Archive for: August 2016

South Sudanese economy has collapsed

By: Dominic Ukelo (a South Sudanese economist), AUG/21/2016, SSN;

Since the returning of the SPLA-IO members and prior to the Juba Street fighting in July, which led to the South Sudanese economy to collapse, there has been high tension all over the country, especially in the capital, Juba. Some elements in the government were unhappy with the returning of the SPLA-IO members.

Meanwhile, the SPLA-IOs were feeling bitter and disappointed with the government forces’ perpetual harassment and intimidation whenever they met in the capital city. Tension remained high as government security forces began killing SPLA-IO members, including Lt. Colonel George Gismala and Sgt. Domach Koat Pinyien on July 2, 2016, the incidents which fueled the already existing tension.

As a result of the tension, the SPLA and the SPLA-IO forces fought for five days inside Juba, starting from the event at Lou Clinic in Gudele road on Thursday July 7, 2016, followed by the deadly clashes outside the Presidential Palace (J1) on Friday July 8, 2016, leading to the several attacks on the IO position in Jebel Kujur, by the government forces.

Subsequently, the security situation deteriorated, especially, in the capital, Juba. South Sudanese government has continued to fail to provide its citizens with basic public services, such as security, which any government in the world should have provided to its people, in order for them to build their country and thrive economically.

For more than five (5) consecutive years the regime in South Sudan adopted ruling style as of Zaire, Afghanistan and many other failed states, that’s characterized by ill decisions, wide corruption, and predatory ruling.

Moreover, the regime relies entirely on the crafting of ill-advised policy by tribal elites that became dangerous and unsustainable, which have been for long time a reason for the country to be destabilized and the economic growth to be sluggish.

High officials of Salva Kiir’s regime continued in plundering the country’s resources, destined to increase their national stock of wealth, and yet the worst was the higher officials, including the president and his ministers, who decided to deposit the stolen money in foreign bank accounts offshore, which attributed mostly to the collapse of the economy.

What has been happening in the South Sudan is an unprecedented phenomenon. The economy was in critical condition even before the Juba Street fighting occurred.

Before the Juba Street fighting, the government had failed to pay public servants in the country for almost four months. Further, Salva Kiir Mayardit’s regime not only has shelved most important and urgent projects that would have contributed positively into the development of the economy, if implemented.

Unfortunately, the regime has further abandoned its duties to financially support important institutions in the country, leaving for example hospitals without reliable electric supply and the courts without ability to even go forward with its simplest duties, including failing to transport culprits from police stations to the court.

After five days of Street fighting in the South Sudan capital, Juba, the fighting has finally dragged the already deteriorated and abnormal economy to its knees. As like Venezuela, which has an inflation rate of 481.52 percent, the highest in the world, now the inflation rate in South Sudan is predicted to reach an all-time high of around one thousand (1000) percent, in comparison to the 309.60 percent in June of 2016 and an average of 35.75 percent in 2008.

Moreover, foreign currency rates have climbed higher, leading for instance, one hundred dollars to be equivalent to eight thousand South Sudanese Pounds SSPs, instead of five hundred SSP just in June 2016 before the fighting.

As a result, the high rocketing of the hard currency rates have pushed the prices of the Goods in the local market to be tripled as well. As of 16 July, 2016, one kilogram kg of sugar costs one hundred South Sudanese Pounds SSPs instead of thirteen SSP before the fighting, one piece of Onion has increased from five (5) SSP to thirty (30) SSP, one plastic bag of bread has reached forty (40) SSP instead of four (4) SSP, a kg of meat costs eighty (80) SSP, one kg Maize flour eighty (80) SSP, Sac of charcoal cost hundred and twenty (120) SSP, and only four (4) pieces of tomatoes goes for one hundred (100) SSP after the fighting in the capital, Juba.

In light of the hyper-inflation in the country, there has been a critical question raised by ordinary South Sudanese people, the question which needs an answer from their government.

If the average monthly salary in the country is seven hundred (700) SSP, considering that the public servants remain without salaries for the last four consecutive months, how could the population survive without or even with the salary of seven hundred (700) SSP?

The most devastating reasons that led to the South Sudanese economy to deteriorate rapidly, before being flunked by the recent clashes in Juba, are, for instance, volatile political environment and constant civil wars in the country, both trends that could clog up the machine that powers any economy in the world. Lebanon in the eighties (80th) is one example.

The International Monitory Fund IMF and the World Bank WB remain important factors that could help resuscitate the collapsed economy. However, most contributors warn that major powers and the two financial organizations must be convinced first by the government of South Sudan in order to help support the failed economy.

Mostly on the condition that parties are willing to put their differences aside, work together and are ready to put the country back together.

The condition, after the Juba Street fight, observers couldn’t foresee into the near future. Therefore, as the economy collapses, the worst scenario for South Sudan, if the international community did not intervene, would be, unfortunately, either another Rwanda or Somalia case in the continent.

By: Dominic Ukelo (a South Sudanese economist)

Opposition leader Riek Machar leaves South Sudan for Kinshasa: NEW DEVELOPMENTS

By Fred Oluoch, THE EASTAFRICAN, Posted Thursday, August 18;

IN SUMMARY:

Water and Irrigation Minister, Mabior Garang de Mabior told The EastAfrican that Dr Machar arrived in Kinshasa on Monday in transit to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where he will be waiting for countries in the region to intervene in the Juba crisis.

The whereabouts of Dr Machar had been a matter of speculation since he left Juba on July 11 when fighting broke out.

Meanwhile, President Kiir has also called for early elections before the end of the life of the transitional government contrary to the agreement.

South Sudan’s former vice president and opposition leader Riek Machar has left the country after a nearly month-long stay in the bushes in Western Equatoria where he had fled following fierce fighting with government troops.

Water and Irrigation Minister, Mabior Garang de Mabior told The EastAfrican that Dr Machar arrived in Kinshasa on Monday in transit to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where he will be waiting for countries in the region to intervene in the Juba crisis.

The whereabouts of Dr Machar had been a matter of speculation since he left Juba on July 11 when fighting broke out.

All along, close aides of Dr Machar said that he had been in the bushes around Juba after media reports early last week indicated that he was in Tanzania, while others speculated that he is in Chad.

Following his departure from Juba, President Salva Kiir replaced him with Taban Deng Gai as the vice president, a move the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad), that has been mediating the crisis, said was “null and void.”

A peace agreement signed in August 2015 to end the civil war, which broke out in December 2013 after President Kiir accused Dr Machar of plotting a coup, has so far been broken severally.

On Tuesday, President Kiir inaugurated parliament with new SPLM-IO members that have been nominated afresh by Mr Gai, leaving out the ones that had earlier been nominated by Dr Machar.

Early elections

President Kiir has also called for early elections before the end of the life of the transitional government contrary to the agreement.

According to South Sudan Deputy Ambassador to Kenya, Jimmy Deng, and President Kiir is “willing to be challenged” and he is “giving a chance to those who have been angling for the seat to come forward and contest”. Mr Deng, however, said that President Kiir has invited political parties to further discuss the prospects of early elections and reach a consensus. The elections were supposed to be held in 2015 but aborted because of the civil war.

However, Mr Mabior, a spokesman of Dr Machar’s party, said that holding elections in the current situation is out of question and accused President Kiir of trying to legitimise his position after consistently working to dismantle the peace agreement by sacking his main partner.

“We in SPLM-IO still believe that the peace agreement can be salvaged because it talks about how to tackle political, economic and security reforms. However, should Igad fail to get the implementation back on track, we will have no option but to continue fighting,” Mr Mabior said.

As security situation in South Sudan continues to deteriorate, Igad heads of state are scheduled to meet in Nairobi on August 22 to finalise the deployment of the 4,000-strong regional force with the first batch expected to be in Juba by September 19.

The UN Security Council on August 12 resolved to send the regional force to Juba and enhanced its mandate to include full combat with the purpose of protecting the civilians and acting as a buffer between the warring forces.

Shuttle diplomacy

Meanwhile, Juba has launched diplomatic campaign to convince the eastern African region to accept the recent changes in the transitional government despite the regional body Igad having declared them null and void.

Mr Gai was in Kenya on Tuesday to meet government officials in what Mr Deng said was part of shuttle diplomacy to convince the region to accept the recent changes in leadership.

“Mr Gai is working well with President Kiir to implement the agreement because the agreement provides for a replacement. Dr Machar can now come back as an ordinary citizen but only after he denounces violence,” Mr Deng said.

However, the new first vice president told a summit of the heads of state in Addis Ababa last week that he would step down once Dr Machar returns to Juba, otherwise he would continue with the implementation of the August 2015 peace agreement.
———————————————————————

Read more at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000212532/bashir-rushes-to-the-rescue-of-machar-in-remote-drc-town

The Demise of National Unity in South Sudan and the Way Forward

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

“We don’t like you. My plan would have been to order the South Sudanese soldiers to capture the airstrips in Torit, Juba, Bahr Al-Ghazal and Upper Nile so that no government aeroplanes would land. We would then capture the steamer, and then declare our intention to secede from you [Northerners]. We are not politicians nor do we know politics. We do not like you at all – we cannot forget the atrocities that you committed against our ancestors. If it means death, so be it!”

The above are the words of our hero, Daniel Jumi Tongun during his interrogation in the aftermath of the Torit Mutiny on 18/08/1955. The British lured the Equatoria Corps mutineers into surrendering to the Sudanese government.

All those who surrendered totaling 300 soldiers including the leader of the revolt, Lieutenant Ronaldo Loyela were summarily executed by firing squads. Those were the esteemed martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the independence of South Sudan. Their colleagues who never trusted the British and hence didn’t surrender withdrew to the mountains and later formed the nucleus for the Anya-Nya movement.

Daniel Jumi Tongun and Marko Rume were arrested following the discovery of a telegram linking them to the mutineers. The two only escaped execution because 10 to 20 of the accused who were brought to testify against them, denied ever knowing the two suspects.

It was a display of bravery and readiness for self-sacrifice on both sides. On one hand, the mutineers knew they were in deep trouble but that didn’t make them betray their civilian leaders. On the other hand, the two leaders exhibited unwavering stance and were not afraid to tell the Jallaba exactly what Southerners felt about them.

Before the mutiny, it was known to few people that Tongun did write a letter to the Equatoria Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) in Torit urging them to postpone their plan to a later date. He advised them to wait for the return of the leading Southern members of parliament like Benjamin Lwoki and Buth Diu Thung who were in Khartoum at the time.

But tensions reached a boiling point following the evacuation of families of the northern soldiers, the ordering of the No. 2 company of the Equatoria Corps to travel to Khartoum and the arrest of Lieutenant Emilio Taffeng; one of the few high-ranking Southern officer.

These events prompted the Equatoria Corps NCOs to proceed with the execution of their plan without heeding the advice of their civilian leaders.

Resistance to foreign invasion or intrusion was a common denominator in the relation between the various communities of South Sudan and all the aliens.

However, the Torit mutiny was the first concerted effort by the Southerners against foreign rule. It ushered in a new dawn of collective endeavours by all the communities towards the realisation of the independence of South Sudan.

That era also witnessed the emergence of the spirit of national unity and a belief that our destinies as different tribes are intertwined.

South Sudanese national unity was though in its early stages of evolution and many would have expected it to grow much stronger as communities establish more ties through learning each other languages, the development of a common language (for example Arabi Juba), intermarriages and commercial activities among other factors.

Alas! The progression everyone expected became a sort of regression and those early stages in mid-1950’s turned out to be the golden era of South Sudanese national unity. The question that comes to mind is what went wrong?!

I believe three factors bear much of the blame for the demise of South Sudanese national unity.

The initial damage to our national unity occurred with the signing of the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement (AAPA) on March 12, 1972. Although General Joseph Lagu, the leader of the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM) included Joseph Oduho (one of the hawks) in the negotiating team, people in Equatoria remained skeptical about the peace process.

Some South Sudanese politicians including members of the SSLM who were staunch supporters of South Sudan’s independence like Eliaba Surur, refused to endorse the peace initiative. Tongun thought that Aggrey Jaden, former President of the Southern Sudan Provisional Government and Francis Mayar, a lawyer who lived in Kinshasa should have headed the peace delegation to Addis Ababa.

Tongun and Chief Lolik Lado of Liria were dismayed by Abel Alier leading the government delegation. Lolik asserted that by sitting on the side of Northerners, “Alier made it easier for the North to get more from the South and difficult for the South to get more from the North.”

Many South Sudanese are still oblivious about the reason why Alier was chosen by Numeiri to lead the government delegation. From the Northerners’ perspective, it made sense because Regional Autonomy for the South was Alier’s idea in the first place and he was known to be a strong supporter of the unity of Sudan.

Nevertheless, Alier could have garnered support for his administration by fostering the fragile national unity through inclusive and equitable policies. Instead, he pursued a tribalistic policy turning Southern Sudan into a brutal police authority under his Chief of Police Ruben Mag.

The Kokora (re-division) movement in Equatoria was the natural result of Alier’s failed policies.

The emergence of SPLM/SPLA in 1983 was met with little enthusiasm if at all in Equatoria. Dr John Garang was never a well-known political figure in South Sudan before 1983.

There hadn’t been any covert mobilisation of the masses or enlightenment about the objectives of the movement.

The fact that it resorted to looting, rape and unlawful killings of members of the other ethnicities made many people particularly the Equatorians believe that the SPLM/SPLA is a tribal movement bent on settling grudges with the Equatorians for bringing about Kokora.

Additionally, two more reasons contributed to the limited recruitment of the Equatorians into the movement. The name of the movement and its objectives were a big problem for them. How could they sacrifice their lives for the liberation of Sudan when they have fought for nearly two decades to secede from it?!

And to a lesser extent, the general impression that the SPLM/SPLA was a communist movement didn’t help in attracting recruits in Equatoria to join it. Having many known communists at the helm, the formation of the Red Army and allegiance to the former Soviet Union and its allies were enough evidence to back their belief.

During the early stages of the movement, Garang used to persuade the secessionists that they can fight up to Kosti at the borders with the North and leave those who were for the liberation of the whole Sudan to proceed northward.

It was misleading and dishonest as there can’t be two objectives for a liberation movement.

A few years ago, I watched a video clip shown inadvertently by General Malaak Ayuen over SSTV where Garang questioned the wisdom of the Bashir’s government in striking a deal with Dr Riek Machar, the secessionist while continuing to fight him the unionist.

The truth of the matter is that Garang was a unionist and many SPLM/SPLA cadres still believe in the New Sudan vision. From the outset, the New Sudan vision appeared unachievable to many people especially those who know the intricacies of the Sudanese society and politics.

But most worryingly it was irreconcilable with the demand of the Equatorians and others for total independence from the North. With such a conflict of objectives, national unity became a casualty of all the eventualities.

With President Kiir at the helm in Juba following the independence of South Sudan, the tide could have been turned favouring a cohesive society which would ultimately salvage our national unity.

Kiir had the perfect circumstances at the beginning of his reign for a successful or even an iconic Presidency. He took charge of a country that owed no loans to any foreign governments or international monetary institutions. A government that had billions of US Dollars of oil revenues stashed in its coffers, vast untapped natural resources and a reasonable number of technocrats to lead the modernisation process.

Apart from the Abyei issue which is a little bit complicated, the rest of the territorial claims against our neighbours are amenable to amicable solutions. Only a few countries in the world received the kind of support we enjoyed at the United Nations at the time of joining it. All the major world powers and the international organisations were backing us.

What else would any President hope for? People were overly happy with their newly earned freedom and would have excused the President for any petty shortcomings.

Well, rather than using the massive oil revenues to launch a robust economic development and growth, he squandered the billions of Dollars through corruption that is unheard of in modern history. Tribalism and nepotism became the order of the day.

The enthusiasm that filled the hearts of the young graduates and the young entrepreneurs during the celebration of the first independence day soon settled into a profound despair in the face of unemployment and lack of business opportunities.

The Juba massacre of the Nuer civilians that plunged the country into a civil war was a tremendous blow to national unity. And it didn’t end there as numerous atrocities were also committed by the SPLA against the other Non-Jieng communities.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the President didn’t relent in pursuing his divisive policies that saw the establishment of the illegal 28 new states. In doing so, he hammered the last nail in the coffin of national unity.

South Sudan will never be at peace in the absence of a system of governance that is acceptable to all the communities. Those who think they possess the power to maintain the status quo are just deceiving themselves and postponing the inevitable.

As we can see now, the communities that were considered in the past to be noncombatant have taken up arms to defend themselves and the war has spread to every and each corner of South Sudan.

The current regime has clearly failed and continuing the same system of governance would fall within the definition of insanity which is repeating the same thing with the hope of getting a different result.

In the first place, we must understand that technically South Sudan is not a nation but a group of mini-nations or tribes trying to live together in a territory that was “tailored” for them by the colonialists. There is no doubt that some of the tribes in Equatoria would have preferred to live together with their brethren across the borders in Uganda and the DRC.

The same applies to the Nuer and the Anuak people who probably would have opted for their communities to be within one territory in each case rather than being divided between Ethiopia and South Sudan.

Hence, it’s imperative that we adopt the system of governance that would meet the aspirations of all the communities in South Sudan.

In a world of reason, federalism would have been the right choice to address the need for devolution of power from the centre to the states. But the events that have occurred which were often beyond reason and the magnitude of the damage inflicted on the social fabric of the country – showed that the situation requires more than federalism as a solution.

Now in South Sudan, we have people who were made refugees three times in their lifetime. They were refugees in the neighbouring countries during the Anya-Nya War, through the SPLM/SPLA War and finally in the current Kiir’s War.

When are they going to live peacefully and enjoy life in their God-given land?! Father Saturnino Lohure must be stirring in his grave of what has become of South Sudan.

The only system of governance that would bring about a lasting peace in South Sudan is a confederation of states. Switzerland is a Confederate state and ranks No. 8 on the list of the richest countries in the world. Belgium is a hybrid of a federation and a confederation and remains one of the most stable and advanced countries of the world.

In the case of Serbia and Montenegro, despite sharing the same ancestry and ethnicity, yet they initially chose a confederation which subsequently became two independent states.

Looking around the world, one cannot help admiring the Swiss Confederacy that has been there since 1291.

Dr. Lako Jada Kwajok

References:
( 1 ) The First Sudanese Civil War – by Scopas S. Poggo, Assistant Professor of African American and African Studies at Ohio State University, Mansfield campus.
( 2 ) War and Peace in the Sudan 1955 – 1972, by Cecil Eprile.

Weighing the remedy of the international intervention in South Sudan’s crisis

BY: Marial Mach A’duot, Australia, AUG/18/2016, SSN;

The most controversial, and even sometimes perceived as an act of aggression is an intrusion on the country’s sovereignty. The conceptualization of the world as the ‘society of states’ summarizes the main criticisms leveled against the foreign intervention in the affairs of another country, irrespective of the intention. The global political arena in this context is viewed as the environment of the actors with equal status, sovereign states.

Each state is poised to pursue its interest in a respectful manner toward other countries. The basis of this assumption lies in sundry conceptualization and interpretation of sovereignty based on the Westphalian Treaty, which defined the state as an omnipotent supreme authority within its territory.

Viewed through this prism, sovereignty is made of three dimensions. The first is the holder of sovereignty, which is the state and the totality or absoluteness of the state. State sovereignty, in this case, cannot be withdrawn nor intruded by internal and external actors.

In conforming to these norms, the state is viewed as the political institution in which sovereignty is personified. Every aspect of sovereignty is built on the exclusions of the ‘other’. Sovereignty is an inward looking concept and in practice. It’s repealing characteristic demanded a consensual operation among States as the global society is an assemblage of the sovereignties.

Described as the ‘building block of a sovereign state’s system, the state took their sovereignty in the form of practical institutions and political thought. The first principle of sovereignty is autonomy, which encompasses not only the demand for the respect of the territorial integrity but also the state rights to the claims for the legitimate monopoly of power within their given territory without interference.

The non-interference concept defies the odds and establishes the state as an ultimate power in their affairs. The generic context of this lies in the perceived projection of states as the responsible within their boundaries for any reason.

In this context, state sovereignty remained as an integral norm in the global politics, but like any other conceptual notion, it is gnarled by the forces of evolution.

Sovereignty has transformed from a recluse driven, to include state ‘responsibility’ to internal polities and the world. Hence, the embodied status-quo of sovereignty has changed for the states to meet demands of the new age. The problems like terrorism require interdependence and rationalisation of the primaeval idea of state’s isolation.

This opening of sovereign borders came with a new regime of rules to govern how states should conduct their businesses. The notions of the sovereignty and its creeds of absoluteness of state came under new practice, as sovereignty is redefined to imply ‘responsibility’ and ‘absoluteness’ becomes depends on how much responsibility each state evinces. It has also become impossible for the states to act without consultation, even though unilateralism still exist.

Based on these assumptions, the world in which the Republic of South Sudan is operating has changed to encompass other actor states couldn’t function without them. It is apparent that the problems in one country became shared.

The political or economic crisis in one part of the world becomes an issue for other countries due to global integration. This sharing of problems often warranted other countries to interfere in matters that do not directly concern them.

The assumption that the world has become a ‘larger metropolis’ implies that an outbreak of Zika virus in one region requires a collective responding to prevent it from spreading to other areas. This is the same when the country is in a crisis of war. The creed of collective responsibility allows other states or institution to intervene with or without an approval of the state in question to protect the lives.

The United Nations, for instance, justify the intervention when the state has defaulted on its responsibility for protection or when it engaged in criminal activities against its people.

In both concept and practice, intervention is a breach of state’s sovereignty of states, but its proponents cited different incidences where the upholding of the non-interference creed led to the gruesome destruction of the human beings as inalienable creatures.

In the case of South Sudan, the UN and other groups calling for intervention invoked the idea that government is unable to protect its population from harms.

Whether such charges hold any truth true is the question of debate, but it is true that the ongoing crisis of violence had ushered South Sudan into worse crises more than just an inevitable social-political quagmire it was built upon.

With these issues, it is not only the violence between the SPLM-IG, and SPLM-ITB as it is now referred, that is responsible for the permeating crisis that affects the country. South Sudan’s crises are engrained and continually fuelled by historical debacles of violence which are interlaced with problems of weak institutions, overwhelming structural issues, including ethnic antagonism and factional competitions for power.

History of Africans continent and another part of the world tells us such debacles cannot all be resolved through an armed, but soft intervention.

Unlike political leaders, most experts are conditioned into believing that armed interventions are a lesser remedy to the situations where the clamour for war reaches fever pitch, as it was during the intervention in Somalia, and Libya recently.

These incidences produce a litmus test for intervention and also create the departure point for a state like South Sudan, to rebuke as a fallacy, the intended perusing of the intervention.

Soft intervention in this case, does not mean the third actor, like the UN and others, will cease being proactive in their approach, protracted conflict, like in South Sudan required an incentive method seeks to manage the war and preserve peace using political negotiation.

The UN or IGAD in the case of South Sudan needs to use incentives and deterrents to influence the policy position of the parties at war, especially their choices negate violence and choose peace.

Still the soft intervention approach is not well-received by scholars preoccupied with the realist tradition of international relations, built largely on the capabilities of states and their power relationships, a tendency that gravitated toward dimensions of hard power or military action, then the pressures and incentives to influence the behaviour of actors, in question, such South Sudan and the various rebel movements.

Lastly, the call for the option of soft intervention as for suitable for South Sudan lies in its social-political reality. Unlike other countries emerging from war, war and relapse back to war, South Sudan is a world newest state ‘born of crises’ and tensions.

Before 2011, what is now a Republic of South Sudan was the largest terrain roamed by hostile revolutionaries. In this sense, South Sudan was founded and built from nothing more than perturbs of wars. It doesn’t have main pillars of the state. Its security forces were drawn from rebellions armies; the political system never existed, as well as the capacity, including infrastructures and human capital.

I said these not as an effort to legitimize South Sudan’s default on its sovereign responsibilities, but it problematizes the charges of referring it as ‘fail’ to prevent violence because it was not free from violence nor vested with a capable system to prevent violence.

South Sudan was founded on the crisis, which is now ensuing and growing, and we need to question instead how to manage those conflicts, rather for the UN, and its friend’s in the region to bring in more arms that will worsen the crises.

The forcible action is not a right procedure to avert the crises in South Sudan because it will not stop the war between the factions. It will heighten the war and the potential for confrontation between the international forces and local people.

I am not eager of the proposed UN force, even though allowed due to many reasons. First, stopping war does not need the militarisation. Secondly, problems of South Sudan are not confined to Juba, but the entire country. So, how should stationing forces in Juba serve the purpose of the intervention?

South Sudan crises are not confined to the leadership contest between rival factions. Hence, if the UN and IGAD countries are pushing for the intervention to enforce the peace and project civilians by basing their troops in Juba, it is elaborately clear that it doesn’t matter, how paranoid the government of South Sudan in thinking the intervention is politically driven, but even some sensible people would think otherwise.

This is because the scope of the proposed force, its location and its role does not conform to what is fundamentally affecting the country.

I disagreed with the argument of sovereignty as the sole basis of why South Sudan should reject the intervention, though it is not wrong.

What will make more sense is to question how the UN forces are going to address the crises ranging from lack of institutions to the heavy militarisation of South Sudan? There is also need to question the motive of drumbeating IGAD countries, like Kenya and Rwanda, whether their concern is pure humanitarian or political economy of the intervention?

It cannot be denied that Kenya, Ethiopia and Rwanda may harbour some political interest in South Sudan, and would jump the bandwagons of intervention with such delight and relish to meet those interests should the opportunity unveiled itself.

However, what I thought to be the key motivation for these countries lies in their attempt to reach deep financial pockets of the international community. A serious charge, it seems, but the facts are clear.

First, Kenya, Ethiopia and Rwanda have issues in their countries that require the presence of their forces.

Secondly, the leaders of these countries know the situation in South Sudan is fluid and would require dialogue not force.

Thirdly, Rwanda and Ethiopia had already contributed forces to UNMISS and Kenya is engaging in the UN-backed mission in Somalia. These deployments came with financial royalties to the contributing nations, to cater for their forces.

But most importantly, the salaries of their men and women serving in the blue helmet uniform are taken care of by the UN. In this sense, I would argue that these countries are seeking more economic opportunities by offering their forces to the UN to free their budgets. Kenya and Ethiopia, in particular, might have a political motive in South Sudan, but their bottom-line interest lies not in the remedy of intervention in South Sudan, but the economic compensation from UN for putting their soldiers in harms ways.

Marial Mach A’duot is a South Sudanese reside in Melbourne. He can be reached for comments at pandepiol@yahoo.com

Taban Gai, the Vice: A Traitor doing nothing about anything!

Kenya Media: AUG/17/2016, SSN;

South Sudan’s first vice president Taban Deng Gai has accused rebel leader Riek Machar of stalling a peace agreement aimed at ending violence in the country.

During a visit to Kenya and in a press conference surrounding by defense minister, the murderous Kuol Manyang and the deputy information minister, Akol, both Dinka, Taban Gai claimed Machar ran “a parallel government in Juba” before he fled following violence that rocked the capital in July.

He said the government and rebel armies will be merged by May next year.

“It is easier for us now to implement the peace agreement because we have cohesion. When Riek Machar was in Juba, the issue of parallel armies was overused. We are moving very fast to have one national army by May next year,” he said.

He said he and others disagreed with Machar when he asked them to leave Juba with him in July.

“He wanted us to leave Juba with him in July … but we said no, because we no longer stand by deeds that won’t bring peace to our country. I have managed to create harmony in our government and we are moving forward,” he said.

He said the country is greater than individuals.

“If he decides to come [back], we shall discuss that, but he will know that he will have to listen to his boys this time round,” he said.

He said South Sudan is still waiting for regional leaders to meet in Juba to discuss the deployment of troops under the Protective Force Brigade recently endorsed by the UN Security Council.

Gai said he met with President Uhuru Kenyatta to brief him on the progress of the peace agreement and to seek assistance for rebuilding South Sudan.

Alleged involvement of Pres. Salva Kiir, Museveni and Israel in the killing of Dr. John Garang: Latest

From: Alintibaha.net, Khartoum, AUG/16/2016;

Sources in Juba and Khartoum:
A high-ranking military intelligence officer in the Government of South Sudan, who requested complete anonymity, has revealed the alleged complicity of South Sudan president, Salva Kiir along with that of the prominent Dinka politician, Bona Malual, and with the cooperation of the Israeli intelligence, the MOSSAD and that of Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, along with Western Intelligence agencies and churches, in the assassination of the president of South Sudan and leader of the SPLM/A, the late Dr. John Garang d’Mabior.

According to the leaked intelligence report, the main reason Dr. John Garang was killed was because of his strong refusal of the proposal these groups named above had presented to him and advised him on, which is the total separation of South Sudan from North Sudan.

The military officer alleged that the last trip of Garang to Uganda was not to meet foreign Western countries’ ambassadors in Uganda, it was that Garang was to undertake a planned secret trip to Tel Aviv, Israel.

However, when Dr. John Garang arrived in Uganda, he was put on a special plane of Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni and all flew direct to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Israeli leaders and representatives of various Christian churches organizations and other supporters of the South Sudan liberation war.

Reportedly, during the meeting, these groups presented to Dr. Garang the plan for the total separation of South Sudan from the North and they demanded from Garang to only work for this particular objective of the total independence of South Sudan.

Unfortunately, however, Dr. Garang totally refused and he told those people and groups that he was planning only on demanding for their support and assistance, and that he was firmly demanding for the creation of the New Sudan (Sudan el Gedid) and not for the separation of South Sudan.

These groups insisted to Garang that their assistance all along that they had given the liberation movement was meant for the objective of achieving a separate independent South Sudan.

These differences continued after the end of the meeting and Museveni and Israeli leaders discreetly contacted SPLM/A leaders and urged them that Garang’s life will not last long and will be dependent on the political struggle.

Thereafter, as revealed by the intelligence officer, the Mossad, worked out a plan to assassinate John Garang which involved those who were with him on the same plane. Garang returned to Uganda and when he took the last trip on a helicopter from Museveni’s private home town, the plan of killing him matured.

As precisely planned by Mossad and their collaborators, Garang’s plane will only have enough fuel to take him up to the Immatong mountains were it will crash and kill him and all those with him on the aircraft.

The only and last people who met Dr. John Garang in Entebbe on his last journey to South Sudan were Pagan Amum and Yassir Arman. END

Why South Sudan should accept deployment of 4,000 regional protection forces.

BY: Chol Deng Yol , South Sudan, AUG/15/2016, SSN;

Political manipulation is amplifying in South Sudan to the extent that the informed folks have become uninformed; truth have become untruths, deceptions and deceits proceed honesty, allegation turns newscast and news chances claims. There is just too much confusion; the public is disordered with unsubstantiated information here and there.

Two weeks ago, politicians organized peaceful demonstrations in all states of South Sudan to protest against foreign forces intervention following IGAD’s communiques on South Sudan. One week later, the same politicians, after the AU Summit in Addis Ababa, accepted deployment of what they called “Protection” force to South Sudan, defeating the purpose of the earlier organized peaceful demonstrations in the country.

The very innocent general public including school children who were organized into peaceful demonstrators, even though, rejecting deployment of foreign troops were puzzled by the government shifting position to unconditional acceptance of the foreign troops.

To some informed citizens, the government shifting position was translated as a ploy to score some diplomatic scores regionally.

The uninformed majority duped as “peaceful demonstrators” were made to understand that UN was set to take over the Country’s affairs. To the poor uneducated and unconscious South Sudanese, there existed little knowledge on the difference between the so-called UN Trusteeship/stewardship and regional protection forces.

Erroneous analysis of the root causes of our problems will always make fools of us, the South Sudanese.

Transiently, we are in current crises because of power struggling among the SPLM elites. These elites, because of their thirst for power, have fragmented the legendary SPLM party into IO, IG, DC, and SPLM Equatoria etc.

To the politicians, the knowledge gaps among the general population have turned into golden opportunity to misinform the uninformed citizens to rebel against the international community, particularly the UN, instead of against the very politicians who have mishandled the affairs of the sovereign state, South Sudan.

From time to time, our South Sudanese politicians lie to the public that the UN and the international community should be blamed for the ongoing political crises because they both have interests to proclaim the sovereignty and leadership of the government.

But the question begs; to whom is the principle of sovereignty attested to? Do we have sovereign state or sovereign individuals in South Sudan?

In modern societies, individual persons do not have sovereignty unless they are absolute rulers like the Pharaoh, but this is the case yet again in South Sudan.

Our politicians act as if they are above the sovereignty of this beloved country forgetting that they are under the sovereignty of another entity called South Sudan. Naturally, we, the South Sudanese are impatient with high temperatures but these high dispositions will always put our beloved country at risk.

Cognizant of our people temperament and the government’s way of handling political and diplomatic issues, the recent adoption of the UNSC resolution 2304 (2016) on the deployment of 4000 regional protection forces to South Sudan was a clear assessment to the South Sudanese diplomatic maturity; the world has resorted to our neighbors, with their fickle interests, to fix our house, a move that will likely be rejected by the government.

For the government of South Sudan to maintain her face globally, acquiescence to the deployment of the regional forces remains the only viable option otherwise the current regime will be isolated diplomatically.

What the government should do now is to work-out the “exit” strategy for the regional protection forces; negotiate the size, mandate, weapons and contributing countries.

Direct confrontations with IGAD, African Union (AU) as well as the UN Country member states will not only scare away investors, including big financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, but also will motivate possibility of placing South Sudan under some form of international supervision.

Threats of arms embargo and sanctions may be avoided only if our government avoids further falling-out with the United Nations country member states as well as the UN Security Council.

I would conclusively advise our government to approach diplomatic matters with sober thoughts because in the middle of difficulty lies any opportunity, otherwise accepting regional forces is far much better than the UN Trusteeship.

Can President Kiir Man Up Like President Nkurunziza This Time?

By: Simon Yel Yel, Juba, South Sudan, AUG/15/2016, SSN;

“No Nation has the right to make decisions for another nation; No people for another people,” Julius Kambarage Nyerere, from his ‘A Peaceful New Year’ speech given in Tanzania on 1 January 1968.

When patriotic South Sudanese look at the world, we see a swarm of threats and hatred. Threats that start from our region to the United States. Our neighboring countries including Uganda and Kenya are plausibly warming up for aggression against South Sudan any time at the behest of the United States.

There is no doubt that Washington and United Nations are extending their usual aggression on the pretext of promoting democracy, humanitarian assistance, human rights and protection of civilians as means of ousting independently-minded government of South Sudan.

Washington did it before to the leaders of countries which had refused to show deference to Washington such as Saddam of Iraq, Gaddafi of Libya and Assad of Syria.

What had happened on Friday night in the United Nations Security Council meeting is a rubber stamp of what IGAD countries framed in Ethiopia on 5th this month under the instruction of the United States.

Regrettably, our foreign policy makers have spectacularly failed to solve the arithmetic of diplomatic courtship equation of convincing just one permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto the United States sponsored proposal.

To the surprise of many people, our diplomats also failed to convince China. Many people couldn’t believe that China, the principal beneficiary of oil investment in South Sudan, has taken a neutral position and reservedly sat on fence folding its hands while its earphone is on listening to music.

Meanwhile Russia, the possible potential partner looks to be fatigued of always vetoing several United States sponsored proposals against South Sudan has decided to take a neutral position also.

The choice is now squarely up to the government to choose between rejecting the regional troops and face the arms embargo or accept the regional troops and there should be no arms embargo; in other words, it is a choice to choose between a rock and a hard place.

In fact, the IGAD countries have also a choice to choose whether to remain as a tool of the United States and bring their troops to invade South Sudan or follow the decision taken by the Sudan and Uganda governments not to be part of regional forces deployment in South Sudan.

If IGAD countries choose to be a tool, they will possibly taste the bitter reverberations in their countries and the region will experience the worst deadly civil war ever of massive scale and indeed the IGAD and East Africa Community will dichotomize.

It is an open secret that Washington is not run by idiots. But by the political elites who have consolidated their power and become accustomed to their status as the owners of the world. They act as they want; dividing the ruling elites of any country that they want to target and using money to bribe or buy the governments of neighboring countries of that targeted country; forcing unnecessary resolution on UNSC and handing over its execution to those neighboring countries to achieve the desired goal of the United states.

They build coalitions based on principle “if you are not with us, you are against us.” The self-speaking evidence is in Syria. The United States have used Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and others to fight Bashar Assad and now the United States wants to use Kenya and Ethiopia to fight Salva Kiir.

When it comes to Africa, our ruling elites don’t see what American ruling elites are doing. There is no Coalition or Organization in Africa that can protect its targeted member states. Lamentably, the ruling elites in Africa laxly decided to let Washington dip its hands into our affairs.

Burundi is the only country in Africa which said NO to the United States’ interference in its affairs. For the ruling elites in Burundi, to go from being a country that respects the sovereignty of another nation and negotiates on equal footing to one that decides destiny for another country is intolerable.

The ruling elites in Burundi have consolidated their power and they proved that they can’t be pushed by the United States and the United Nations whatsoever the case may be.

President Nkurunziza has bravely refused to be bullied by the UNSC and AU resolutions on sending troops to protect civilians. He tremendously proved to Washington and its puppets in Africa that he is the president, captain of Burundi and once rebel leader whose military mentality had not faded away.

He stood firm in rejecting the deployment of the regional troops and threatened to shoot them should they land in his country. Earlier this this month, he also rejected the UNSC resolution on sending 200 UN police to protect civilians. They are not bombed into oblivion and life is normal now in Burundi.

Contrast to our ruling elites in Juba, they failed to consolidate their power and they proved that they can easily be pushed back and forth by the United Nations and United States. Our ruling elites should leave off their current stance and try to ex-cogitate how the ruling elites in Burundi are handling their affairs.

In fact, after the President Bush left the White House, Kiir’s troubles immediately started but with pride and determination, he safely sailed the southern Sudan to the Republic of South Sudan in conditions of Washington interference to cause power wrangling in the SPLM party to oust him.

This interference is speculated to have been supercharged by the decision taken by the President Salva Kiir to continue with China as a contractor after the independence.

With the current unfolding state of affairs, Kiir must show the United Nations his military wit and prove to the world that he was once a rebel leader and President who can’t be aghast by war whatever magnitude it may be by rejecting the deployment of regional troops. Kiir must show firm stance on rejection of regional troops this time. Otherwise, he wouldn’t last for long.

Arguably, Kiir’s shifting stance on national and security issues is the loophole or ambiguity that many countries and the United Nations took for impuissance. If the phrase “The existence of UNMISS in the country is the first grave mistake” is an exaggeration, then the phrase “the usual unexpected shift of government’s stance on national and security issues nourishes the current state of affairs” reflects the current situation quite accurately in my opinion.

We are all aware that Obama wants to implement the Vision of New World Oder as he made it crystal clear on 24th March 2014 in Brussels when he addressed the EU leaders. He said “And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. That order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.”

Unfortunately, our neighboring countries refused to see and comprehend this clear language of the Washington. Obama wants us to surrender our rights and hard-won sovereignty of South Sudan to the Washington to govern us. But over my dead body, as long as South Sudanese women continue to procreate and as long as there are youth like me, Gatkuoth, Lado, Kenyi, Omer, Poni, Nyaruech and Atong, we will fight the Americans and their puppets till the end of the world.

We are independent nation and we shall never relinquish our sovereignty to any nation even if it threatens or bombs us into oblivion.

It is very clear and apparent that the United States and United Nations have a long history of invading countries selling their aggressive wars to the people as “humanitarian intervention, protection of civilians or democracy operations”.

From Yugoslavia to Somalia, from Yemen to Libya, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Ivory Coast to Congo, and now in South Sudan, the United States and the United Nations have intervened under various false pretexts and the result is always the same, destroyed states, changed the regimes, killed the presidents by hanging or firing squad, arrested and jailed the presidents in the ICC, and massive casualties.

In other words, it is the implementation of the Washington “shoot-to-feed” program of looting resources. Washington invaded and destroyed Iraq, Libya and other countries purely because of the Oil they were bestowed with.

If African leaders don’t stand up to stop this budding American colonization and lust for other countries’ natural resources, such evil acts will never stop as long African leaders fear the United States as an undisputed hegemony.

One of the most obstinate about African leaders is that no matter how many countries the United States illegally invades, exploits, threatens, kills people, ousts the regimes or colonizes around the globe including Africa, they still cling to the delusion that the United States is a “ force for good” in the world and adore it.

African leaders must understand that that the serious threat to regional peace most certainly is not Nkurunziza, Salva Kiir nor Robert Mugabe but the United States sponsored aggressions through the United Nations targeting their countries.

In conclusion, it is worth recalling the joke that President Salva Kiir once said in 2014 in Rumbek. He said “during the liberation days when I was a commander of Tiger division, people used to fear me a lot. But now they don’t fear me again, I don’t know whether it is because I have hidden my claws of Tiger inside the paw or what? And if so, then I will remove out my claws.”

I think this is a right time for the President Salva Kiir to prove to the United States, United Nations and our neighboring countries that he once has claws of Tiger and still he has them.

For the President Salva Kiir to conveniently prove to the United States and United Nations and indeed to South Sudanese to know that he has claws of Tiger is only if he: speeds up the integration process of SPLM-IO into the National Army; makes sure that Riek Machar is six (6) feet down the ground in the shortest time possible; relocates the UNMISS 50 miles away from Juba; Never give in to deployment of regional troops; and organizes a nationwide massive youth recruitment into the SPLA.

President Salva Kiir must recall that we fought against Arabs for over four decades because of colonialism and South Sudan is not a donation from the UN or United States but a nation which cost 2.5 million lives to be a sovereign country. We shall never give a damn to whoever wants to colonize us, be a white man or black white-hearted man.

No nation has the right to make a decision for another nation. Can President Salva Kiir this time man up like President Nkurunziza and say NO TO REGIONAL TROOPS DEPLOYMENT ONCE AND FOR ALL?

Simon Yel Yel is the co-editor of the book of the President Salva Kiir’s speeches and essential writings published as “Salva Kiir Mayardit: The Joshua of South Sudan”. He can be reached at maandeng2017@gmail.com or 0955246235.

untroopdeploy22

untroopsdeploy22

LATEST: Kiir rejects deployment of 4,000 regional troops to South Sudan, the implications

International Press: AUG/14/2016, SSN;

Regardless of the Kiir government’s latest rejection, the UN has approved the deployment of 4,000 foreign troops to South Sudan. Presidential Spokesperson Ateny Wek Ateny, told the media that the government of President Salva Kiir on whose behalf he spoke, will not cooperate with the United Nations approved force “because we will not allow our country to be taken over by U.N. Any force that will be called Juba Protection Force will not be accepted.

Ateny made the remarks after the government convened a cabinet meeting at which it was resolved to send a letter rejecting a proposal authorizing deployment of protection force from the region under the united nations mission in South Sudan.

The letter prepared by the minister of cabinet affairs, Martin Elia Lomuro and approved by president Kiir likened the deployment of 4,000 foreign troops to “invasion and interference in the internal affairs”.

Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda are expected to contribute the bulk of the troops who will be authorised to use “all necessary means — including undertaking robust action — to fulfill their mandate”.

The force would ensure security in Juba and at the airport and “promptly and effectively engage any actor that is credibly found to be preparing or engaging in attacks”.

The council would consider imposing an arms embargo on South Sudan if UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reports that there are impediments to the deployment.

Ban will deliver a report to the council in 30 days and a vote on the embargo could take place in five days if he finds that the government is uncooperative.

South Sudan’s war has raged for two and half years, fuelled by growing stockpiles of weapons.

Britain voiced disappointment that the embargo was not imposed immediately with deputy ambassador Peter Wilson telling the council: “We must and we will return to this issue.”

TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS

The vote followed a week of tough negotiations, with China, Russia and Egypt voicing concerns over deploying UN peacekeepers without the government’s full consent.

South Sudan’s ambassador said his government rejected the resolution, telling the council that details of the deployment — including timing and the weapons the troops would be allowed to carry — must be negotiated with Juba.

“Consent of South Sudan would have been important as it would have given the force the necessary freedom to carry out the outlined mandate tasks,” said Akuei Bona Malwal.

Uganda, an ally of President Kiir, said it would not contribute troops to the force, even as the UNHCR reported that 110,000 South Sudanese had crossed into Uganda, by latest reports.

“No one thinks this regional force will be a cure-all to the instability and the violence that exists there,” US deputy ambassador David Pressman told reporters. Sudan also declined to join this regional force.

The United Nations Security Council took vigorous action on Friday to greatly strengthen a peacekeeping force in South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, ravaged by civil war and suffering for nearly three years. The South Sudanese government immediately vowed not to cooperate.

A resolution, passed by an 11-to-0 vote with four abstentions, basically gives the United Nations far more authority in South Sudan, backed by thousands of additional troops and lethal force if needed, to protect civilians and pressure armed antagonists in the conflict — including government soldiers. It also threatens to impose an arms embargo on the country.

The Security Council’s approval came as the mandate of the current peacekeeping operation, known as the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, or Unmiss, was about to expire. Unmiss has not been effective, as a peace agreement has been repeatedly ignored.

The resolution, sponsored by the United States, represents an unusually robust action by the Council, invoking its rarely used coercive power to militarily intervene when international peace and security are considered to be threatened.

David Pressman, an American ambassador at the United Nations who attended the vote, criticized the South Sudanese government for what he described as actions that had crippled Unmiss’s ability to operate.

“Until the leaders of South Sudan are willing to put what is good for their people before themselves — putting peace ahead of personal ambition and power — and until they show the will to find a political solution to this grinding conflict, the people of South Sudan will continue to suffer from the bloodshed and instability their leaders wreak,” Mr. Pressman said after the resolution was approved.

South Sudan’s government opposed the strengthened peacekeeping mission, raising the possibility of clashes between the country’s armed forces and foreign soldiers deployed there by the United Nations.

Under the resolution, the United Nations’ mission will be extended for at least three months, and a new 4,000-soldier “regional protection force” will be deployed in Juba, the capital, and other strategic locations, including the airport.

The new force represents an increase of over 30 percent in armed personnel for the United Nations mission of 12,000 troops, which has been unable to stop episodic bouts of killing and abuses, including widespread rape, by both government forces and rebel factions.

United Nations soldiers and aid workers have been repeatedly harassed and attacked, and in some cases killed. Thousands of South Sudanese civilians, fearing for their lives, have been living in United Nations sites in Juba and other locations.

The resolution specifies that the new force, which diplomats said would mostly be drawn from neighboring countries, will be authorized to “promptly and effectively engage any actor that is credibly found to be preparing attacks, or engages in attacks, against United Nations protection of civilians sites, other United Nations premises, United Nations personnel, international and national humanitarian actors, or civilians.”

The resolution does not impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, some member states and outside advocates, including international rights groups, had wanted.

But in what was intended as a coercive step, the resolution allows an arms embargo to be imposed if the government does not cooperate.

The resolution’s failure to achieve a unanimous approval of the 15-member Security Council partly reflected the difficulties it has often faced in deciding on any action involving the use of military force.

Russia, China, Egypt and Venezuela, the Council members that abstained, had criticized some provisions in the resolution. Russia and China in particular have been reluctant to take actions that they view as incursions on another country’s sovereignty.

Still, the Russians and Chinese did not feel strongly enough to exercise their veto power, which both have as permanent Security Council members.

South Sudan’s promise as a newly independent state in 2011 devolved into civil war two years later, and has left tens of thousands dead and more than 2.3 million people displaced.

Soldiers loyal to President Kiir — who belongs to the Dinka ethnic group, South Sudan’s largest — battled troops led by Riek Machar of the Nuer ethnic group, which is believed to be the second largest.

Troops on both sides committed human rights abuses against civilians on a devastating scale, United Nations human rights officials and other groups have found.

A peace deal officially ended the fighting last year. Mr. Machar, who had served as vice president before he was dismissed in 2013, agreed to become Mr. Kiir’s deputy again and returned to Juba in April.

But fighting broke out again between the two sides on July 7, killing hundreds. Mr. Machar’s residence was destroyed and he fled the capital. He has refused to return to Juba until more international troops are deployed.

Last week, an investigation by the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, placed most of the blame for the violence, which it said included mass rapes, on Mr. Kiir’s forces. Mr. Hussein said that while some civilians were killed in the crossfire, others were summarily executed by government forces who appear to have singled out members of the Nuer, an ethnic group loyal to Mr. Machar. The investigation also found that these same forces committed most of the 217 cases of sexual violence, many involving minors.

The resolution also calls for an arms embargo, but only if the government does not cooperate with the expanded peacekeeping force. The Security Council has threatened several times in the last 18 months to block arms shipments without making good on the threat.

And the Obama administration, apparently fearful of losing leverage with Mr. Kiir, has refused to cut off the arms flow. While such a ban would affect both sides, experts believe it would have more impact on the government, the only side with heavy weapons, including helicopter gunships from Ukraine.

Severing that supply chain, as well as the trade in tanks and artillery, could actually get Mr. Kiir’s attention.