Category: Featured

Devaluation is burial of our current slim social economic structure

BY: Chier Akueny Anyithiec, JUBA, MAY/02/2015, SSN;

Suggestion of currency devaluation is a total nightmare that it would be the best way to destroy the lingering economic quickly. By a continuing process of inflation, the solution wouldn’t be at the first place a suggestion of currency devaluation.

It was a useful proposal, but I felt like, I wonder in other way if I list down the shortcoming when suggestion is adopted. The proposer would send me an academic paper showing that devaluation currencies were often associated with shrinkages or running away economy.

I would write responding that I wasn’t disputing that; instead, I was saying that devaluations made economic adjustments easier; this is simple and its simplicity complicates everything in the process.

Is it showing that devaluations would little bit help relieve the situation? The inflationism (devaluation) has serious impoverished effect, not less than of the proletariat (people employed).

As the inflation proceeds and the value of the currency fluctuates wildly from time to time in frequent, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of entrepreneurship, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a bet and a raffle.

There is subtler here; is there no surer means of overturning the existing problem in the country than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in this Country will able to establish influence.

The quotation of well known Economist Keynes is perfect here. It does such a good job of succinctly describing why currency devaluation is a destructive policy, both economically and socially because it undermines both sides in such confused and fragile economy like such of South Sudan today.

It seems that Keynes understood the problems fashioned by policies designed to debauch (devalue) the currency, the modern-day economic followers never see this one the solution to shrinking economy.

Instead, the degree of sense has been discarded by the Keynesians of today in favour of a total focus on “aggregate demand”.

If you wrongly believe that economy to be a vague blob driven by changes in “aggregate demand”, then you are looking at the economy through a quilt that creates such a distorted view of the world that what you perceive is the opposite of reality.

When looking through such medium, currency-devaluation policy can appear to be unjustifiable process economic anodyne.

Yes, we know that currency devaluation makes local exporters more competitive; but what are we exporting from this country?

I think, according to my meager knowledge of economic; a country devalues the currency to promote her local exports. The problem immensely, we are consumers rather than exporters and so, it would seriously be at our EXPENSE as consumers and importers.

There can be no net benefit to our trembling economy and indeed such act may lead economic to total oblivion.

The reason is that a persistent reduction in a currency’s value on the foreign exchange market requires relatively high monetary inflation, which leads to rises in domestic prices that not only counteract any benefit to exporters from the exchange-rate decline, but also distort relative prices in a way that makes the overall economy less efficient.

The real policy stands that you devalue your currency in some stable countries in case to increase the exports if reaches her trade deficits but are we trading/exporting?

According to orthodoxy of real economists, every dollar that flows out of the country due to a trade deficit is a dollar less of spending within the domestic economy, which, in turn, leads to a weaker domestic economy and higher unemployment.

Indeed, even-though our employment rate is at nutshell, then it would be better for us to maintain the same tract and make sure we adjust some misplaced policies for us to regain.

There is a need for the redirection of these policies to make sure that consumers and importers are favoured and by doing this; we made sure there is a reduction too to net loss of jobs. I always wonder to why people jump the same hole in this country because this very same hole will be forcing you to unnecessary/wanted hurdles.

The first face of economic reform would be support of local productions that include set employment policies of the country to make sure that there are little bit itches of inputs to our society.

Here if currency devaluation is achieved then, it would be a veracity that you have added hands to killing real wages and thus gets around the problem that the nominal price of labour tends to be ‘sticky’.

The idea is that insignificant wage rates are excessively slow to fall in response to reduced demand for workers, and that currency devaluation helps by furtively reducing the real price of labour. So, are we intending to reduce the price of wages or to increase wages in this dilapidated war torn country?

I request the real economists to assist me here!

Second, the sticking of wages is not only the problem such severe economic downturn but we have to unequivocally consider another point that government indirect payments to the unemployed can reduce the incentive for able-bodied people to accept lower wages to re-enter the workforce. In other words, if nominal wages are problematically ‘sticky’ it is because of government intervention.

Third, the knowledge that modern money relentlessly loses purchasing power over time would tend to make nominal wages ‘stickier’ than they would otherwise be but how do we lose the purchasing power? The answer is low value of the coin you have at hand.

I would agree with proposer to disagree with him that the primary problem with currency devaluation is that it always leads to non-uniform changes in prices throughout the economy.

In effect, the of devaluation policy send false price signals into the economy, which leads to more investing mistakes than would otherwise happen. As a result of the greater number of investing mistakes, there ends up being less wealth to the country, but are we ready stand with less wealth when we do not have wealth already?

I remember the policy of economy on the proverbial “slippery slope; I think you want to put this country to this slippery slope if you are longing for currency devaluation.

In summary, Keynes wasn’t right about much, but early in his career he was absolutely right about currency devaluation. It is a process that engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner that not one man in a million will be able to diagnose.

The currency devaluation policy is the root cause of worldly fixation on “inequality”. Unfortunately, none of the most popular writers on this topic understand the cause of the perceived problem.

But we can you do, you have to go ahead with you suggestion of solving one problem so that you get more problems. Therefore; I don’t support currency devaluation at the expenses of average consumers.

BY: Chier Akueny Anyithiec,
Currently living in Juba,
Reach me at:
Phone: +211954201211

Malakal: Series of massacres and destruction

By Dengdit Ayok, South Sudan, APR/28/2015, SSN;

Malakal, that town which had fallen on the bosom of river Nile as if she was thirsty and wanted to keep herself, drinking from its pouring mighty stream and in fact she is, was and still is one of the most beautiful towns in the country.

It is a glorious and glamorous town that had seen calmer days and much relative peace and stability during the wartime, which was considered to be the longest war of this continent — than post war time.

It was an umbrella sheltering her sons and daughters under her leafy shadows as a hen hides her chicks under her wings, where there is safety and sense of tenderness and passion.

The town had been visited by evil and frivolous hands after the guns went silent and the emergence of peace in 2005. It was during this time that the ruling Ingaz regime (meaning salvation) in Sudan, and which did not save a single soul, used Gabriel Tanginya (a warlord) to spread death and corruption, resulting into the killing of innocent people in Malakal in 2006.

Sadly, the same warlord repeated the same tragedy in the same town in 2009.

I had wished to visit Malakal in peacetime; nevertheless, I could not make it, except in wartime, a few days after the eruption of war in Juba in December 2013. She had appeared attractive and charming to me from the air, but I found her utterly destroyed after the aircraft landed.

The airport was in good condition, but the neighborhoods and shops and marketplaces were an exposure of a massive destruction.

Her children who survived death in the crossfire painstakingly made it to the UN headquarters, some had fallen. Their bodies were horribly inflated in a scene that makes the heart shed tears before the eyes.

Vultures fed on bodies of the poor people that were redeemed by the blood of the martyrs who had sacrificed their lives for them in the liberation war in order for them to live!

Birds of prey from the sky gathered to feed on the corpses of our beloved people who should have lived in peace!

In the army barracks, I held my breath in an attempt to avoid inhalation of the air which was overshadowed by the bad smell of the rotten corpses of the soldiers who were said to have been engaged in sporadic shooting, but I almost lost breathing.

I took pictures of those dead soldiers. A Kenyan journalist working for the Associated Press captured a very horrible picture that was widely circulated on social media. Here is the picture in words:
“A soldier in full uniform, fallen on his back, with his face towards the sky, a raven flying over him, and an eagle devouring his carcass. He was lying down near an old bulldozer, in the barracks”.

On our way back to the airport, the UN team was digging mass graves for the dead people whose bodies have filled the town and the river. Woe to warmongers and warlords!

The town later witnessed attacks and battles of hit and run between the government troops and rebel forces; death toll grew higher among our people in Malakal. The town was devastated and broken into pieces, due to the repeated battles over its control by the government troops and the insurgents.

In the middle of last week, when fighting intensified between the soldiers under the command of Gen. Johnson Olony and the bodyguards of Mr. Governor Simon Kun Pouch, according to reports, I knew that citizens who have returned to Malakal in the recent times were the victims of that senseless fighting.

All those battles have turned that beautiful town, lying on the bank of the river Nile, to nothing.

I wondered: Has the warlords finally designed the fate of Malakal to death and destruction? If so, as it is the case now, how long will it go on? Why the war seems to have refused to abandon it since those chaotic days of Tanginya? Why should the civil population be subjected to such a disaster?

This must stop, and the perpetrators must one day face the court of justice, not under this government, but another government.

The magnitude of desolation and killing that Malakal town had witnessed is higher than the rest of the towns in Upper Nile region – it is a double destruction. If the ongoing destruction and killing in the region was to be distributed in portions, then Malakal shall undoubtedly have the greatest portion.

Woe to killers and devastators! The stage that the ruin has reached in Malakal is like that of Jerusalem, the capital city of the Jews in the ancient times.

I am weeping for that town which became a mass grave for her sons and daughters, when it was their beautiful town and their home, in which they lived and had their dreams.

It is so sad that their lives ended in that horrific manner, which is not acceptable to the heaven before the earth.

When Peter the apostle of Jesus Christ drew his sword from its sheath and cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant during the arrest of Christ in the orchard, Christ said to him: “Those who kill by the sword, will also perish by the sword,” and so, was it the case for those who brandished their weapons in the face of Malakal.

People do not deserve killing and death, but life, peace and dignity.

I was very much affected by what happened in Malakal last mid-week. The impact of that damned war on me was a serious psychological blow on my mind.

Nonetheless, no matter how long this night may take, the daybreak will surely come. And I have expressed this faith and hope in a poem I called, “A Hopeful Cry for “Land of Great Abundance”.

Here are its words:
Oh, my land,
I cry for you…
Thy sons whose hearts
Hatred has settled,
are devastating you day and night…
They have forgotten you;
they have forsaken you and your welfare…
Shelling, bombing of towns;
and militarization
has become a daily culture…
Malakal is burning,
Hands of treachery are still causing
More disruption and division
among our communities..
Your sons have fallen all over,
They have fallen for no right!
Died for no cause!
Thou shall not be at ease,
and taste peace and tranquility
except when the hands of treachery are gone,
The sun of eternal peace shall then rise all over you,
then the desolated towns shall become houses of smile,
then shall we see you beautiful,
and glamorous in giggling of children;
in the joyful ululations of our mothers,
and in songs of our shepherds…
Then the sun of hope will rise again,
We make our way forward,
Strong and united,
Build the homeland of our
pride and the land of our ancestors;
live in harmony,
Sleep with our eyelids fully closed…

Mr. Ayok is a journalist and political commentator. He is reachable at

South Sudan military spending doubles to $1bn, highest in region

By: ALLAN OLINGO, The EastAfrican, Posted Saturday, April 25 2015, SSN;


Africa’s youngest nation relies on oil revenue to fund about 80 per cent of its budget.
South Sudan’s military spending rose to $1.08 billion last year, up from $982 million in 2013.
Since December 2013, South Sudan has been fighting dissident soldiers and armed civilians led by former vice president Dr Riek Machar.

Region counts the cost as S.Sudan crisis goes into second year. South Sudan has nearly doubled its military spending since 2010, and now ranks as the region’s biggest spender — a skewed spending policy that will hurt key sectors such as health, education and infrastructure.

Africa’s youngest nation relies on oil revenue to fund about 80 per cent of its budget. However, output has reduced significantly due to the ongoing conflict in the country and the rapid decline in oil prices.

Last year, total income from oil stood at $3.38 billion. However, after deducting $884 million in payments due to its neighbour Sudan and $781 million as loan repayments to donors as well as international financiers, South Sudan remained with just $1.715 billion from oil revenue.

A report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released last week shows a rise in South Sudan’s military spending to $1.08 billion last year, up from $982 million in 2013. This means that Juba spent more than 60 per cent of its net oil revenue on the military.

Since December 2013, South Sudan has been fighting dissident soldiers and armed civilians led by former vice president Dr Riek Machar.

Early last year, the Cabinet approved an emergency fund of $2.6 million mainly to finance its military forces as it engaged the rebels.

In July, during the budget presentation, the country’s former finance minister Aggrey Tisa Sabuni, said that the government would spend 41 per cent of its budget on security, including the military.

“I have allocated $737.8 million to the national army and $262.9 million to the police, prison and fire services. We expect that oil revenue will contribute about 80 per cent of this year’s budget,” said Mr Sabuni.

In 2012, South Sudan ordered close to 100 Ukrainian T-72 tanks; part of this military hardware was delivered last year.

In contrast, Kenya cut its military spending last year to $819 million, from $861 million in 2013, despite the fact that the country continues to face an increasing threat from transnational terrorists.

Homegrown terrorists sympathetic to the Al Shabaab militants, whom the Kenyan forces have been fighting in Somalia since 2011, have proved to be a challenge for the country, yet in its 2014/15 financial year, Kenya did not allocate any funds for crime research and investigations.

Funding operations

In the 2014/15 financial year, Treasury Cabinet Secretary Henry Rotich said that the bulk of the security vote of $800 million would go to the military, which is involved in operations in Somalia.

So far, the Kenyan military has spent $447 million in Somalia, with the government providing $215 million for the mission, and the United Nations expected to shoulder the rest.

The country’s defence budget was to go into acquiring 10 new military helicopters, refurbishment of three grounded Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters and installation of closed circuit (CCTV) surveillance cameras in 10 cities.

Tanzania, for its part, increased its military spending marginally in 2014 to $460 million from $408 million in 2013, according to SIPRI’s estimates.

Tanzania has been sprucing up its navy over the past two years as it seeks to defend its newly discovered offshore petroleum resources. Last year, the country acquired 14 new J-7Gs fighter jets, Type 63A amphibious tanks, A100 multiple rocket launchers and Type 07PA self-propelled mortars from China.

Meanwhile, Uganda increased its military budget to $322 million last year, up from $302 million the previous year.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the conflict in South Sudan has increased Uganda’s military spending. The Ministry of Defence allocation in the 2014/15 budget was 12 per cent higher than the previous year, and the Defence Ministry requested two supplementary budgets amounting to $64 million.

Uganda allocations

In its 2014/15 financial year, Uganda allocated $400 million to its army that was expected to finance its interventions in Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where its forces are hunting down the notorious warlord Joseph Kony and his Lords Resistance Army (LRA) rebels.

“Over the 2013/14 financial year, the government has continued to strengthen the capabilities of our armed forces and other security agencies through the acquisition of modern security, defence equipment and other logistical facilities, as well as the improvement of staff welfare and training,” Uganda’s former finance minister Maria Kiwanuka said in her budget speech.

Uganda has bought MiG and Sukhoi fighter jets in the past few years, which are still being delivered, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Sukhoi SU-30 combat aircraft.

Rwanda, on its part, makes for interesting statistics. Despite being the only country that has been actively involved in military campaigns in the DRC over the past five years, the country’s military spending remains the lowest in the region. Last year, Kigali’s military spending grew by 4.1 per cent to $85.9 million, up from $82.3 million in 2013.

Rwanda has acquired the reputation as a reliable peacekeeper, all the while benefiting from training as well as from reimbursements for purchases of weapons. The country has peacekeepers in South Sudan and Sierra Leone. Last year, it bought new Mil Mi-17 helicopters and a medium-range surface-to-air defence missile system from China.

Burundi also increased its spending last year to reach $62.2 million, up from $60.9 million in 2013.

South Sudan: The Only Country where Army Generals never retire from Service!

BY: Mayak Deng Aruei, Doctoral student, USA, APR/18/2015, SSN;

It was not long ago that South Sudan was part of the then united SUDAN. After the secession, the new nation went on its own way, taking no system of the host nation. The ululations and giggling shortly after independence poured lots of hopes in the hearts of the civil population, but no enough preparations were put in place to run an independent South Sudan.

The worst part being that South Sudanese celebrated their independence for too long, forgetting that the newly independent nation was in need of Infrastructures and Security in order to sustain itself in the face of economically advanced neighbors.

Throughout the country, supposedly former army officers took oaths of their offices (constitutional/political posts), but continued to behave in their capacities as military officers despite their new roles as lawmakers and civil servants.

Unlike any other country in the Region, South Sudan was submerged under military rule, and all the officers who once served under the SPLA never believed in their minds that fundamental changes have taken place in their lives.

While in the governments (Central & states’ levels), they remained as SPLA officers, and even went further and encouraged former child soldiers to take up military training in order to fill positions in governments’ institutions.

The nation’s leadership (South Sudan) seems to support such mindsets, and the president dresses in military attires whenever he feels like it, and when he is sharing a security meeting.

Well, dressing in military uniforms means being ready for war or show of superiority. But do the majority of South Sudanese really want to see that?

As a matter of raw facts, all of today’s youths grew up in huts that had military uniforms and guns all over. So, dressing in military uniforms means an aggression, and that by itself energizes youths raised in wars to entertain and commit more violence against civil population.

Verify if terroristic attitudes of Governor Matur Chut Dhuol has reduced violence in Lakes State? Verify if an eye-for-an-eye has resolved problems in Jonglei and other states?

Verify if military aggression against disoriented SPLA’s deserters has deterred them from committing more atrocities on Government’s supporters and communities in their vicinities?

There is nothing wrong with military as a profession, but our people must know that most people who became soldiers were either conscripted into the Rebels groups or forced by conditions that South Sudanese were in, and to liberate the Region from successive Khartoum-based regimes that were hostile to African South Sudanese and other nationalities in the SUDAN (Dar Fur, Funj & Nuba).

With current military lifestyle being the new reality, majority unknowingly surrendered the nation to be run more like a military camp/base, and the same command has strayed into other areas: economy and social life.

As of recent months, the Army Chief of General Staff went head to head with religious leaders, particularly leader of the Cush International Church/Ministries also known Prophet as many of his prophecies have materialized in a rather a bad way.

They (national leaders) cannot command every aspect of citizens’ lives and expect a free State where citizens will contribute to development of the country without constraints.

For the last number of years, President Salva Kiir has been making changes in the nation’s military leadership, but never retired Army Generals as it is the norm in other parts of the world (some were short-listed as reservists).

Over the years (2005-to-present), Generals/army officers have been serving in civilian posts for extended periods of time, and then returned to military branches as active Generals.

For example, the current SPLA’s Chief of General Staff was Governor of Northern Bahr El Ghazal State between 2008 and 2013. He was removed by presidential decree, reinstated into the Army, promoted to the rank of Lt. General and given his new assignment as the SPLA’s Army Chief of General Staff, and also where he doubled as Chairman of the SPLM in his home state (Northern Barh El Ghazal).

There are other instances where those who were counties’ commissioners and states members of the parliaments returned to military service.

Where can we draw a line between the SPLA as the national Army and the SPLM as the ruling political Party in the Republic of South Sudan? Remember, their military ranks are earned titles, but they cannot practice military while serving in civilian posts.

Along the same line, caretaker Governor of Lakes State, Gen. Matur Chut Dhuol was appointed by a presidential decree as a Governor & retained his military status, runs the state more like a military barracks, terrorizing civilians, detaining politicians indefinitely and imprisoning them without charges.

He defied call by the Council of States (Constitutional posts holders). Can somebody tell Matur to mature and Malong to adopt rule of law (Lööŋ as his name referred to in Jieeŋ).

What kind of State do South Sudanese really want to have? Do they want a Nation where a minister smacks his subordinates in the face and expect to stay as a minister or do they want a State where Government’s officials are hold to the account?

To have a functioning system in a democratic State, it got to start with few steps and should start from somewhere, and be followed by those entrusted with the nation’s highest authority.

The kind of leadership that South Sudanese leaders have shown is likely to be copied by those who work directly under them. Let’s be factual, “what you sow is what you harvest.”

We fear not the current leaders, but those who would be tempted to walk the path walked by their mentors (money can recruit an army of ruthless loyalists).

There is no way that South Sudanese would expect to see responsible leaders in the near future if the ones we have misbehave publicly, overstep their authorities, abuse their subordinates physically and misappropriate nation’s wealth with impunity.

For one thing, the ones being bred in Juba and elsewhere would be no better than their mentors unless they follow the order of the world they live in.

No human is made of wires, and those who labor under the presumption that their immunity is God given are completely wrong. No wonder, our people (South Sudanese) are very disconnected with today’s world (no borders & no secrets), and they behave as if they live in their own isolated Universe.

In conclusion, brutality at the top is too dangerous for the nation of South Sudan. How can youths possibly distinguish good leadership from bad/toxic leadership if national figures keep doing the unthinkable?

For those who were in the bush (SPLA’s controlled areas), stories about officers physically abusing their subordinates were everywhere, and some of us thought those would be things of the past.

Sometime, one feels guilt-free for having not worked under brutal leaders in modern South Sudan. In reality, most of these leaders are well known for the bad things that they have done, and the bad image they have created onto themselves and the new republic.

The mentality of being an army officer for life must be discarded altogether or South Sudan would keep producing bad leaders prone to violence, and who believe in physical abuse of their subordinates and authoritarian running of the State’s affairs.

The author is Mayak Deng Aruei, a doctoral student in Organizational Leadership: Organizational Development. He is also the author of ‘Struggle Between Despair and Life: From Sudan’s Marshland Village, Child Soldiering, Refugee Camp and America.” He can be reached at

Dr. Machar on right side of South Sudan history and his opponents on the reverse

By: Gatkuoth Lok, APR/16/2015, SSN;

In this rigorous analysis, we’ll focus on Dr. Machar, the SPLM/SPLA- IO chairman and his politico-contemporaries namely Dr. John Garang and president Kiir Mayardit. In this respect we shall briefly explore and detail the grounds on which it is inevitably right and suitable to attribute the independence of South Sudan to Machar and necessarily ascribing democracy to him undoubtedly.

Besides, we will further be able to explicitly expose Machar’s political pursuit in 1990s on compared to Garang’s as well as his political ideology in evaluation to Kiir’s political ideology.

In the course of this demanding discussion we expressly ought to figure out the ideals harbored by the said troika-political-leaders and to find out who among these leaders truly became instrumental in terms of his ultimate goal plus his political ideology as well during and after the SPLM or SPLA liberation struggle and who remains truly non-instrumental, not workable to date.

This in the end shall land us to sincerely and wholeheartedly admit that Dr. Machar Teny is the only politician in this Republic with his country deeply seated in his very heart.

Based upon his unquestionable nationalism and patriotism in objectively choosing what works best for the citizens of this blossoming Democracy, Machar qualifies himself not only the father of this country but also the leadership best exemplary for the country as a whole, Africa and indeed fits himself for the rest of the world at best.

Having seen the topic under discussion-being workable, sounding and resounding worthy proving thesis, the key questions one is about to ask here are what the author does have in mind on the issue in question and whether or not he may be knowledgeable about the history of South Sudan. Have it gone through and examined.

Prior to embarking on the matter and giving some possible solutions to those mentioned doubts I would rather like to inform us dear readers whether or not you like it, that politics per se, in South Sudan political perspective, in my viewpoint and probably beyond is to politically morally and militarily fight for the total freedoms and benefits of the people of one’s own politically defined territory.

Coming back to the topic at issue, the question is, has Dr. Machar fought for what about which this author places him at the right side of the history of this politically defined territory known as the Republic of South Sudan?

Can we rationally and empirically give undoubted and undeniable vindications to make our thesis valid? Next we shall get settled in the succeeding dialectical reasoning. What for?

Good enough, we are going to work out to give sufficient rejoinders in the following subtopics notably; ‘Machar over Garang’ and ‘Machar over Kiir,’ two of which function for substantiating the given thesis. Have a look below then.

Dr. Machar over Dr. Garang

Did Machar win the history of the liberation struggle over Garang? I answer, yes he won it. Now scrutinize critically, in 1991 Dr. Machar disagreed with Dr. Garang on what to fight for. Why?

Simply because Machar thought it right that to fight for Self-determination consequential to the Independence- the total beneficial freedom to the people of southern Sudan, would rather work best for the common good or will of southern Sudanese.

This Machar’s better off antithesis opposed to Garang’s below worse off thesis became the best choice during the referendum on Machar’s self-determination.

Dr. John Garang thought it, erroneously right that to fight for unity of Sudan under new basis would rather be workable for the greater good of all marginalized Sudanese. This was or is a good idea however, unworkable. This is the straw which broke the camel’s back.

This hot rupture got resolved when Machar and Garang themselves realistically agreed to sign the comprehensive peace agreement, CPA, that enshrined their pursuits and the two principal leaders made what is documented as Nairobi declaration, in 2002.

This courageous decision from our dear leaders helped us to choose between their said pursuits, namely Machar’s secession and Garang’s unity of Sudan in a conducive environment. The question pops up, which one did we choose for its workability and which one did we not choose for its unworkability?

In answering this question, what got actualized in favor of southern Sudanese destiny was Dr. Machar’s political pursuit; being self-determination resultant to our breathtaking Independence, on 9.7.2011. This is now Machar’s victory. And this historic and historical victory for Dr. Machar happened when Dr. Garang died in Museveni-Kiir helicopter crash, unfortunately.

Where did we leave Garang’s pursuit then? Eh, Dr. Garang’s pursuit, unanimously and contemptuously was left to Malik Aggar and Yasir Saed el Arman (SPLM or SPLA-N leaders) in the North Sudan by us who have chosen freedom in the sovereign South.

Without any doubt, it follows that our thesis that Dr. Machar won over Dr. Garang in terms of their political pursuits has been proved beyond any reasonable reservation.

Any shadow of doubt yet? No, not at all, though it shall bewilder ordinary readers yet clear to those who are able to discuss ideas, ideologies and philosophies. What of the death in 1991?

Looked at superficially, one may ask why Dr. Machar’s 1991 correction declaration victimized a lot of people from different communities. And another person may enquire whether possible blames can be objectively put on both sides of the then conflict and lifting irrational bias of being unjustly judgmental on Machar and excusing Garang to remain blame-free, while in reality Garang himself was the prime cause of the war.

Yet another may still in confidence think that Garang is blameworthy while Machar is praiseworthy. A concerned person still might further ask of who will be liable for the deceased death between these opposing protagonists.

Giving somewhat answers to the proceeding questions, I must say that because the prime cause of the 1991 split was Garang himself for he imposed unworkable pursuit – unity of Sudan, he, Dr John remained answerable.

Garang influenced a lot of South Sudanese including my granddad to fight for what they were less aware of. That was inhuman to use people who were unable to know the purpose of their fight against anyone, or right exponent as Machar.

All those people just followed Garang for the sake of following him. They all got lost in the world of they-ness, epistemologically speaking, so to speak. So correcting this trend, for Machar was or is never ever sacrosanct, rather the reverse.

When hearing people today blaming Machar for fighting for Self-determination consequential to dream became true Independence, as pronounced by Dr. Machar himself the day before the Independence celebrations, they merely do that in hope to assassinate his very personality and to vilify his name in order for him to have no chance to become president of this country for the man shall change the false history of South Sudan, Garang’s new converts fear.

We can see that it is a manifestation of a deep seated hatred against Machar for it is known in general ethics that when two evils occur you rather go for the lesser evil.

Now what do we benefit from that lesser evil which Machar opted for?

Looking into those queries and speculations-they get resolved partly by Machiavellian theory which is applicable here, for it says ‘the end justifies the means.’

Then, that partly the death of our people in the aforesaid war year was never intended whatsoever. This necessitates forgiveness and reconciliation countrywide in due time.

Again in the light of Machiavellian theory mentioned, the rational question to ask is, is the aforementioned 1991 case an exception? To me the answer is negative that it isn’t.

Is South Sudan Independence a valuable freedom for all South Sudanese of different walks of life? I answer with affirmative, then why brooding over the death of our people whose untimely death, which is sacrificial one, turned out as our today’s pride?

Can we not be heartened and solaced by this fact, which reads in this embodiment: our fallen heroes and heroines died in fighting for the extant independence in one form or the other; hence they did not die in vain?

For we all cry when commemorating their lives and duties as well as we all laugh when remembering their epoch achievements on our existent Independence. This kind of political action is not sacrosanct as I alluded to somewhere above. It is one of the useful-meaningful side of politics. It might resonate resembling what is known as necessary evil politically speaking. Let it be.

We have to bear it embracing the spirit of tolerance resulting to realization of our common good minus what takes us apart genuinely loving what binds us together effecting prosperity coming into existence, and this is tantamount to happiness of us all.

Next we turn to discuss how Machar’s political ideology is overshadowing Kiir’s.

Dr. Machar over Mr. Kiir

Dr. Machar is now winning over Mr. Kiir. What is the reason for this? To right away answer you without any further ado, I must say that Dr. Machar has got a doable political ideology opposed to Kiir’s. This brings us to wonder of what the two political key players’ ideologies may be. What are their political ideologies then?

Let us answer in the following order. Machar be first and Kiir next.

What is Machar’s political ideology? In short, Machar’s political ideology is none other than Democracy. In this democracy or government, Machar’s system of governance as he already fine-tuned, is federalism. And this federal government shall get undergirded by a federal constitution, which is the skeleton of the sovereign state of South Sudan.

Then this constitution embodies all fundamental rights, especially inalienable rights of all men and women viz: South Sudanese and others. It also contains diverse provisions on how best different public institutions can get re-established and how preeminent they ought to function.

It implies that justice content too, is guaranteed; be it the rule of law, rights and equality ….etc. Such a tremendous success be compelling us to impose both transparency and accountability rigorous application in all state public institutions and this encompasses all three government levels, notably; federal, state and county.

This is synonymous to radical eradication of corruption in the country; hence it is the potential emergence of much needed prosperity.

This exactly is consequential to Machar’s would-be prosperous African tiger: a democratic federal state of South Sudan, in which Mabior, Ajawin, Udiki, Gatdet, Tombe, to mention a few from our beautiful diverse ethnic groups, all indiscriminately shall be enjoying Machar’s state of equal rights, identical dignity, equivalent opportunities based on merit and so on.

Next is the instillation of the what-ness of Kiir’s political ideology, what is it all about?

Well, Kiir’s political ideology is all about dinkocracy as ElHaj Paul oftentimes labels it or what the distinquished Professor David Dechand characterizes as Kiirocracy or it was also characterized as benyocracy by professor Taban Loliong of the university of Juba and this typical government by definition is a government of Dinka by the Dinka for the Dinka. Such dinkocracy is for Dinka elders, a real substitution of democracy and its definition.

The system of governance in this respect is totally a confused way of intermittently talking to use decentralized system of governance and ending up practicing centralized system of governance that is branded as quasi-decentralized system of governance directed by Dinka elders based on a policy known as muonyjiengism that embedded the necessity of institutionalizing a Jieng state, in which non-Jiengs have been criterioned to die in anywhere they are found.

South Sudanese have already witnessed the genocidal program of this Kiir’s Jieng state early when what I called Kiiroproject first got applied on Lou Nuer in 2006. This war by President Kiir killed approximately 6,000 or more.

Then the sequential killings went on to Shulluk (Chollo) kingdom where in Owacj 2010 and so more or less thousands of unarmed people were mass-massacred, Gawaar and Laak Nuer in Kaldak in 2011 were mercilessly annihilated. Bol Nuer in 2010 too were given the same treatment of their cousins and it reached Murle people in 2010-2013 where Kiir worked harder and harder to eliminate the whole tribe by all means, God forbids.

This paradigmatic Kiir’s ill-sequentialism of genocide resulted to its irrational action peak on 15.12.2013 during which all Nuers of different walks of life were criterioned as 91s by none other than president Kiir Mayardit himself.

All the aforesaid homicides of non-Jiengs were meant to pave Kiir’s way to possibly institutionalize an exclusively Jieng State in which Dinka’s ‘we-are-born-to-rule-and-not-to-be-ruled’ be implemented to its fullness.

This has been proved right by Bona Malual, one of the Jeing council of elders who explicitly put it clear that such a state has to exist by all means necessary, or else Dinka will have nowhere to go, Malwal argued.

Such killings to institutionalize Jieng state, need to be stopped by all the targeted abovementioned Nations plus targeted Nations in potency.

For if these Nations leave the problem to one Nation like Nuer, it will come to annihilate them one by one, should the Nuer be unable to stand their ground in full support of the SPLM or SPLA-IO, this is the intentionality of Kiir Mayardit.

I call upon all people South Sudan, particularly the experiencing Murle, Shulluk, Fertits and Equatorians, and Dinka Pandang that they should not easily forget the struggle for appeasement ranks and money. That all of you have to say enough is enough in a nationalistic way to Dinka government.

To sum up our thesis, existential logic obliges us to admit that Dr. Riek Machar Teny won over Dr. John Garang. And president Kiir is being won over by Dr. Machar Teny.

Based upon his mission, the independence of South Sudan that got actualized plus his vision, democracy tied with federalism, Dr. Machar has qualified himself to be called the founding father of this country who right now settles assured at the right side of this Republic history and his rivals settle uncertain at the reverse.

I expect a bitter reaction from Kiir’s Sycophants, tribal bigots, Jieng indoctrinated lackeys, radicalized diehards, quasi-professors and care-free cronies, all those who unknowingly or knowingly refuse objective knowledge, may be tempted to make some premature conclusions or shall start writing non-reflected upon responses, attacking personalities.

Should any one feel like doing so, let them, for methinks it is true for me to give you this simple piece of critique. If anyone should choose to write in a scientific way, let them, for that’s what I entertain most than the opposite. Have your strictures on this or otherwise. END

Buom Lok

Ultimatum to Kiir: Issue decree to evict all Dinka cows & owners from Ma’di land

BY: David Aju Kanyara, South Sudan, APR/09/2015, SSN;

On Wednesday April 8th, south Sudan president Kiir issued a decree read on state owned SSTV calling for immediate return of cattle keepers both from Mundri and Dinka Bor land to their respective places. The Presidential decree came amidst rising tension in central Equatoria state between the nomadic communities mainly from Dinka Bor and central Equatoria communities who are farmers.

There have been constant clashes between the nomadic communities and communities of Western Equatoria State who are farmers. The tension further escalated recently due many farmlands being destroyed by the roaming cows. This, in one occasion caused a clash between the nomadic and the farm owners, resulting in loss of lives from both parties.

But the authorities, especially the national government in Juba showed no sign of willingness to solve the dispute between the two communities.

This is because the Dinka cattle keepers have previous blood in the eyes of sitting authority in national government, and since they have brotherly ties to achieve modern occupation of Equatorian land to reduce Equatorians to live under the mercy of Dinka and their led government in Juba.

Many people believed the government in Juba has modernized itself in executing Dinka imperialist colonization agenda to enslaved the Equatorians and this agenda has been blessed and endorsed by the few Equatorian politicians who lacked vision and wisdom to articulate on behalf of Equatorians and their lands, the corrupted in leading are the likes of James Wani Igga, Martin Elias Lomoro and Ann Itto just a few to mention.

The lack of political will shown by the government made the farmers and the majority of the Equatorians to believe that the cattle belong to president Kiir and his henchmen in the likes of the military officials, Salva Mathok, Koul Manyang, the south Sudan’s defense Minister and a few others.

A similar picture of what is happening in central Equatoria is the endless clashes between the Dinka nomadic have seen in Ma’di land over the years since independence. Recently there has been an increase of cows in Ma’di land more than anywhere else in south Sudan.

Days after the unrest engulfed Jonglei, the numbers of cows that landed in Nimule were 85,000 excluding the numbers of illegal cows smuggled to Nimule in Madiland before and after comprehensive Peace Agreement and after South Sudan’s independence of 2011.

The thirst to seek for grazing land in other people’s ancestral land has intensified of late. So while Kiir is cleansing the Nuer, he is amassing land for himself and his right hand men in return for keeping his grip to power.

A classic example of such endeavor is the arrest of two chiefs on 2 April 2015 for refusing to sign illegal documents granting grazing land for cattle in Ma’di. The two Ma’di chiefs, chief Modi of Moli Andru Boma and head chief of Kerepi Payam, John Amba, were arrested and detained in Nimule army Barracks.

The two chiefs were later freed by the governor of EES after their illegal arbitrary arrests by the soldiers have attracted huge outcries from the Ma’di community and Ma’di intellectuals both at home and from Diasporas.

The Wednesday 8th of April decree by President ordering the cattle keepers to return to their kraals in Jonglei is not a fair decree since it did not include Ma’di where huge numbers of cows and their owners are roaming with AK47s in broad daylight for protection of their animals.

They have not been ordered by any decree to leave Ma’di to return to Jonglei.

Simply put, this soft talk from a man calling himself a nationalist and president for all is just lulling the Dinka to redirect their cattle to Ma’di.

The Ma’di people are now fed up of the constant destruction of their crops. We are farmers who want to get on with our lives too.

As farmers we should have been the producers of certain foods to cut out this import of food from our neighboring Uganda, a bid to improve our economy and welfare.

It is a negative economy for cattle to eat crops farmed for human beings yet these cattle are protected with AK47 as perishable wealth, not for feeding the hungry multitude.

This inaction by the President will leave us the youth of Ma’di with zero option that will result in taking arms to defense our farmlands and our people from been evicted from our God given ancestral land.

We have been applying diplomacy for years but you, Mr. President and your cronies have misused this civilized and diplomatic stance.

Mr. President, this is the last warning if you cannot issue a decisive decree with a dateline for Dinka Bor to return to Jonglei with their cows soon, the result will be catastrophic.

If you do not take heed of this warning, we the youth will have no option but to defend our properties, be it to the last drop of our blood.

To jog your mind before you think this is an empty threat, try to recall the cost in human value and finances when we launched offensive on SPLA who came in our villages abusing and raping our women in 1980s. Find them and ask what happened to them?

It is not a matter of being a small tribe that cannot fight. On the contrary it is the bigger tribe like yours who go looking for a fight which when daring men choose to answer you back in the only language you know, then you run away from the battle-field to go portray yourselves as men in someone else’s land.

Mr. Kiir, it is not out of ignorance or because we are cowards that we have not raised a finger as we did not want to destroy what has been built by our hard working Ma’di nation.

Fleeing from a war zone should bring women and children, not mature men and cattle to litter the Ma’di land.

Now that the government has control in Jongolei, we urge you to immediately issue a decisive decree for these cattle keepers to leave the land of others, particularly the cows in Nimule, Kerepi and Moli, to evict without delay before anything happens or else you will be held responsibly for whatever happens after our patience runs out.

My writing today is also to serve as a notice to inform all the Ma’di able bodied men and women to arise from every part of south Sudan and the Diasporas to come home to rejoin their brothers to fight for homeland.

Note that your identity is your homeland, we can only be defined as Ma’di when we have the full ownership our land.

This land has been passed to us by our forefathers, and as they entrusted the responsibility for looking after this land to us we must prepare to hand it to our children and their sons and daughters as the ways our forefathers handed them to us today.

As the Red army and the White army lock horns, you, Ebi lukunde, the lion Army must arise. (Iligo Madri Nyi robi dri amatro…..). I salute you all the able Ma’di to rise and let’s join in singing the Ma’di warriors song of our forefathers.

By David Aju Kanyara,

Voice of the voiceless

To achieve peace in South Sudan, IGAD talks must be diversified

QUOTE: “South Sudan does not belong to SPLM rather it is the other way – SPLM belongs to South Sudan and it is a small part of its constituent parts.” Elhag Paul.

BY: ELHAG Paul, APR/04/2015, SSN;

The collapse of South Sudan’s peace talks in Addis Ababa under the mediation of IGAD on 6th March 2015 comes with mixed emotions. The failure in reaching peace is painful because it means the suffering and the senseless war will continue further laying waste to the resources of South Sudan including its people.

On the other hand the failure may be a blessing in disguise to allow a genuine process under an impartial body (not IGAD) to deal with the real problem of South Sudan which is the diversification of power and holding the SPLM to account.

The failed IGAD talks erroneously preferred to again concentrate power in the hands of the SPLM, a criminal organisation, to the exclusion of all other stakeholders in the country.

Although its 9th May 2014 agreement clearly and rightly so opted for an inclusive approach, breaching its own brokered agreement, IGAD deliberately set out to sex-out all the other stakeholders from the peace talks in favour of the SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO. Basically South Sudan and its people have been reduced to the property of SPLM.

Some of IGAD’s tactics for disenfranchising the people of South Sudan were very crude. For example, it invited the representatives of other political parties and civil society groups to Addis Ababa for the talks. Then it denies these groups of their per diem and travel expenses ensuring their expenses were impossible to meet.

On the other hand it pays the delegates of SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO thousands of dollars of per deim creating an unequal level playing field. Even things like stationery and support services for preparation of documents were denied to the others.

It is in this Dr Riek Machar’s advocacy of the exclusion of the South Sudanese people represented by the other political parties and the civil society groups, that Dr Riek Machar decimally failed the test of being a democrat.

In playing such a negative role, Riek just proved beyond doubt that he is not to be believed and trusted at all. He is not better than President Salva Kiir. Please see, ‘Like a leopard can not change its spots, Machar can not change’

President Kiir and Riek with the support of IGAD were bent on amassing power to themselves repeating the grave mistakes committed during the negotiations of Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005.

The concentration of power in the SPLM then translated into creation of two dominant powerful tribes which is to the detriment of the country. Now these tribes are fighting it out using the state’s machinery and resources for a monopoly of power in the new country.

The leaked report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry in South Sudan (AUCISS) argues correctly that the CPA was responsible for the “creation of unchallenged armed power” in South Sudan.

Without doubt this is the problem of South Sudan and IGAD wanting to repeat the mistake it did a decade ago beggars belief. This is why the collapse of the IGAD peace talks may be a blessing in disguise.

Given the grand theft of public resources, the cleansing of the Nuer and the lawlessness of the tribal government in Juba, power of the state of South Sudan must be diversified if any meaningful peace is to be attained.

The failure of IGAD talks offers a golden chance for democracy to be appropriately built into the system that emerges after any peace talks, this is to be negotiated under any body taking the process over.

Thus it is critically important for the IGAD agreement of 9th May 2014 to be revived by the new body taking the talks over. All the stakeholders must be part of the talks to ensure diversification of the state power to the rest of the country.

Addressing this issue of power leads to another basic but vital problem relating to the foundation of South Sudan. The current foundation is laid on a very soft ground and that is why the country imploded in December 2013. For any country to survive, the foundation must be right.

So if South Sudan is to properly stand as a credible country that will withstand the storms and quakes of turbulent politics the foundation must be built on a solid ground.

The ingredients of a good foundation are a balanced constitution that accommodates everyone, bill of rights, fiercely independent judiciary and a truly self determined parliament. All these are things that exist in South Sudan theoretically but not practically.

A state can not be constructed on the tissue of a lie. For example, South Sudan under SPLM/A makes a lot of noise that it is a democratic country when visibly and practically it is a tribal dictatorship.

Another example is that SPLM/A falsely claims South Sudan is starting from scratch when the history of the country clearly shows the territory has since 1821 been under different administrations: Turko-Egyptian, condominium rule of Egypt/Britain, and the Sudan government.

SPLM/A fabricated this lie to allow them to mismanage the country while hiding their incompetence behind such a claim.

The importance of a good foundation must not be under estimated. Sudan broke into two and possibly it may break up into more countries because its foundation was faulty from the word go.

The elites in that country buried their heads in the sand and decided to give the country an identity that is not correct resulting in discriminatory policies and practices to fit the imagined false identity.

In contrast, even the United States of America which is founded on a solid Constitution to this date suffers from human imperfection. Issues of race, slavery and discrimination routinely surface as a reminder of human weakness in upholding noble principles in the US Constitution.

Nevertheless, it still progresses on a daily basis towards an ideal society because the majority believe and uphold those beautiful principles found in the Constitution of America. The US is able to withstand the cracks on its foundation because the principles and the practice to a certain extent balances out.

Please see President Barack H. Obama’s speech addressing the human imperfection of Americans when he was campaigning for the presidency, ‘A more perfect Union’

In the mother continent Africa the late president of South Africa Nelson Mandela and former President Fredrik De Klerk laid a reasonably good foundation for post Apartheid South Africa in the 1994 settlement.

The racist Afrikaners with their Apartheid regime who came to power in 1948 nurtured a wrong ideology which undermined the concept of a state. Because of the wrong foundation of Apartheid South Africa crumbled under the resistance of the people.

Equally Dinkocracy in South Sudan like Apartheid in South Africa will crumble soon either by revolution or through the expected coming peace talks.

South Sudan has endured a lot of pain since 1821. It needs breathing space to recuperate from its traumas. The panacea for these traumas is democracy. The South Sudan of today as it is known is a product of a democratic process.

The choice of independence is a result of the people’s decision in a referendum in January 2011.

Although the SPLM usurped the power of the people and plunged it into chaos, the people have the right to have a say in its rebuilding.

The mediation set up under IGAD unfortunately was undemocratic. It pushed away the people of South Sudan (stakeholders: other parties and civil society) from the process. IGAD was happy to concentrate power and hand it on a silver platter to the SPLM to do whatever it wanted to do so long as it would stop the war.

IGAD appeared to have no intention of bringing real peace to South Sudan. That was not right at all because practically their approach meant postponement of the war to some future date.

South Sudan as a young country made its choice in January 2011 through the provision of the CPA to be a democracy.

The people of South Sudan believe in this ideology except the SPLM party which trumpets the ideals of democracy but brilliantly practices Dinkocracy, a tribal form of totalitarianism.

Although it is very sad that the SPLM plunged the country into chaos, good should be harnessed out of this tragedy to entrench democratic principles and practices in the country. This should start with the coming mediation process wherever it would be.

For democracy to take root the talks needs to be conducted by the “people” and it must not be made an SPLM affair.

South Sudan does not belong to SPLM rather it is the other way – SPLM belongs to South Sudan and it is a small part of its constituent parts.

Thus all the people must have a say in stopping the war and what the transitional government should be like. Which means all the stakeholders must be part of the coming talks without discrimination.

Ultimately if South Sudan is to overcome its ills including tribalism to achieve full security and stability it must whole heartedly embrace democracy with its element of free speech to act as a balance against the excesses of state.

Democracy provides safeguards against violence in all its forms because in situations where anger and frustrations builds up to a boiling point, it regulates the building pressure by releasing it through the in-built safety values and practices: routine elections based on the constitution; freedom of press and speech; and the rule of law.

These ensure security and stability which are important for economic and human development.

When the government of the day becomes a problem it is safely replaced/changed without traumatising the country. The beauty of democracy is that its structures are adaptable to various political opinions.

In contrast just see what Dinkocracy has done to South Sudan in only three years of independence. The reason the country imploded is simply because Dinkocracy unlike democracy has no safety valves.

The ideologies of totalitarian regimes usually have an assured end in self destruction no matter what development they achieve. Observe the destruction Iraq, Libya, and Syria are facing now. All those sky scrapers and magnificent buildings developed in those countries are being torn down in anger.

Will the wretched development in Juba survive the brewing anger now developing in people’s hearts? The virtues of democracy are proven by the stability and real development seen in the Western world.

In the IGAD peace talks the SPLM/A warring factions of President Salva Kiir, Dr Riek and Pagan Amum were treated favourably and lavished with gleeful per deim in thousands of dollars daily.

Worse still these murderous groups were allowed to dictate the terms. SPLM/A must not be allowed to monopolise power through the process of peace talks.

The failed IGAD talks had again like the CPA negotiations tried to concentrate power in the hands of the criminals of South Sudan. They pretend by claiming that they can bring peace.

This is nonsense. They are the very people who manufactured the catastrophe in the country and therefore they should not be rewarded by being listened to.

Where on this earth are criminals considered as negotiators in solving their crimes? What was happening in Addis Ababa is akin to asking accused foxes who ransacked a chicken pen to bring safety to the remaining traumatised chicken.

If the Hutus who committed genocide in Rwanda were not listened to; if Dr Radovan Karadic and General Ratko Mladic of the Bosnian Serbs who committed ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia were not listened to and made part of their respective peace talks, why then is President Kiir and his SPLM allowed to be part of the talks and treated like decent people?

Does the leaked AUCISS report not make clear that the Juba regime is responsible for the ethnic cleansing?

What is the difference between the ethnic cleansing of the Croats and Bosnians by the Serbs and the one of the Nuer by Jieng controlled regime of Juba?

The only difference as far as can be seen is that the former involves Europeans and the latter involves Africans. It may be this difference that blurs the eye with which the UNSC sees the problem of South Sudan.

The rush and desperation of the international community to broker peace before the expiry of the mandate of the President Kiir on 9th July 2015 does not bode well for South Sudan.

What is important should be identifying the right body and personalities to lead it rather than leaving the process yet again to the failed IGAD to try to revamp itself under their declared new – IGAD Plus body which seeks to incorporate the Troika with some other countries.

Please see ‘IGAD unveils new process to end South Sudan crisis’

The failure of IGAD simply is based on the fact that their strategy was wrong and unjust, and as long as it continues with this strategy they will never succeed in bringing peace with Troika and others or without.

Please see, ‘IGAD’s inadequate strategy in South Sudan’

IGAD’s hurry to rejuvenate itself appears to indicate anxiety, confusion and the poor thinking on the matter going on in the mediation team. They seem to be more interested in salvaging their already damaged reputation than getting the right and workable peace deal.

All along IGAD appears to focus on the short term rather than the long term. Like their already failed strategy they look certain to commit the same mistake, because they have not learnt anything from their failure.

Lesson number one for IGAD and the international community is that the talks must be an affair of all South Sudanese and the South Sudanese should be the ones to decide the agenda.

The importance of this point can not be overstated because ownership of the peace will translate to a lasting peace for South Sudan and the region.

Lesson number two is that Uganda must not be part of the talks because it is belligerent and on the government’s side, with Uganda’s troops on the ground involved in the war.

Lesson number three is that IGAD should not make threats that they are not ready to follow through.

Lesson number four is that IGAD must strictly follow the rules of mediation.

Lesson number five IGAD must treat all stakeholders equally.

Lesson number six SPLM must not be given any preference – It must be treated like all the other stakeholders.

Finally, it is unbelievable that the international community is bent on continuing with empowering the monstrous SPLM/A. The leaked report of African Union Committee of Inquiry in South Sudan (AUCISS) which IGAD is struggling to keep under wraps identifies the source of the current problem in the country.

In clause 89 the report argues that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement created SPLM/A as “unchallenged armed power in South Sudan” Please see, ‘Draft Report of the AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan.’

Therefore, the simple strategy for bringing peace to South Sudan should involves the diversification of power to all its constituent social groups through a democratised peace talks.

This entails the international community starting the whole process anew. Just as agreed and accepted on 9th May 2014 agreement in Addis Ababa, the new body without IGAD should invite all the stakeholders of South Sudan to hammer out a lasting deal.

The shenanigans of IGAD which favoured the culprit and discriminated against the victims (the people) should be thrown into the bin.

[Truth hurts but its also liberating]
Elhag Paul

South Sudan: War without end

By Richard Dowden, Posted on March 26, 2015 by AfricanArgumentsEditor, SSN;

Last week President Salva Kiir of South Sudan rejected all the main proposals put forward by the African Union to bring peace to Africa’s newest state. Standing on the temporary podium erected for Independence Day just over three and a half years ago, he refused all attempts at compromise with Riek Machar, the former Vice President.

Standing in a black suit and cowboy hat, surrounded by praise singers, ministers, religious leaders, foreign ambassadors and school children, he read laboriously from a script. With a few thousand others I stood in the searing Sudan sun listening to his rejection of a peace deal.

No to more parliamentary seats, he said. No to more ministers. No to federation – unless the people demand it. That was, I suspect a private joke: no one is allowed to demand anything here.

There were no substantive concessions to anything that Machar, now at war with the president, is demanding. President Kiir rejected the idea of a ceremonial head of state with an executive presidency. “Riek must be number two to me,” he said. He did offer an amnesty but that they “must accept the line I give them”.

This means war.

The crowd was peppered with suited security men. Some of them stopped me and asked why I was not wearing a pass. I didn’t have one. They didn’t know what to do next so I wandered freely around the podium but as I, and two western journalists left, we were stopped and questioned. “Why are you leaving before the President finished speaking? You are insulting the President.” Of course I denied it but it would have been a perfectly sensible reaction.

What, I kept thinking, have the Southern Sudanese learnt from the rest of Africa’s post-independence mistakes over the last 50 years? How could South Sudan avoid the coups and bitter personal enmities that rivals tribalised to make war on each other?

Who was able to stop the gross theft of state funds? Why did so many African rulers live in paranoid secrecy and total security? Above all why did those rulers lack any interest in development for their own people? I had seen it in Idi Amin’s Uganda, in Moi’s Kenya, in Mobutu’s Congo, in Abacha’s Nigeria, in Houphouet-Boigny’s Cote d’Ivoire.

And here, now, in 2015, in Africa’s newest country all those criminals are being mimicked by this scarcely literate clown in a black cowboy hat.

The rival armies have already fought a few rounds. As the war develops further a few more fighters will be killed but thousands of South Sudanese, mainly women and children, will die of preventable diseases having been forced to flee from their homes. I was in South Sudan in 1991, the last time they fell out with each other. They seemed to fight with more bitterness towards each other than they fought the Khartoum government. Whole villages were sacked and burned and women and children slaughtered.

Maybe, despite being handed one of the most beautiful and potentially wealthy countries in the world, the leaders simply decided that killing, looting and raping were more rewarding than development.

There is not much to choose between the two warlords and their numerous fickle allies. Riek is admittedly a far better educated man. He holds a PhD from Bradford University in engineering and can discuss global issues with great insight and knowledge. He deploys great charm to foreigners. But he is allied to the White Army, a militia of young Nuer killers and rapists who have committed some of the worst atrocities. If the International Criminal Court had been a success, Machar would be a prime target.

Perhaps war is what they are most comfortable with. The region has been a warzone on and off for more than 1000 years. From the 10th Century, maybe longer, Arabs began to raid what is now South Sudan for slaves. In the 19th Century the British took over the region to control the Nile from the source to the sea, but their administration was more like an imperial military occupation than colonialism. There was no development for the people except what the Christian churches managed to organise. Each denomination was given an area to Christianize.

Independence came suddenly in 1956 and the south was then ruled from Khartoum. War broke out immediately but paused in 1972, which allowed 11 years of peace and a little development. That changed in 1983 when Colonel John Garang, one of the few southerners with a university education, launched the Sudan People’s Liberation Army – not to fight for independence, but to turn the whole of Sudan into a “united, democratic and secular Sudan”.

The war officially ended in a US brokered peace agreement in 2002 and South Sudan became independent with the agreement of the north nine years later. That brought another brief period of peace but also theft on a vast scale as some ministers have simply stolen the entire budgets of their departments.

In 2011 the American ambassador had some of these thefts tracked, made a list of the names and bank accounts, and handed it to the President. Nothing happened.

As Alex de Waal wrote in African Affairs in July last year: “Kiir’s strategy for managing the SPLM/A’s fractious leaders was to indulge their appetite for self-enrichment.” He argues that when the money ran out the recipients simply went back to war – it being what they were used to.

One positive thing that has emerged from this horrific tragedy is an African Union report that has been leaked. African Union reports do not normally leak and if they do, they are so anodyne and inconsequential that no one can be bothered to read them. But this report is different. It is bluntly honest, quotes ordinary South Sudanese, attributes blame to individuals – including the President – and recommends extraordinary measures.

It reveals that a South Sudan Army has never been created. It remains a collection of tribal militias amounting to officially, but improbably, 480,000 men. Each general – for which you can read ‘warlord’ – gets paid and is supposed to pay his men. Many do not. That is in part what caused the return to war.

Here are some of the gems from the report:

A quote from the street:

“They put a knife into what bound us, turned the crisis from political to ethnic.”

The population of South Sudan is 10 million people and its revenue is $5 billion. 75% of the population is illiterate. One in 50 dies at childbirth (this is the worst indicator in the world). There are a large number of returnees from Sudan. 70% of government budget goes to pay people in arms. Small arms are proliferating. Socially excluded youth have evolved into a volatile force, and a very large group of unemployed youth are ripe for manipulation.

The violence, which originated as a schism in the governing elite of South Sudan, targeted one particular ethnicity, the Nuer. Its intent and effect was to divide the civilian population along ethnic lines, to destroy the middle ground, thereby to polarize the society into ‘us’ and ‘them.’

“Every time we integrate, someone declares in Khartoum that we have a militia. We integrate them and give them a rank. Most of these militias are illiterate – led by illiterate Major-Generals. Even today, we have not integrated them. We tried to demobilize them, but that was difficult. You cannot demobilize someone who has a gun. You give him money under DDR. When the money is finished, he will go back to the bush.”

South Sudan has never had an election. Salva Kiir was elected Vice President of Sudan, but never President of a state called South Sudan.

It is wrong to think of South Sudan as a failed state – for the simple reason that South Sudan never was a state. There was no bureaucracy, no judiciary, there was nothing to fail. There were only fighting forces, most of the time fighting one another and a make believe state whose leadership was propped up and fêted by important sections of the international community. South Sudan may exist as a state on paper, but more as a juridical fiction than an institutional reality.

To think of South Sudan as a failed state is to overlook the simple fact that the very political foundation for the existence of a state – a political compact – has yet to be forged within the elite and between the communities that comprise the country.

Jok Madut Jok, a South Sudanese academic, described the looting spree during the CPA: “The period following 2005 was a period of entitlement, we are entitled to eat, we liberated this country. But…flagrant theft of public money created serious injustices.”

President Kiir publicly accused 75 top officials of being responsible for the cumulative theft of $4.5 billion. There are three main sources of corruption in South Sudan: oil money, government employment and land.

Haile Menkerios, former Special Representative of the Secretary General of the UN (SRSG) to Sudan and South Sudan, told the Commission: “Oil revenue for Sudan as a whole was $50-60 billion from 2005 of which 50% came to South Sudan. There is nothing to show for it.”

He said oil is sold in two ways, in the open market and in the spot market: “None of the spot market money got into the bank. It is divided between individuals.” (Definition: Spot market is where the oil is sold for cash and delivered immediately. Contracts bought and sold on these markets are immediately effective. The spot market is also called the “cash market” or “physical market”, because prices are settled in cash on the spot at current market prices, as opposed to forward prices. Also, Crude oil is an example of a future that is sold at spot prices but its physical delivery occurs in one month or less—Investopedia, from Editor)

“International donors,” wrote Peter Ajak, the presidential advisor, “deployed legions of foreign technical assistants who, eager to showcase immediate results, ended up doing everything themselves, transferring little know-how to South Sudanese civil servants.”

The prime targets of large scale land acquisition, what has come to be called ‘land-grabbing’, are the areas of peasant cultivation in the south of the country, mainly Equatoria. The editor of Juba Monitor told the Commission: “Equatorians are very unhappy. Their major grievance arises from land grabbing. A lot of land around the President’s house was taken with no compensation.”

Elite reconciliation has evaded South Sudan for decades. The only program around in which different factions managed to come together was the campaign for independence. Since independence, the South Sudan political class has lacked a project around which to coalesce.

The responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of those who designed and steered the six year transition period ushered in by the CPA. By focusing on Sudan to the north as the enemy to be confronted the CPA lost an opportunity both to confront its past failure at reconciliation and forge a national project around which the South Sudan political elite could unite.

The split in the SPLA in 1991 was never resolved – it was simply deferred. The accommodation that was made at Wunlit in 1999 was pragmatic, not principled. Former President Thabo Mbeki recalled 1991 as a recurring theme in his discussions with President Kiir: “Salva told us: Riek killed a lot of Dinka, and we will not give him the opportunity to do so again. Rebecca (Garang) said we agree with Machar that Salva must go but I will never allow Riek to be President – never a fellow who did that.”

Hilde Johnson, UN Representative, “This crisis is beyond anything we have seen in scale, magnitude and depth. A quick fix power-sharing agreement will not work – problems of the country and leadership are too deep.” She repeated, for emphasis: “We need to re-boot South Sudan – no quick fix, no deal, will do it.”

The ambassadors of the Troika (the U.S., U.K. and Norway) agreed that President Kiir should step down and, indeed, both Kiir and Machar should both step aside.

The British envoy: “Dinka without Kiir will not settle; Nuer without Machar will not settle; and yet, the two will not work together.” The US envoy said “there is so much hatred they can’t move forward even with both of them there.”

The Norwegian envoy concurred: “There is no reflection yet on why things went wrong.”

Commission therefore recommends a transitional period with three distinctive features:
–(a) a High Level Oversight panel to guide the period of transition;
–(b) a transitional government that excludes those politically accountable for the crisis; and –(c) a transitional program that address the question of justice in different forms.

Richard Dowden is Director of the Royal African Society.

South Sudan a country for Dinka only, Bona Malwal tells Dinka in USA


Bona Malwal, once a long-time antagonist of the late Dr John Garang De Mabior and the anti- separatist of South Sudan, emerged from his hiding place in Sudan only to come to the USA purportedly having been sent by President Salva Kiir with messages of hate against the Nuer people and South Sudanese in general.

During his visit to Kansas City, Kansas, USA, on Saturday March 21, 2015, Mr. Malwal, who’s a member of the secretive Jieng Council of Elders which in effect acts as a tribal advisory council to President Kiir, said the government of South Sudan dispatched him with solid missions: to meet and brief the Dinka community in the USA about the success of the Kiir government in holding the Nuer at bay and about the imminent defeat of the so-called Nuer Rebellion, invoke the diaspora Dinka support and rally the American law makers and her people to support the Kiir’s government and stand against the UN proposed sanctions.

Accompanied by some dignitaries from the South Sudanese embassy in Washington, DC, upon taking the stage but before commencing his speech, Mr. Bona Malwal, whose briefing carried hate messages against the Nuer people and the other 62 tribes of south Sudan, asked the attendees whether there were people in the audience who did not speak Dinka.

However, since no one raised up their hands, and therefore assuming that all in the conference room were Dinkas, he, Bona Malwal proceeded with the briefing in Dinka language not knowing there were some non-Dinkas in the audience who spoke the language fluently.

Mr. Bona Malwal said South Sudan existed thanks to the Dinka and therefore belongs to the Dinka people, and the Dinka have earned it and are where they are now above all others in South Sudan.

Bona Malwal stated they, the Dinka, are justified and deserved to be honored and respected for the hard-earned independence of south Sudan, but the Nuer are destroying this hard earned right, which was achieved by the blood of Dinka.

He said the Nuer had come to USA in the early 1990s but they had neither political weight nor influence in the USA Congress and they therefore contributed nothing to liberate the people of south Sudan.

In comparison, he said, the Dinka in USA at large arrived in the 2000’s and it was their influence that lead to the American support for the Independence of South Sudan.

Stating the Dinka at home bled while those in America used their intelligence to rally the American congress for which we now have an independent South Sudan.

This was earned by Dinka thus the republic of South Sudan belongs to the Dinka and they must not allow the Nuer to ruin and steal the hearts of the American Congress and the American people so that the hard earned country achieved by the blood of Dinka isn’t robbed from the them, Dinka, by the proposed sanctions drafted by the USA, which in his view will weaken the Kiir government for the benefit of the Nuer.

Concluding, Bona Malwal says he sees a real and tangible danger in these sanctions if it were to go through, thus this is the significance of his trip to America.

Bona Malwal said Dinka in America must do all within their power to lobby the American congress and to influence the White House so as to withhold the awaited UN Security Council sanctions on the warring parties in South Sudan.

He feared this will largely affect what he called their government. Bona Malwal acknowledged to the audience that he was dispatched by the government of South Sudan with enough resources to lobby the congress and dispatch members of the Dinka community to begin distributing the copies of the letter he himself brought from Juba, drafted by him, approved by President Kiir and the Council of Jieng Elders.

He stated this letter must be in the hands of the American law makers by March 28, 2015.

He added that the main objective of his visit in addition is to enlighten and educate the intelligentsia, specially from his Dinka community and to solidify what he referred to as “our government” position.

He urged the young people from his Dinka ethnic group not to give any inch to the Nuer both in the war frontline and in the political front, especially in the USA.

He claimed the latter should be easy as the Nuer are not as sophisticated and educated as his Dinka tribesmen.

Mr. Malwal swore the Nuer shall never ascend to nor assume power in South Sudan because when it comes to population the ratio is 1 Nuer to 5 Dinka. Thus he urges the Audience not to allow their country be taken away by Nuer who are the spoilers in South Sudan.

That the real danger to their ownership of South Sudan is the Nuer, adding the other tribes are no match for the Dinkas and remain no factor in the current conflict.

This vitriolic rhetoric is not surprising given that Mr. Bona Malwal is the architect of the Dinka superiority policy and the ideology of the born to rule.

Bona Malwal, who is fighting for his own political survival, attempting to gain favors from Kiir and Jieng council of elders, should not be allowed to intimidate the nation of south Sudan and drive wedges among tribal lines thus hindering peace.

The Nation should not stand in silence.

First of all who is Bona, all South Sudanese know his wretched ambition led him to attempt make a political coup against the founding leader of SPLA, Dr. John Garang.

Therefore becoming irrelevant since the CPA and going into hiding and silence as if he was dead only to resurrect this time to come to USA with dirty ambition to influence Dinka people who have peacefully coexisted with the Neur in the USA.

Mr. Bona Malwal encouraged his fellow Dinka in USA to rise against the Nuer community in America, mobilize human resources more so than money and to deny the Nuer the right to exist in South Sudan, because the Nuer did not deserve to enjoy the privileges of the new nation.

Bona Malwal urged all the able-bodies Dinka youth in America to go home so as to defend the territories of what belongs to them and never allow the Dinka-led government to be driven away by the Nuer and the other minority tribes of Equatoria.

He Bona said the Dinka in America are like the Jewish people scattered all over the world, and he encouraged them to fight the Nuer, that anyone who returns will be rewarded with job offers especially as the President Kiir has planned a full reshuffle of his government to remove some non-Dinka in directorship, and ministerial positions to make room for the Dinka in diaspora who hold valuable Diplomas from American Universities but more so those who distinguish themselves in advocacy for the current government.

It is very clear that this speech in Kansas City, Kansas, USA by Bona Malwal is in direct opposition to the American values and positions and her proposed sanctions that is purported to target those who stifle and promote antagonism and are pro conflict.

The question is: Given Bona’s history of being the father of Dinka Superiority thus in essence the father of this civil war, how did the American embassy not know and why give a Visa to such known war monger and divisive figure to reach the American soil?

If this highly educated person is talking this way, is it any wonder then that peace could not find its way in South Sudan?

Indeed, the American government and her congress must not allow itself be duped by such a pro-war politician, the likes of Bona Malwal and must be denounced and banned from America.

Justin S. Kwaje

Juba SPLM-dominated Parliament extends Kiir’s term to 2018

Different sources: MAR/24/2015, SSN;

South Sudan’s parliament, predominated by the Kiir’s own SPLM in Juba voted Tuesday to extend President Salva Kiir’s mandate by three years, from 9 July 2015 to 9 July 2018, an official said, formally ditching any plans for elections to be held this year in the country.

The parliament also extended its own term as well as that of all the states’ legislatures by three years.

270 members of parliament attended the sitting, with 264 voting in favor of the bill and 6 against, according to an unofficial tally.

The passing of the amended bill came after five hours of debate by the parliamentarians.

“The Transitional Constitution 2011 Amendment Bill of 2015 has been passed unanimously by more than two thirds majority,” said the parliamentary speaker Manasseh Magok Rundial after the vote.

Magok said the Parliament acted in accordance with the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan to amend Articles 66 and 164 to extend the president’s and legislature’s terms.

The move has been seen as going against peace efforts by regional mediators, who have been pushing President Kiir and rebel leader Riek Machar to share power in a transitional government, although officials insist Kiir is seeking to avoid a power vacuum following the collapse of peace talks.

“The tenure of the office is extended by 36 months,” said parliament official Thomas Wani Kundu, adding that the government’s proposal to extend its mandate “was passed overwhelmingly”.

Elections in the bitterly divided nation had been due before July 9 — the end of the parliament and president’s mandate under a provisional constitution — but they were opposed by international donors and civil society groups who say any vote held in the midst of civil war would be a sham.

Talks between President Kiir and Dr Machar, which have been hosted by neighbouring Ethiopia, collapsed earlier this month after the two sides failed to agree on a proposal that would see them share power again.

Barbed wire

Both sides have since signaled their intention to fight on. Mr Kundu, however, said the extension of President Kiir’s mandate was designed to give the government time to reach a peace deal.

“All these amendments were initiated by the President in order to give peace a chance. These (extra) three years are in order to give us a chance to get prepared… so we can conduct free and fair elections,” he said.

Dengtiel Kuur, chairperson of the legal affairs committee, said the country is passing through a civil war which may make it impractical to conduct elections with a peaceful transfer of power in accordance with the schedules and timelines provided by the constitution.

Dengtiel said the president and the legislature are empowered by Article 100 Subarticle 2 of the constitution to introduce and enact amendments to the constitution.

Article 202 was also amended to extend the mandate and tenure of the constitutional review commission to 31 December 2018.

Fighting broke out in December 2013 when President Kiir accused Dr Machar of attempting a coup, setting off a cycle of retaliatory killings across the country.

Over half the country’s 12 million people need aid, according to the UN, which is also sheltering some 100,000 civilians trapped inside camps ringed with barbed wire, too terrified to venture out for fear of being killed.