anybody who called for the separation of South Sudan to be “suffering from inferiority complex”. Success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan! But, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that those adept in stealing revolutions do not do it this time round.

The intense propaganda from opponents made some leaders of the Nasir Move to feel contrite and walk with heads down. What is to be ashamed about when your dream has come true? What is to be contrite about when what you demanded twenty years ago is now a reality? You cannot be ashamed of your own achievement. Instead, you should walk tall with shoulders high for our achievement is great and historic. Great events in history come about because of a leadership that looks beyond its nose.

The 20th anniversary of the glorious Nasir Declaration acquires a special significance as it comes at a time when the South Sudanese are celebrating their independence in a new state of their own. They deserve to be proud of themselves for it is a culmination of their long struggle over the decades including their votes in the referendum. They liberated themselves, and nobody whosoever can claim to have liberated them. We bow our heads in salute to our martyrs, and pledge, once the opportunity avails itself, to take care of their families. This is the least we can do for them.

The Nasir Movement may have had its ups and downs, but on Self-Determination it never faltered.

Long live an independent Federal Republic of South Sudan!

Dr Lam Akol,
Former Member of the Political-Military High Command, SPLM/A.

No Better or Bitter Enemy than a Man who killed one’s son and jubilant to kill the father too!

By J. Nguen, AUG/28/2016, SSN;

Today is 28 of August; a day in 1991 of which “self determination” for the people of South Sudan was emboldened and declared as the centerpiece and supreme objective of the liberation struggle in the Sudan. There is no better time than acknowledging the objective achieved. Thanks to the SPLM/SPLA’s brave and able “Political–Military High Command” officers, Dr. Lam Ajawin, Gordon Koang Chuol and Dr. Riek Machar Teny, who made self-determination for the people of South Sudan the supreme objective to die for 25 years ago.

Back to the main focus of this piece! On July 8th, 2016, Dr. Riek Machar survived another well coordinated and planned assassination attempt on his life. This was one of the three major assassination attempts on his life.

The July 8th assassination attempt compared to other attempts was lethal. Dr. Machar himself escaped death narrowly. But, unfortunately, the assassins managed to kill close relatives including, Machar’s son and the entire 37 strong fleet body guards. May be their souls rest in peace for ultimate sacrifice!

On December 15, 2013, the same enemy killed 39 of Dr. Machar’s body guards and some close relatives residing in Machar’s residence. In both instances, Machar’s homes were bombed to ground, evidence of determined beasts ran wild.

However, the assassination attempt in 2013 was given recourse. This unfulfilled melioration can be attributed to a pending proposed hybrid court inked in the Compromised Peace Agreement signed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on August 17th, 2015. The hybrid court and other provisions in the agreement led to Dr. Machar’s return to Juba on April 26, 2016, despite stiff warnings from well wishers, reasoning that the move was too risky.

These advises were presented both in print and in close knit private discussions between Machar and aides. Some of us cautioned Machar and cohorts that the whole process was a drummed up trick to decapitate his options. Such sentiments were supported by stark evidence by President Kiir’s regime’s intransigence toward implementing the agreement. It was established that Salva Kiir and cohort were playing fox and after all non-committal to the peace agreement.

Despite all warning signs, Dr. Machar gave-in to the region and the international community and against all odds trusted them because of some undisclosed assurances made behind closed doors. Also, I should say, this is also coupled with Machar’s hard-mindedness driven by supreme ego of nationalism and humanistic convictions.

Sadly, in less than three months upon Machar’s return to Juba, hell got loose as predicted. Dr. Machar was cheated and narrowly escaped death in a wheelchair.

Therefore, at this point, one would ask where the region and the international community were when Machar and commanders were being hunted down.

To our dismay, the region and the international community have turned jubilant spectators as Machar dodged barrel bombs and Israeli-made machine guns. The region and the international community continued to stay aloof and only were involved in unhelpful and lazy diplomacy while the assassins were busy and thereof jubilant that the hunted was in their reach and doomed.

As a result they killed his son, close relatives and the entire fleet of 37 men strong. In disguise, in less than a week, President Salva Kiir called on Machar to report to Juba in 48 hours or risk replacement. Meanwhile, President Salva Kiir himself has given a tall military order to bring back Dr. Machar’s head “dead or alive.”

Then, the Transitional Government of National Unity of which Dr. Machar was part of and the cabinet ministers Machar nominated were aborted. In earnest, President Salva Kiir installed his preferred choice among the SPLM/A-IO’s defected assassination co-conspirators.

At this juncture, it’s imperative to stress that Salva Kiir was convinced Dr. Machar’s head would be by his desk before July ends, dead or alive.

Against all odds, on August 17, 2016, Dr. Machar, his wife Madam Angelina Teny and close protection unit were extracted by the United Nations Force from the South Sudan and DRC’s border. Uncensored report indicated that President Salva Kiir and assassins were devastated and couldn’t believe the hunted survived the countrywide manhunt both by air and ground force.

An inside operative revealed that this technical “task to kill” was assigned to the U.S.A trained Americans mercenaries (BlackWater) and the Uganda Special Force hired by the regime. Remarkably all efforts successfully failed but Dr. Machar’s condition during the extraction was revealing to say the least.

So far, a friendly country has chipped in and bestowed Machar a helping hand. Now, Dr. Machar is recuperating and the world is waiting for his next move. Despite Machar’s incredible ordeals, the region and the USA appeared insensitive to what happened to the SPLM/A-IO and its leader.

It’s revealing that the region and the international community don’t care about the welfare of the implementation of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan to the letter and spirit.

The region and the international community don’t care why Dr. Machar and his men in uniform were attacked, humiliated and killed. The region and the international community don’t care and don’t want to know why Dr. Machar narrowly escaped death and ended up in the DRC.

The region and the international community don’t give a damn that the peace agreement was being violated by President Salva Kiir before their watchful eyes. And above all, the United States don’t care why local are being killed based on their ethnicities while American humanitarian workers in South Sudan were raped by Salva Kiir’s forces in Juba.

This is where I have a major problem. Why I wrote this comment before Dr. Machar briefed the media, South Sudanese, the region and the international community on his next move, the way forward and how he narrowly escaped death.

Dr. Machar, the region and the international community must know these:
I. There is no better and bitter enemy than a man who killed your son and close relatives not one but twice;
II. There are no better and bitter enemies than men who destroyed one’s nationhood and people, their crime, their tribe;
III. There are not better and bitter enemies than men who destroyed one’s livelihood in disguise of tribal interest;
IV. There is no better and bitter enemy than a man who destroyed one’s properties, your community and nation solely for distorted self-interest;
V. There are no better and bitter enemies than men and people who castrated boys from your community, abducted girls, raped women and girls and killed them after rape;
VI. There are no better and bitter enemies than men and government who ordered soldiers to rape women and girls in lieu of their salary;
VII. There are no better and bitter enemies than men and government who burned alive theelderly and children based on their ethnicity;
VIII. There is no better and bitter enemies than men and government who force one’s people to live as IDPs in their own country;
IX. And there is no better and bitter enemy than a man who killed your mother, her crime is her tribe.

If these crimes are nothing and no profound reasons to fight for in the eyes and mind of whomever, then I must confess that life in itself is not worth living. But, I believe there is one rare human being out there, who held the convictions that one has a right to life and such a core principle ought to be respected and protected.

Therefore, this is paramount and it’s time to act. Dr. Machar must STOP behaving like Christ. It’s time to reach out, even though it means dinning with the evil in human cloth.

There are no better times and worse devils than the crimes committed against the people of South Sudan by President Salva Kiir.

J. Nguen is a South Sudanese analyst and political commentator. He can be reached at

The South Sudan, too many questions being asked


There have been a lot of talks of and about South Sudan since its inception as the world’s newest nation. At first it had a lot of positive attributes to the extent that in the international airport of Toronto, Canada, there is a piece that says ‘business with South Sudan is soon becoming not an exception but the norm.’

People arriving at Pearson International Airport in Toronto have seen this writing if they have the time to look around as they move towards the immigration desks.

Until recently it felt good to be a South Sudanese that is until Massacres were committed in our nation’s capital and our nation plunged into bloodshed, fratricides and of the most recent, international aid workers raped in broad daylight not in a remote village of the savage parts of this country but right here in our nation’s Capital, Juba.

For a long time we have said South Sudan is going the wrong way but now I say it has gone, arrived and settled in the wrong way, thus these wrong ways are now facts and fatal fate for many of her citizens.

A country that has come into existence on the basis of social justice for south Sudanese who have been robbed of all dignities by the Arabs for centuries but now what was left is now stripped and exhausted by the Jieng Council of Elders and their lead sword carriers General Malong and President Salva Kiir Mayerdit.

The painful truth we must accept is that many who had survived the two wars of Independence from the Arabs, have succumbed in the murderous hands of Kiir.

We should be reminded that South Sudan’s existence was globally supported, thanks to the United States of America and Spiritual entities led by the Catholic Organisations, but now this endeared nation has become a feral state associated with heinous crimes of murders not only that of its own citizens, but also of international agencies and all kinds of crimes against humanity.

South Sudan today is a country that does not fit to belong in the community of nations. The UN plan for an arms embargo has not gone far enough. It should be the removal of the flag of South Sudan from the Community of Nations that should be discussed not tomorrow but now. Which nation, if I may ask is willing to allow its flag to fly next to South Sudan’s flag? Except for similar nations led by dictators?

It is a sad reality today in South Sudan that it has disintegrated systematically into a not only a tribal entity but one that has no morality. Killing, raping, looting, lying are all among the standards of the day in South Sudan.

Is it true then, as the writing at Toronto international Airport goes, doing business with South Sudan is going to be the norm?

Those who read this article, I am sure will find that the Canadian advert is very offensive and should demand its immediate removal and never again to put it up there for it is an affront for the victims of this government. I am sure the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is very aware about what South Sudan has become as a state or rather a failed one.

The question to be asked is how did we get to this, I will say the problem has been not new. Even an insider have written and said ‘the SPLA has a subculture of lies, misinformation, cheap propaganda and exhibitionism…’

All along, therefore, the SPLA/M (Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement) has never been up to the task of leadership and governance. Today I go even further to say these dark traits which once was believed to be a subculture are now the main and only Culture of the SPLA.

The misnomer of people’s army was clear when “the people” in their hundreds of thousands fled the SPLA advances to Khartoum instead of embracing their army. The irony of this was, the very people they claimed they were liberating felt safer with the very enemy they were fighting, supposedly being liberated from and Southerners took to Khartoum by the thousands instead of living in liberated areas, a good many of them remained in Khartoum even today. They are the wise one.

Today the same has happened when people in their hundreds of thousands are in refugee camps and internal displaced camps. The question that needs to be asked again is who are they running away from? Of course it is the SPLA of Salva Kiir, the same who was and who now is.

Please prove me wrong by going across to Uganda, start at Adjumani Refugee Camp, the Kayriadongo Refugee camps. If your army, the SPLA, prevents you from leaving South Sudan, well visit the Internally Displaced Camps all over the nation starting right here in Juba and do interview with the refugees or the displaced, ask them who are they afraid of.

According to a joke supposed to have come from Omer Hassan al Beshir, that south Sudanese have to face ‘the tiger by the night and typhoid by the day.’ So ‘tiger by day and typhoid by night’ summarises the state terrorism and social service breakdown in our country.

Nobody is safe in Juba not even the very international organisations that midwifed her, including the US embassy staff and Switzerland embassy personnel. These guys are remaining here in Juba on their taxpayer’s money but why in a place void of moral relationships and so why are they remaining here? Are these countries also in the same moral quagmire as partners, enablers and partners to a criminal government against its people who have fled South Sudan?

A blanket coverage of South Sudan at this time will not be warranted. There have been divisions. Those who have been running the show and those who benefit from the chaos are the Dinka. Ask any of the remaining 63 ethnic groups in South Sudan and the answer is unanimous.

But people who look at a deeper level know that the Dinka is a name that does not represent a clear-cut interest and organisation. For identification purposes, it is worthwhile to focus on the program and interest of those who are at the vanguard of this conflict.

It goes without saying that people who occupy homes of other people by force like in Nimule, Yei, Mundri, Juba and anywhere else, are surely perpetrators of human rights abuse and are in the wrong side of national development and these are those who took this country into the abyss.

Majority if not all are Dinkas. This has nothing to do with one tribe but after collecting data the repeated incidence of people of a particular tribe lends itself to the interpretation that it is a tribal issue. And that is a Dinka problem.

Where the hell have they inherited this culture from as compared with the rest of the remaining 63 other communities? History is useful but it may not give all the basis of a particular behavior.

The Dinka were the people who had close relationship with the Arab north. During the Mahadist, the forces of Abdallah al Taishi, the Bagarra tribe’s men were divided into two: the slaves and the regulars. According to that history the regulars were armed with swords while the slave soldiers were armed with muskets captured from the Turks and of these most if not all were Dinkas.

It repeated itself during the war when ‘Murahaliin from the north used to carry out raids in Dinka land driving them eastwards’. So the authority figures and governance these people have ever known was in relationship with North Sudan and in their capacities as slaves.

And it is possible that in the events of independence of South Sudan they would want to replicate the same idea and relationship they had with the north. This is not just an idle speculation.

Take a look at the people in South Sudan who are wearing blue ‘Jalabiah’ and listening to radio Omdruman. People who go all the way to Koboko in Uganda to buy blue short ‘jalabiah’ are Dinka. This factor is important because during the Mahdi revolt the Ansars were wearing green ‘jalabiah.’ So to differentiate them from the Dinka slave soldiers, the ‘jalabiah of the later (Dinka) was blue. Today it is the same attire seen in Dinka land.

This article does not support the status quo or the way things were in the past. Instead there is a lot of option to move quickly into a new dispensation fully aware of the past. In the community of nations, now South Sudan should be labelled a pariah state. For a long time that was what it was but until the raping of American ladies in the broad daylight and killing of a journalist, the Cup is now full.

That happened after many South Sudanese were murdered and raped and manhandled in very many ways but the international community was mute to our pain. Just go to the refugee camps in Uganda, Ethiopia or Sudan and ask the people why they left their country.

I am hundred per cent sure those in Adjumani whom I have talked to will tell you it was the SPLA, the official army that drove them out of their homes. I saw it myself and can verify it with names and pictures of people who were shot on 12th, 15th, 17th and 22nd of July in Kerepi and Loa, which is not far from the Ugandan border.

Those atrocities compelled fellow Citizens to flee from their own government, and the facts can be verified in the entire various refugee Camps in the Neighbouring countries including the Sudan that looks heaven in comparison.

So who in this time and day wants their flag to fly next to South Sudan, a country raping international humanitarian agents and killing its citizens? If anything, for the females, I say think seriously before you come to South Sudan on whatever mission!

In conclusion, is this not the case of Boutros Boutros Ghali in 1992, the 6th Secretary General of the United Nations, calling for the redefinition of sovereignty of nations? Should all nations be treated equally?

Is it not time to jettison this archaic concept of nationhood in the midst of global citizenship? Should global citizenship take preponderance over national sovereignty in Africa?

My question is whether South Sudan has not lost its sovereignty or the international community has become meaningless?

Rigoberto Modi
Juba, South Sudan

Igad accepts Riek Machar’s ouster as South Sudan vice president

By KEVIN J. KELLEY, New York, TheEastAfrican, AUG/27/2016, SSN;

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad) said on Friday that it is up to the South Sudanese government to decide whether Dr Riek Machar should be reinstated as the country’s first vice president.

That decision would be “naturally accommodated by Igad,” Sharon Kuku, a spokeswoman for the eight-nation grouping of East African states, said in an email message.

Ms Kuku noted that Taban Deng Gai, appointed by President Salva Kiir as Dr Machar’s replacement, had pledged at Igad’s August 5 summit to abide by the South Sudan government’s decision on the first vice presidency.

“Igad did not stop Gen Deng from attending the summit nor speaking for the South Sudan government,” Ms Kuku pointed out.

Friday’s comment by Igad follows the group’s call on August 5 for Machar to be reinstalled as first vice president.

His removal was not consistent with the terms of last year’s peace agreement between South Sudan’s warring parties, Igad said three weeks ago.

In the interim, however, the United States had expressed its acceptance of Machar’s replacement by Mr Deng.


Secretary of State John Kerry said in Nairobi on August 22 that “it’s quite clear that legally, under the agreement, there is allowance for the replacement, in a transition of personnel, and that has been effected with the appointment of a new vice president.”

The US position was reaffirmed on Thursday by State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau.

“The peace agreement contains procedures and requirements that govern transitions and changes within the transitional government,” Ms Trudeau said at a press briefing in Washington.

“Specifically, the agreement provides the top leadership of the armed opposition the power to nominate a new first vice president if that position is vacant.”

A faction of the armed opposition declared last month that it had chosen Mr Deng to replace Machar, who was then in hiding inside South Sudan following bloody clashes in Juba.

South Sudan President Salva Kiir subsequently named Mr Deng as first vice president.

Dr Machar’s followers charged that the moves violated last year’s peace agreement and vowed to oppose Mr Deng’s appointment.

State Department spokeswoman Trudeau on Thursday repeated US calls for an end to armed conflict in South Sudan.

“We do expect the transitional government and all parties, including all leaders of the opposition in South Sudan, to take every step possible to avoid fighting and to reach a peaceful resolution of their differences,” she said.

“The way forward is not through violence or military action but through implementation of the agreement and through peaceful resolution of differences.”

South Sudan’s future uncertain as Machar plans pull back from peace deal


SUMMARY: Dr Machar’s allies say he planned a review of the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) involvement in the transition government once he recovered from injuries sustained last month.
Sources close to him —who arrived in Khartoum on Tuesday afternoon from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for treatment — told The EastAfrican that the rebel leader was consulting Igad before making his decision known.

Former first vice president of South Sudan, Dr Riek Machar has thrown prospects of stability in the country into further uncertainty after his allies said they were rethinking their role under the August 2015 peace agreement.

The allies said Dr Machar planned a review of the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) involvement in the transition government once he recovered from injuries sustained last month.

Sources close to Dr Machar — who arrived in Khartoum on Tuesday afternoon from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for treatment — told The EastAfrican that the rebel leader was consulting Igad before making his decision known.

SPLM-IO representative in Kenya, Lam Jok, said that recent attacks by President Salva Kiir’s forces demanded a fresh approach to the implementation of the August 2015 peace agreement.

“Since July 8, our mission was to secure the life of our leader but now that he is safe, we are diplomatically and politically engaging Igad on the way forward because President Kiir has killed the agreement by attacking our official cantonment areas and changing the leadership structure contrary to the agreement,” said Mr Jok.

He continued, “What we know is that the current status quo is not acceptable because the president and the new first vice-president, Taban Deng Gai, have defied the agreement which the region worked very hard to realise.”

The presence of Dr Machar in Khartoum is likely to raise concerns in Juba, especially after the new first vice-president, Mr Gai, held discussions with the Sudan leadership over outstanding issues between the two countries including security, border demarcation and oil exportation.

READ: South Sudan new VP holds talks in first Khartoum visit

But in a statement to the Sudan News Agency (Suna), Sudan’s Minister of Information Ahmed Belal Osman said Khartoum has simply received Dr Machar for medical treatment since he arrived in a critical condition and needed immediate care.

”The health condition of Dr Riek Machar is now stable and he will stay in the country under full medical supervision until he leaves the country for a destination of his choice to complete his medical treatment” the statement read in a part. Mr Osman said that Khartoum has notified the government of South Sudan about Dr Machar’s arrival.

Mr Jok confirmed that Dr Machar needed specialised treatment because of swollen legs after walking for 200km under aerial bombardment at an advanced age.

The recent Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad) summit had declared the replacement of Dr Machar as illegal and against the agreement and approved the deployment of 4,000 regional protection force in Juba.

READ: Envoy tells off Igad after Kerry’s remarks on Juba leadership changes
With Khartoum likely to face pressure from Juba to let go of Dr Machar, there are ongoing consultations on his next destination since earlier preference for Addis Ababa could compromise the neutrality of Ethiopia that is supposed to provide the bulk of the regional protection force. Kenya and Rwanda are also expected to provide troops to act as a buffer in Juba.

UN Proposal to send 4000 troops to S.S. without consent is violation of sovereignty & aggression international law

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda, AUG/23/2016, SSN;

The relationship between states or nations is founded on respect of national sovereignty. Sovereignty according to the Black’s Law Dictionary is the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which independent state is governed.

In sovereign state, there is supreme political authority like parliament. In that respect, sovereignty is represented by paramount control through the Constitution and frame of government and its administration.

In addition, in sovereign State, there is the sufficient source of political power, from which all specific powers are derived. In this regard, sovereignty is the core of the international law on the independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating it internal affairs without foreign dictation.

In the case of South Sudan, when it became independent on 9th July, 2011, it immediately acquired the status of effective sovereignty that enabled it to enjoy all the immunities other countries, whether big or small or whether strong or weak enjoy.

I have mentioned the words “effective sovereignty” above to show that South Sudan was recognized by all Members of the United Nations without any exception, and therefore, as a matter of international law, it must enjoy equal rights with other nations including the USA.

Thus, the USA does not have more rights over South Sudan to treat it like one of its State. Instead, the USA must deal with South Sudan in accordance with international law, which sanctions the sovereignty of every nation in the world.

In sovereign nation, there is a political sovereignty, or State, which is sovereign and independent. The recognition of a state by other States to have political sovereignty is a matter of comity.

The Federal Supreme Court of the United States of America defined comity in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895), as follows: “Comity,” in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other.

But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.

In other words as explained in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n.27 (1987), comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.

In this regard as provided under the public international law, sovereignty gives the country, its government and people the power to do everything within the country without accountability to external powers.

For instance, the state or her government makes laws, executes and applies them; imposes and collects taxes and levies contributions, makes war or peace, enters into treaties and forms alliances with or of commerce with foreign nations without being forced to do so.

Hence, sovereignty is the supreme power by which citizens are governed through their will as represented by persons or body of persons in the state who are politically empowered though not superior to the citizens.

Under the international law, sovereignty is a heart or core of the existence of all the states, their rights and powers that they enjoy.

The Constitution of the United Nations Organization (the UN Charter, 1945) zealously protects national sovereignty. This is because adulterating the concept of national sovereignty may seriously affect the international peace and relations among the nations.

Hence, the strong protection the concept of sovereignty enjoys under the UN Charter of 1945 is something that cannot be done away with stroke of a pen by one nation unless agreed by all nations and done in transparent manner.
Therefore, Article 2 (1) of the United Nations Organization Charter of 1945 provides that the United Nations Organization and its Members must be governed by the principle of the sovereign equality.

It should be observed that the United Nations Organization has 193 member countries with South Sudan as the newest nation which got her independence in 2011.

Under the UN Charter of 1945, all countries including the strongest countries like the USA and Russia and the newest and weakest country like South Sudan are equal and must be accorded the same treatment.

The above statement is supported by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter of 1945, which is the basis of the international law governing sovereignty and equality of all the States. Article 2 (4) prohibits all states from using threat or military force against a sister state or any other measures that are inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The purposes of the United Nations Organization (UNO) are provided under Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that the purposes of the UNO are:

–firstly, to maintain international peace and security; to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

–Secondly, to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

–Thirdly, to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion and

–Finally, to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of the common ends as stated above.

In implementing the above purposes of the United Nations, the UN is enjoined to have regards to Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter which, refrain all the States from using force or threat of force against the State or use any other measures which are contrary to the international law.

The prohibition of the use or threat of force against State above under article 2(4) includes prohibition against interference with the State internal affairs by other states or invasion or sending external force without the consent of the State in question.

In reference to South Sudan, in which some members of the UN led by the USA have passed a resolution to send 4000 troops without the consent of South Sudan, such a move is contrary to the international law on the use of force as stated above unless justified under article 39 of the UN Charter of 1945.

Article 39 referred to above provides that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures to be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Reading Article 39 above with article 2 (4) as already explained above, it implies that before the UN takes the course of military action or resort to military means, the Security Council must try all alternatives to restore peace before resorting to the use of force.

In fact, the use of force under the international law is the last method applied in the rarest cases. As a general rule, the UN in settling dispute must apply pacific (or peaceful) settlement of disputes as provided under article 33 of the UN Charter.

Article 33 (1) of the Charter provides that where there is the continuance of any dispute, which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the parties to that dispute shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The problem with the UN, the USA and the African Union in the case of South Sudan is that there are a lot of conflicting interests in bringing peace in South Sudan. These bodies are interested in showing that there is a peace in South Sudan than South Sudanese themselves believe it to be.

They have not paid attention to the saying that the absence of war does not necessary mean the presence of peace. In order to bring permanent peace, reconciliation and justice in South Sudan, South Sudanese should be given greater freedom under the supervision of the UN and African Union to negotiate their own means of bringing peace as provided under Article 33 of the UN Charter as already referred to above.

It is only when the Country fails to follow the above means of settle of dispute that is when the other methods as provided under articles 41 and 42 of the Charter may be invoked by the regional body like the African Union and the UN Security Council.

For proper understand, Article 41 of the Charter provides that the Security Council may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply measures, which include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. This Article is the basis of economic sanction.

In addition, Article 42 of the Charter provides that should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The actions may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nation. Hence, Article 42 as referred to above is the basis of economic and arms embargo not the basis of external intervention.

The reading of the articles 2 (4), 33, 39, 41 and 42 as already discussed above shows that it is not in the best interest of the UN to invade the country, or South Sudan in this case unless there are serious compelling reasons that justify such invasion.

The argument above is based on a simple logic that all options to bring peaceful dispute of the conflict must first be exhausted.

However in the case of South Sudan, the government and rebels have never been opportunities to explore other means of bringing peace in South Sudan as they have never been given chance since the war broke out in 2013, and thereafter, followed by peace talks, to talk freely.

The government and rebels have been put under intense pressure to bring peace, hence, ending up creating peace which sometime proves very disastrous. This is because the USA is blind to the truth that lasting peace can only be achieved through understanding and trust between the warring parties.

Instead, the USA is posed to ensure that the so-called protection troops are sent to South Sudan that will never be neutral as they will come and join opposition with the aim of changing the government and cause more human sufferings.

The USA and the UN should understand the war is not confined in Juba only and the protection force based in Juba will not achieve anything. Rather, what South Sudan needs currently is a comprehensive plan to bring peace throughout the country. This can only be achieved through leaving things as they are and then engage all parties, that is, the government and oppositions to talk freely in order to bring true peace.

However, despite the other arrangements by the African Union to bring peace to South Sudan as provided under the international law, the USA is ignoring such arrangements contrary to the UN Charter.

Article 52 (1) of the UN Charter provides for the regional arrangements for dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.

The recent arrangement made by the African Union in the agreement of the government of South Sudan was in line with Article 52 (1) above but the UN under the supervision of the USA acted contrary to Article 52, which exposed the USA hidden agenda of seeing regime change in South Sudan not restoring peace in the country.

In fact, if the USA and the UN just wants peace to prevail in South Sudan not something more than that they would have taken advantage of the recent development and engage different opposition groups to rally behind the First Vice President, Mr. Taban, with the aim of creating the unified front to achieve lasting peace in South Sudan.

However, the way the USA and the UN are taking the issue of South Sudan is something that leaves much to be desired. It appears that the USA and the UN are bent to see the regime change whether by crooks or fair means.

Hence, in that regard, it is quite unfortunate that the UN and the USA have not learned from the first mistakes of regime change that they effected in different countries; notably, Iraq and Libya, which are now in more mess than before invasions and even more have become threats to the international peace.

It is now regretful to see the USA and the UN watching helplessly as Libya and Iraq have become sanctuaries of militants who unleash suicides mission as they wish, which further result in untold and uncontrolled human sufferings.

As it is well-known, the invasion of Libya and Iraq was coerced by the USA through the use of its financial muscles without a prior plan of what would come in the aftermath of such invasions, hence, plunging the two countries into messes and uncontrolled sea of human sufferings.

In reality, the protection force the USA is pushing on with regardless of other means is a sugarcoated invasion force as it is being done in disregard of other methods as already explained above and without the consent of South Sudan as provided under the international law.

Thus, the action of sending any force without the consent of South Sudan may constitute aggression under the international law, and South Sudan as a sovereign State, is entitled to reject such troops and instead mobilize other countries to treat such an action as pure invasion.

If South Sudan deems it fit and declares such an action of sending troops to South Sudan to be an invasion act, than it has a right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This Article provides that nothing in the UN Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

As I know the USA very well, it has already manipulated the law to legalize its illegal action by pushing members of the Security Council to pass the resolution as it has already been done to provide a basis for its illegal action of sending troops to South Sudan.

However, once the action is illegal then it is illegal and nothing can cure illegality under the international law unless the action has its basis in the UN Charter.

For instance, when the USA wanted to invade Iraq in 2003, the USA ensured that her actions against Iraq were legalized through Security Council Resolution but that resolution in which the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned did not cure the illegal action against Iraq by the USA and the UK and the whole enterprise has remained illegal up to date.

In summary, the USA should immediately reconsider its move against South Sudan before it is too late. I know the USA will never look back unless it has achieved what it wants because it lives on Machiavellian principle of end justifies the means.

However the fact is that the indifference of the USA to other countries problems will not take away the moral blameworthiness of the USA under the international law.

The invasion of countries like Libya and Iraq and the planned South Sudan invasion may affect the standing of the USA and even in long run will have an effect on the UN as a body, which may lead to its collapse like what happened to the League of Nations in 1945.

One of the reasons for the collapse of the League of Nations in 1945 was unwarranted invasions of weaker nation by stronger nations. Hence, the USA and the UN must stay warn that they are digging cancerous holes in the UN system that may trigger its collapse in the long run.

NB// the Author is South Sudanese lawyer residing Uganda and can be reached through: +256783579256; or;

Enforce South Sudan peace pact: Uhuru, Kerry express concern over S. Sudan situation


President Uhuru Kenyatta and US Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed concerns over the slow implementation of the South Sudan peace agreement.

In a meeting at State House in Nairobi on Monday, President Kenyatta informed Mr Kerry that the recent violence in the neighbouring country had had serious implications on the peace agreement signed in August last year.

According to Mr Kenyatta, the process has been “sluggish and under severe threat due to lack of commitment by the parties involved.”

According to a statement to newsrooms, Mr Kenyatta told Mr Kerry that the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) council of ministers had created a roadmap to end the fighting in South Sudan.

Consequently, Mr Kenyatta urged the US and the international community not to relent in their support for the region aimed at finding a long-lasting solution to the conflict in South Sudan.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has added his voice to the concern over the slow implementation of the South Sudan peace agreement. With the pact signed in August last year still hanging in the balance, the consequences are dire for Africa’s youngest nation, which has not known tranquility for over two years.

South Sudan’s independence had been expected to usher in peace, stability, and prosperity. However, it has turned into a nightmare for the ordinary South Sudanese as the sabre-rattling by their leaders continues.

The topmost US diplomat, who was in Kenya on a peace mission that included discussing measures to combat terrorism in the region, was briefed by President Uhuru Kenyatta on the recent fighting in South Sudan and the efforts being made under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority (Igad) on Development to end the violence.

Though the volatile situation in Juba has been compounded by the recent sacking of Dr Riek Machar as deputy president, President Kenyatta assured Mr Kerry that the Igad council of ministers has created a road map to end the fighting.

The South Sudanese deserve peace so they can rebuild their lives and develop their country. The leaders must step back from their inflated egos and sue for peace to put South Sudan back on the right track.

“There is absolutely no question that we need to move forward with the deployment of the regional protection force authorised by the UN Security Council,” Kerry said after meeting with five regional foreign ministers in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.

Kenyan Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed also urged a speedy deployment. “When should it be there? Sooner rather than later,” she said.

In the wake of fresh fighting in the South Sudanese capital Juba last month, Kenya offered to provide troops for a new force, approved by the Security Council on August 12, alongside Ethiopia and Rwanda.

The 4,000 new troops will join 12,000 already deployed as part of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) which has been widely criticised for its serial failure to protect civilians.

Not an ‘intervention force’

Mohamed said a “gradual deployment” would allow troops to reach Juba more quickly.

“Any number of soldiers that goes in in the name of a protection force would be welcome and would open the door to everything else,” she said.

Kerry said the new force would only seek to improve security in Juba and allow for the implementation of a peace deal signed a year ago.

“This is not an intervention force, it is a protection force, with a very clear mandate to protect people, to ensure access, freedom of movement and to be free from ambush or attack of any sort,” he said.

No timeline has been given for the deployment but South Sudan’s government has expressed strong reservations over the plan and called for further discussions.

“We want to know the mandate of this protection force,” said South Sudan Vice President Taban Deng Gai during a visit to the Sudanese capital Khartoum on Monday. “We want to sit with them in Juba, not in New York.”

Deng is strengthening his position after seizing the vice presidency from his old friend and ally Riek Machar who was forced to flee Juba during last month’s fighting.

Kerry signalled that Machar’s ouster did not undermine the August 2015 peace agreement of which he was a key signatory. “Legally, under the agreement, there is an allowance for the replacement of personnel and that has been effected with the appointment of a new vice president,” he said.

Kerry also announced an additional $138 million (122 million euros) in aid for South Sudan where 2.5 million people have been uprooted by war since December 2013 and close to half the population is in need of emergency food aid. END