Archive for: November 2017

The SPLM (IG) & FDS Latest Cairo Declaration: It’s Regional Ramifications

BY: Ambassador Emmanuel Aban Ajawin, NOV/20/2017, SSN;

On the 16th November, 2017 Cairo witnessed the signing of an agreement between two factions of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, in the government (SPLMIG) and SPLM Former Detainees (FDs), which became known as the Cairo Declaration.

This declaration, unlike previous declarations/agreements inked by the fractured SPLM factions in their quest for elusive unity, presents a significant strategic shift in Egypt’s approach towards issues of peace and security pertaining to the Republic of South Sudan and the region.

The strategic shift is so not much in the geopolitical position of Egypt within the region and its direct involvement with the SPLM factions, but rather it is based on Egypt’s propitious timing in light of the recent statement attributed to President Abdul Fattah El-Sissi on the 8th November, 2017 at a news conference in Sharm el-Sheikh.

The President stated that ‘We view positively the developmental needs of our friends and brothers in Ethiopia and we are capable of protecting our national security and water which to us is a question of national security.’

The same sentiment was repeated on the 18th November after Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia failed to approve a study on the potential effects of the Ethiopia GRED.

In televised comment where he attended the inauguration of a fish farm in the Nile Delta province of Kafr el-Sheika, Egypt’s President stated that ‘water is a matter of life or death and that no one can touch Egypt’s share of water.’

Considering these Presidential statements against the recently signed Cairo Declaration in the Headquarters of the Egyptian Intelligent Services (GIS Mukhabarat) and witnessed by both the Egyptian chief of (Mukhabarat) and his Ugandan’s Counter-part, it is abundantly clear that the Horn of Africa and particularly South Sudan, will be witnessing a portentous future dominated by proxy wars.

The Egyptians are sending an unequivocal diplomatic statement that they have decided, without any reservations, to support the government of South Sudan and its ruling party the SPLM, under the tyranny of President Kiir and his ethnocentric regime.

The unification of the SPLM and preservation of the status quo as the ruling party in South Sudan, has become a matter of great importance for the Egyptian national security strategy.

Instead of standing in solidarity with the victims and the oppressed people of South Sudan, Egypt has cast the dice on the wrong side of history.

It has decided to align itself with a government that lacks legitimacy and which is responsible for the on-going infernal civil war, commissioning of heinous war crimes, crimes against humanity, displacement of millions and genocide.

The signed Cairo Declaration between the members of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, SPLM-IG and Former Detainees (FDs), and which was facilitated and supervised by H.E. Abdul Fattah El-Sissi, the President of the Republic of Egypt and H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni the President of the Republic of Uganda, unfortunately, is just a pie in the sky and will not achieve durable peace and stability in South Sudan.

In fact, the political ills and quagmire that have befallen the nascent Republic rest squarely on the shoulders of the SPLM political and military elites.

Since the independence of South Sudan in July 2011, the SPLM members who signed the Cairo Declaration are the same leaders who failed to articulate and provide a comprehensive political, social and economic road map that would have scientifically addressed the prodigious and convoluted issues of state and nation building.

They became entangled in webs of corruption, embezzlement of public monies and money laundering with absolute impunity. Millions of dollars that were received from the international donors and from the oil revenues ended up in the pockets of the SPLM political and military elites leaving the majority of the population destitute, hungry and poor.

It is therefore, unfathomable and of poor judgement to think that salvaging South Sudan from imminent economic collapse, social break down and political disintegration, lies in the unification of various SPLM factions.

Solutions to social, political and economic ills in South Sudan are now beyond the confines of the SPLM political and military mafias.

The Arab Republic of Egypt in the distant past has played a positive and commendable role towards South Sudanese by providing academic scholarships to study in its various institutions of higher learning.

Currently, Egypt is hosting large numbers of South Sudanese refugees despite the economic constrain the country is facing. South Sudanese will always be grateful for the hospitality and generosity Egypt has rendered.

However, since the outbreak of the current civil war in 2013, Egypt has shifted its traditional approach towards South Sudan from humanitarian and educational spheres to political, diplomatic and military assistance of the oppressive regime in Juba.

In December, 2016 it has played an instrumental role at the United Nations Security Council in opposing an arms embargo resolution on South Sudan, introduced by the United States of America.

Militarily, South Sudanese opposition groups have allegedly accused Egypt of rendering logistical, technical and air support to the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in its brutal war against the people of South Sudan.

Why is the Egyptian government spending its resources and tax payer’s money on a defunct and corrupt regime in Juba?

In answering the above question, it is imperative to note that Egypt’s foreign policy and security strategies towards South Sudan are heavily influenced by its strategy to ensure the uninterrupted flow of the Nile water which she entirely depends on for itsex istence as a nation.

Hence Nile waters have become the most important element of its national security strategy towards the Horn of Africa and South Sudan.

The notion that Nile waters could be shared amicably with the upstream countries, is an
intolerable reality for Egypt as it perceives such actions to be against its survival and
national interest.

The first serious attempt by Cairo to implement its water policy visa-vis South Sudan was the commissioning of the Jonglei Canal Project. In the 1980s, the governments of Sudan and Egypt embarked on an ambitious plan to build a canal that became known as Jonglei Canal Project.

The purpose of the hydro-construction project in Upper Nile Province at the time was to ensure the flow of 4.7 billion cubic meters of water annually, to be shared equally between Egypt and Sudan.

The problem with the Jonglei Canal was that the two governments didn’t consult the people of Southern Sudan extensively, and as a result it was unpopular, becoming one of the seminal reasons for the South Sudanese to take up arms against the regime of Jaafar Nimeiri in 1983.

What is left of the project is the destroyed $50 million gigantic bucket-wheel excavator, an enormous piece of German engineering. Its destruction was a testimony to the people’s resistance against imposed projects that didn’t take their views and concerns into consideration.

In fact the striking correlation between the doomed Jonglei Canal Project and the Cairo Declaration is that both were made with political allies that are unpopular, corrupt, undemocratic and dictatorial.

Egypt should have learned a valuable lesson from the Jonglei Canal that people and not governments should be its true strategic allies as far as South Sudan is concerned.

Supporting the illegitimate and dictatorial government in Juba would have negative ramifications on the future relations between Egypt and the people of South Sudan.

The Egyptian government should take a brotherly and catalytic role in bridging the prodigious political apogees between the various political groups in South Sudan, rather than supporting the unpopular SPLM regime.

The hosting of the SPLM reunification meetings in Cairo, and especially the involvement of its Intelligence Services (CIS-Mukhabarat) has created a perception, real or imaginary, that South Sudan could be used by Egypt in its proxy wars in the region, if diplomacy fails to resolve the current impasse on the Nile water negotiations.

In the past, Egypt has never hesitated to use its military might against countries that it perceived to be threat to its national security pertaining to Nile waters.

Egypt under the leadership of Khedive Ismail Pasha in 1875-76 invaded the northern region of
Ethiopia with the objective of controlling the source of the Blue Nile (Abay). Emperor Yohannes IV defeated the invading Egyptian forces at Gundet and Gura respectively.

Although, the battles of Gundet and Gura were the last physical confrontations between Egypt and Ethiopia, relations between the two countries for more than one hundred years have been characterized by deep suspicion, paranoia, diplomatic and proxy wars.

The Egyptian political gamble of supporting SPLM factions, will compel other countries in the region to search for allies within and outside South Sudan. This will undoubtedly compound the already complicated situation in South Sudan.

The battle ground for the region’s water wars would be fought in South Sudan with dire consequences on human lives and properties. South Sudan could slip into a perpetual state of war for many decades to come.

In the long term, these wars could lead to the collapse of South Sudan as a state, with its becoming a breeding ground for terrorist organizations including ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates.

Given the strategic geographical location of South Sudan, the regionalization of conflict within its borders will pose a serious threat to the international peace and security.

Therefore, it is prudent and incumbent upon the international community, AU, UN and Troika to exert pressure on both Egypt and Uganda to leave the people of South Sudan to resolve their political, social and economic crisis without interference, or the presence of various political forces in the country to fight their proxy wars. Enough is enough!

The international community should put an end to unwarranted interventions by some of the regional countries into the affairs of South Sudan.

The African Union (AU) and the United Nations should consider punitive actions against countries that are prolonging and profiting from the war in South Sudan, otherwise if these unwarranted state of affairs are left to continue unchallenged, the envisaged IGAD High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) may end up dead before it even commences. END

Riek Machar is Failing the Opposition against Kiir’s tyranny

BY: Samuel Atabi, South Sudan, NOV/20/2017, SSN;

In her November 15, 2017 remarks at the Holocaust Museum, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said two things which gave me both hope and caused me despair on the war in South Sudan.

When she repeated the words of Elie Wiesel (a holocaust survivor and a Nobel Laureate) that “We must always choose side” in the face of extreme human sufferings, I became truly hopeful that this time round the US government will side with the people of South Sudan vis-à-vis their leaders.

But when she spoke of “….South Sudanese government is engaged in a brutal protracted military campaign against a FRAGMENTED (my emphasis) opposition,” I despaired.

We South Sudanese who have philosophically ‘taken side’ with the opposition forces are extremely dismayed by the divisive and fragmented activities of the group.

In any conflict, such as that which is taking place among the South Sudanese opposition, positive, unifying and magnanimous overtures are expected from those who wield the most power.

In this case, the majority of the suffering South Sudanese expects Dr Riek Machar, the leader of the largest and most powerful of the armed opposition, the SPLM-IO, to take the first initiative to unite the opposition.

However, information now available in the public domain unequivocally indicates that Machar and his outfit are the source of the internecine fighting within and the fragmentation of opposition to which the ambassador referred.

The consequence of this internal division is the weakening of the opposition forces which are now ranged against the brutal and tribal regime in Juba.

A recent report by John Young (Isolation and Endurance: Riek Machar and the SPLM-IO 2016-17) brings into the open what many have been suspecting about the true character of Dr Machar.

According to the report, Machar is opposed to the unity of all groups fighting the government in Juba; instead, he prefers to absorb all of them in his SPLM-IO, where he will remain dominant.

He has contrived to make SPLM-IO weak by resisting institutionalization of the movement and formalization of its policy.

This weakness can then ensure his grip on the power and therefore, marginalization of potential opponents.

Most of SPLM-IO nominees to the parliament in Juba, following the August 2015 agreement, are young and political novices; again this is contrived to ensure his monopoly of power.

Prior to the report, many people suspected that Machar was …politically and intellectually insecure;
…that he was distrustful of his peers and colleagues, even those from his own Nuer tribe (several Nuer Generals and leaders have abandoned him);
…that he was a control freak who took advantage of the politically inexperienced youth to enhance his dominance;
…that he disdained the advice of his colleagues and peers (a harsh and close associate describes him ‘as obdurate as a donkey’);
…and that he was militarily careless about the lives of his colleagues and those of his young followers.

The last point is abundantly proven by the death of thousands of Nuer and other South Sudanese soldiers who were his followers at different military confrontations.

In 1991, when Machar separated from the Garang-led SPLA, thousands of his followers were killed on his account.

When he changed his mind and left his erstwhile allies in Khartoum, again the man abandoned thousands of his soldiers at the mercy of the Arabs.

Prior to 2013 pogrom, during which thousands of Nuer and other South Sudanese civilians were literally slaughtered, Machar failed to recognize the risks when Kiir, Malong and others were recruiting private militias to carry out this slaughter; he criminally failed to plan countervailing measures against the impending genocide.

When he fled Juba in 2013, he gain abandoned his own body guards to the guns of the Jieng militias.

Following his return to Juba in 2016, as a consequence of the August, 2015 peace agreement, he again acted to type: he led hundreds of his own body guards to death traps when they accompanied him to the July 8, 2016 night meeting at J1.

As if that was not enough, it is now clear that Machar had no plan for his forces for orderly withdrawal from Juba in case of military confrontations; these confrontations were expected even by non-military observers.

In the disorderly withdrawal, which later took him to DR Congo, hundreds of his body guards perished. Among the dead was a senior general from Equatoria, Lt Gen Martin Kenyi.

This litany of military disasters clearly amounts to accusations of incompetence and extreme dereliction of duty and responsibility for which any military general deserves to be court marshalled.

In October (16-18) 2017, six of the South Sudanese groups that are opposed to the Kiir government met in the town of Nyahururu in central Kenya to consult on how to work together in their effort to liberate the people of South Sudan.

Unsurprisingly, the leadership of the SPLM-IO declined to send a delegation to the meeting.

The outcome of this consultative meeting is the ‘Nyahururu Declaration’ in which the parties, SPLM-FD, FDP, NDM, SSNMC, NAS, and NAM, have agreed to form a broad alliance to achieve their objectives; they have also agreed to respect the autonomy of each group to exist separately but as a part of the alliance.

Again, the suffering South Sudanese can only view with consternation the absence of the SPLM-IO, which they expect to have given leadership to the emerging alliance.

Ultimately, Riek Machar, in the wake of new political and diplomatic reality on the issue of South Sudan, will have to make up his mind as to his own future and that of his organization.

He has two main choices:
1- he can lead his group into the fold of the new opposition alliance and constructively contribute to the freedom of South Sudanese;
2- he can continue with the present, lonely, destructive and divisive trajectory and become politically irrelevant in the politics of South Sudan, both in the short and long term; unless, of course, he capitulates to Taban Deng Gai and rejoins the JCE-controlled regime in Juba.

The choice is his.

Divided Rebellion, Indifferent government & the Politico-Military Impasse in South Sudan

BY: Kuir ë Garang, Author and commentator, NOV/12/2017, SSN;

“I need blankets. It is cold at night and I don’t want my children to get sick,” said the 23-year-old Rebecca Barnaba, a mother at Doro camp in Upper Nile State. But who’s listening?

It’s very clear in South Sudan that none of the political groups that claim to be the one with the interest of South Sudanese at heart is actually playing their verbal claims. They only attempt to exonerate themselves from Juba failures while consolidating their positions and potential power-sharing as future stakeholders.

Undoubtedly, South Sudan has reached a politico-military impasse. The rebels have markedly confused politico-military agendas and they have no strong military means or strategies to oust the leadership of President Kiir.

Their personal interest-driven agenda is actually turning them against one another. If their interest is political reforms or rescuing the country from descending even further into the proverbial rabbit hole, then their interests would have been aligned and united in a concerted strategy to launch a single front against Juba.

Unfortunately, we know that liberating South Sudan is far from the agenda of these once power-players in Juba.

Like the tribalized government in Juba, these rebel groups become the abode of tribal agendas dressed-up as liberation forces. How can a national leader recruit a tribal army and expect to have a national appeal?

How can such tribal militias whose purported agenda is to remove the failed Juba regime fight one another and expect to succeed?

Essentially, rebellion, as conceptualised and exercised by the current rebel leaders, is by no means a panacea to our political ills in South Sudan as such a strategic move requires wise, solution-focused, military-political strategist and an individual with an appreciable sense of selflessness.

So far, most, if not all, the satellite rebel groups, are after creating a negotiation and power-sharing front in the future political process.

As Aristotle once said, “Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.”

We are all angry in South Sudan – ALL OF US – but what are we using our anger for and who are we aiming it for? For rebel who purportedly took up arms against Juba, one wonders why they are ‘angry’ with their fellow rebels? It’s all about POWER!

However, these leaders will inundate us with exorbitant and ambitious claims of fighting to democratize Juba and bring freedom to the people of South Sudan.

By forming satellite, tribally-based rebel groups instead of uniting under a single force, these leaders have shown us that this is not about fighting for the people of South Sudan but power.

Since being a rebel with a fighting force makes one heard, rebelling to get a national and international profile, has become a normative, power-exercise reality in South Sudan.

However, the readers should know that I understand the reasons behind these leaders rebelling and I understand the extent to which president Kiir’s government is damaged and tribalized beyond redemption.

However, the manner in which rebellions are being formed and led will only lead to more suffering instead of positively bringing a complete political overhaul in Juba.

After forming his new rebel movement, National Democratic Movement in September of 2016, Dr. Lam Akol had this to say: “The National Democratic Movement (NDM) was born to wage the struggle, together with others in the field, against the totalitarian, corrupt and ethnocentric regime in Juba that is bent on dragging our country into the abyss.”

Akol added that, “It must be clear from the outset, the NDM is not just for change of personalities in Juba to replace them with others of the same feathers; it is out for a radical change in the country that will bring about genuine state-building and nation-building.”

In an interview with The Messenger in March this year, the leader of National Salvation Front (NSF), Thomas Cirillo Swaka, claimed that he is “Inspired by the spirit and need to create a new political dispensation in the country that is based on the principles of democracy, unity and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms anchored in a federal structure as the basis for uniting and rebuilding the country, the National Salvation Front is the movement determined to fight for a New South Sudan in which all its citizens will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

While these leaders have strong reasons for leaving Juba and the words quoted above appreciable, I doubt if their chosen methods to change the system in Juba would work. Until such time when these leaders unite, they’ll just be some territorial warlords in the bush.

What makes Lam and Cirillo think that they can do better than Dr. Riek Machar of SPLM-IO is something I would want to see. Reduced to a prisoner in South Africa with his movement only nominally functional and forces fighting without clear strategic plan, Riek Machar will have to admit his failure.

If he cannot use his leadership skills to prevail on South Africa to free him, then how can Riek Machar help South Sudanese?

Again, as long as these leaders believe they individually are the salvation torch-bearers, then rebellion will only be a negative feature in our country not a solution strategy.

What makes the above rebel position even more saddening is the fact that Juba is in no better position to seek an end to this impasse. The Agreement for the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) is dead, but the government operates as if it’s still something they are implementing or have implemented.

The National Dialogue, which actually admitted in its first document that it can only make recommendations to the president, is being pedalled by the government as another way to solve this impasse.

National Dialogues should only be used to heal not end wars. Since the president knows the grievances advanced by various rebel movements but he doesn’t want to sit with them, it’s clear that Juba isn’t interested in ending this impasse. It only wants to end the crisis in a manner that leaves its power-bases intact.

Besides, the treatment of General Malong Awan, the former Chief of General Staff, is a clear testimony that president Kiir isn’t interested in ending the country’s crisis. Creating more problems is not an act of a man who cares about his own people.

While I agree with the former political detainees about giving Dr. Riek Machar and President Kiir an exit package, something I proposed a few month ago, the former political detainees need to understand that they are an opposition group and any of their proposals will only be seen as a self-interested agenda to remove the government.

No matter the soundness of their proposal, the mere fact that they oppose both the SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO, will always project them as using their methods to get rid of them.

While SPLM-FDs propose a government of technocrats, they’ve not clearly explained who these technocrats would be even if we know that they also exclude themselves, like Kiir and Riek, in a would-be transitional government of technocrats.

However, the FDs should make clear if they are mere opposition group or solution providers. Their existence as part of the government in Juba and at the same time as fierce critics of President Kiir and Riek Machar, make me wonder what exactly they are doing?

They can’t be both a part of a failed government and pedalling as solution providers.

While FDs is one group that proposes alternative forms of government, their murky political stand compromises their proposals; and this makes it hard for them to be taken seriously. They should either remain as critics or become solution providers.

They can’t expect Juba to take them seriously if they bitterly criticise President Kiir as the problem and then again expect Kiir to respect their political settlement proposals.

Unless they pull out of the government, stop criticising IO and IG and only remain as a neutral, objective think tank that’s only interested in helping Juba and opposition arrive at workable solution models. But I guess this would make them politically irrelevant so they would not be stakeholders in any future power-sharing government.

So what’s the solution?

I propose that all the rebel groups unite under one leadership and fight against President Kiir. This would also give the international community, which already knows how rotten Kiir leadership is, an impression that a united rebel front is after a real political change in South Sudan not a mere cult of personality augmentation and tribal agenda-dressed-up as political reform.

Since this is going to be nearly impossible, then it’s high time for South Sudanese to dispense with IGAD and meet in Addis Ababa, Nairobi, or Kampala, to agree on a peaceful way forward.

While the latter proposal sounds naïve, one needs to remember the naivety of bitterly divided rebel groups who expect to defeat Juba.

A government that’s run out of ideas and only channels money into political intimidations, and a divided, tribalized opposition that’ll see no victory, is a classic impasse that will continue to prolong suffering of South Sudanese civilians, more than 4 million of whom haven’t fled the home; more than 2 million of those displaced being refugees in neighboring countries.

…………..
*Kuir ë Garang is the author of South Sudan Ideologically and Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful? For more information or to contact the author, visit www.kuirthiy.com

“South Sudan president regrets secession from Khartoum”

BY: Toria, NOV/05/2017, SSN;

Isn’t this the moment that Khartoum was waiting for? People of South Sudan, please judge it for yourselves and just take a moment to imagine what this means. http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article63903.

Since 1955, when the first ever rebellion movement was started by mutiny in Torit. It was first lead by an ex-Catholic Priest by name Saturnino Ohure.

Today in their tombs our Founding Fathers are turning and twisting and boiling with anger that a worthless and lazy son of the nation that they dreamt of is kneeling down on his skinny knees to beg the Jellaba for forgiveness?

Pres. Kirr actually apologized for our Independence? Yes, he did. This is not a matter of jokes people; these idiots in Juba think they can play with millions of lives that perished in search of freedom and independence of South Sudan just like this?

Shame, shame, and shame, Salva Kirr brought the biggest shame upon us.

Salva Kirr and his groups with the crapulous advice from his Jieng Council of Elders have abandoned the people of Abyei right in front of our eyes, Kirr actually refused to discuss about the fate of Abyei because he was so scared that Beshir will not shake his hands?

Just because he wanted Omer al Bashir’s help to extradite his rivals and so “he washed his hands” from helping our Black African brothers and sisters whose blood poured on the soil of South Sudan just as much as South Sudanese with the hope that they too will one day live as free people in the lands of their ancestors.

The Nuba, the Blue Nile people, Ingasana and now Darfurians are originally African inhabitants just like us, but now Salva Kirr turned his back on them including our brothers in Abyei.

Nothing ever in our history like this has happened before, and so we must be very careful what is coming next.

I for one am under the impression that Salva Kirr actually might have sold us out already, and we should not be surprise in the near future if we see Sudanese Army marching back into South Sudan.

Because Salva Kirr has given up hope, he wants to go into grave with everyone.

GREAT PEOPLE OF SOUTH SUDAN OPEN YOUR EYES WIDE AND BE AWARE OF WHAT IS COMING. Pres. Salva Kirr is a traitor and he committed an unpardonable sin call TREASON. Only one option is left for Salva Kirr, to flee or perish.

Toria

South Sudanese in Diaspora thanks Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations

To: Her Excellency Nikki Haley- United States Ambassador to the U.N.

On behalf of the South Sudanese, we would like to thank you for your service to the global community in promoting international cooperation, peace, and security. The South Sudanese civil society group in the Diaspora would like to acknowledge your commitment to the people of South Sudan. As South Sudanese-Americans, we deeply appreciate your tireless efforts to bring a lasting peace to our country of origin.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, the South Sudanese civil society group sincerely applauds and commends you for your recent trip to South Sudan. Thank you for calling President Salva Kirr’s regime out for the suffering of the people of South Sudan; for telling him that the international community, and United States cares about South Sudanese lives. South Sudanese people support and appreciate the United States Government and the State Department for working with the parties to provide relief to the suffering people of South Sudan.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, as evidence by your trip, it is clear that the IGAD-led peace negotiations have not made any progress in bringing the war to an end. Tens of thousands of innocent South Sudanese have been killed and over seven million are displaced, with more than 100,000 IPDs living in dire conditions in UNMISS camps in Juba and around the country. President Salva Kiir, who has committed atrocious crimes against humanity, continues to defy the international community’s effort. It is time that international community stands up for the people of South Sudan and for the United States to take decisive leadership role in ending the civil war in South Sudan.

Lack of urgent action has the potential to destabilize the entire East African region, which could present a potential security threat to the rest of the world. The time has indeed come to help bring an end to what you have described as “senseless violence.”

South Sudan Community expresses their deep gratitude toward the American people and appreciates the United States Government for working with the parties to ensure lasting peace in South Sudan.

We thank you for your leadership and for making honest assessment of the situation. We ask you to take actions reflective of the concern you have expressed and witness.

NOV/01/2017

Respectfully,

Alliance for South Sudan in diaspora – Dr. George Phillip Imuro. imurot@yaoo.com
Equatoria Community USA – Lojing Rugang
Global Partnership for Peace in South Sudan – Theresa Samuel, gappss.info@gmail.com
Human Rights activists – Simon Deng, sdengkak@yahoo.com
Nile Peace Development Relief Agency USA – Dr. Gatluak Deith, gatluakdieth757@gmail.com
Nuer American Christian Network USA – Rev. James Dak Rut, james.rut.rev@wisynod.org
Nuer Community USA – Michael Gai Chokchok
Pashodo Community Mutual Assistance Association (PCMAA) – William Atillio Ator, upernile@gmail.com
South Sudan International Advocacy for Human Rights (SSIAHR) – Peter Gatkuoth W. Kuel, peterkuel@yahoo.com
Western Bahr el Ghazel Community USA – Rabeh Dimbiti, westernbahr@gmail.com

CC:
U.N. Secretary General, António Guterres
U.N. Security Council
United States President, Donald J. Trump
U.S. congress