Category: Featured

Nations are not Built by Whiners

BY: Kuir ë Garang, ALBERTA, Canada, NOV/23/2014, SSN;

South Sudanese still have, by and large, a very long way to go when it comes to development of a unifying, enduring sense of nationhood or statehood. As things stand now, we are merely a collection of tribal nationalities with conflicting interests.

In the past, our only unifying factors were our common struggle against the oppression from Khartoum and the fact that we were enclosed by the same geopolitical boundary set by the colonial dividers of Africa in 18th and 19th centuries.

The gravest onus is now on us to create a sense of ‘South Sudan-ness’; an identity that’d make an Acholi of South Sudan identify more with Zande of South Sudan rather than with Acholi in Uganda. This is by no means an easy task; however, it’s a task we’ve neglected in vain search for tribal voice and hegemony.

We’ve become a nation of whiners, who offer nothing by way of alternative solutions.

Whining, polemics and acrimonious writs have become our source of solace. We keyboard divisive pomposity and verbosity that make us feel good about ourselves but at the end of the day contribute towards the divisiveness the same writing was supposed to combat.

With no doubt, this has become an oxymoron that typifies what it means to be a South Sudanese; and that’s a sense of self we wouldn’t want to be our defining identity.

Everyone in South Sudan has become a whiner!
The President of the country and his officials have become nothing but a bunch of whiners, who believe everything that’s wrong with South Sudan isn’t their incompetence but a work of some evil man called Riek Machar.

The officials whine about international community favoring rebels, about UNMISS siding with Riek’s forces, about journalists siding with rebels, about IGAD’s impartiality, about the venue of the ‘Peace Talks’ and about everything!

Respectable leaders don’t just whine incessantly. They only point out all the obstacles and problems they face and then rush to suggest workable solutions and alternatives.

If these whiners say anything as an alternative, it’s always something that benefits them. South Sudanese citizens only feature as pawns in the leaders’ quest for power and wealth.

The rebels, who present themselves as a clean alternative to the government, are nothing but another bunch of the same: opportunistic whiners. They whine about President Kiir remaining president, about IGAD’s partiality, about government atrocities while forgetting their own atrocities, about Nuer marginalization when Nuer still stand next to Kiir and fight against fellow Nuer who are part of government’s forces, about dictatorship when they were part of the same system they just left…etc.

If the rebels think they are a formidable alternative to the government then why is it that we only hear the problem stalling the talks being the issue of power-sharing? Why is it the question of who’s to have what powers that’s the problem? Why’s anything in the interest of the citizens taking back stage?

We’ve seen so far what the rebels are! They’ve whined their way from complaints about internal reforms within SPLM to their claim on South Sudanese echelons of power. For the rebels to be seen as credible voice fighting on behalf of South Sudanese citizens, it has to be clear at the talks that they represent the people.

And South Sudanese tribes have mastered the art of whining. The Jieeng whine about Nuer being prone to violent rebellion and Riek Machar being the ultimate killer while forgetting the atrocities committed by a government controlled largely by Jieeng men.

Jieeng’s self-righteousness has a lot to do with everything that’s wrong in South Sudan.
Nuer too complain about being marginalized by the Jieeng while Nuer officials still hold senior positions in both the government and the rebellion.

The third most powerful man in South Sudan, Magok Rundial, the current speaker of the national assembly, is a Nuer.

While hundreds of Nuer civilians were brutally massacred in cold-blood by government’s forces in Juba in December, it’s always prudent to remember that Nuer forces, let by the notorious White Army, have also committed atrocities. There’s respect in accepting one’s wrongs before labeling accusations on others.

One of the arguments always floated around by Nuer is that the Nuer in Kiir’s administration are mere puppets and don’t have a voice. Well, it’s not the fault of the president if they allow themselves to be used like puppets. Where are these people’s morals?

And to top it all, ‘Equatorians,’ as a sociopolitical collegiality for all the tribes in the three southern states of the country, whine of having been marginalized by the Jieeng and the Nuer despite the fact that the second most powerful man in the country is from Equatoria.

The cabinet affairs minister, Dr. Elias Lomoro, is the forth in government hierarchy after the Vice President, the President and the Speaker of the national assembly.

And now many Equatorians, even the Vice President himself, believe that the question of the VP position in the transitional period is an attempt to marginalize Equatorians. And the VP argues that it’s not about his job while he’s repeatedly warned that he’s not going to resign this time around for the sake of Riek Machar. Using Equatorians to safeguard a job is base!

I don’t want to sound naïve. I understand that there are junior Jieeng officials in Kiir’s administration, who are more powerful than some senior government officials from other tribes. However, we have to remember that the problem lies with the officers, who allow themselves to be subordinated by subordinates.

Why see oneself as a subaltern in an administration in which you’re not? Why can’t these officers confront the president? Why can’t they speak on behalf of South Sudanese and straighten things out? Why are these officers afraid of the president even when what they would say would benefit the country?

There’s a clear difference between whining and criticizing the government. Whiners are fond of badmouthing without offering any workable alternatives. Criticisms are excellent mirrors to conscientious leadership, however, to merely whine without offering alternatives and to show the government that the current path is wrong, is a waste of time.

Many non-Jieeng officials subordinate themselves. They see Jieeng officers make bad decisions and applaud them only to claim self-righteousness when they are out of the government.

It’s with no doubt that there are many well-meaning leaders from Equatoria and among the Nuer in the current government, who can stand up to President Kiir (behind closed doors) and advise him in good faith to help rescue the country. However, they are too timid and only think about their positions rather than their constituents and the nation.

We keep on blaming the Jieeng and the President but how about this: Why can’t all the Equatorians and Nuer officials working in the government threaten the President with resignation if he doesn’t change the country for better?

The government would collapse in an instant if they resign en masse. However, they will never do that because they, like all South Sudanese politicians, care more about their jobs rather than the interest of the nation and South Sudanese citizens. (Watch the video commentary here)

So stop whining and see into it that what would change this nation isn’t vacuous whining and foul-mouthing but procurement of workable alternatives!

Kuir ë Garang is the author of “South Sudan Ideologically.” For contact, visit

Late Honorable Cecilia, a victim of SPLM policies of settlement & orphanization.

BY: ELHAG PAUL, South Sudan, NOV/19/2014, SSN;

The long list of murdered Equatorians by the SPLM system continues to get longer day by day. The latest victim is Cecilia Oba Tito, a young, intelligent and promising leader of Equatoria. Cecilia hails from Morsak village near Yei. She was born in 1974 to late Tito Towongo and Araba of Kakwa tribe. From 1981 to 1987 Cecilia attended Kagelu primary school after which she went to Yei Girl’s Secondary School.

However, due to the war at the time Cecilia relocated to Uganda in 1991 where she continued with her secondary school education at Nyangilia secondary school in West Nile district. After completing her secondary education in 1994 she proceeded to do a one year course in 1996 at Nsameji National Institute where she graduated with a certificate in social development.

Armed with her qualifications Cecilia returned to South Sudan and did a lot of community work promoting human development in former Yei district. In 2005 Cecilia served as a minister in Central Equatoria government. From 2008 to 2013 Cecilia went to South Africa for further studies where she graduated with a master’s degree.

On her return home, she was elected as the first female mayor of Yei town.

Painfully, Cecilia’s life was cut short to advance the Jieng expansionist policy of settlement and orphanization in Equatoria.

Upper Nile Times on 10/11/2014 reported the murder of Cecilia under the heading ‘Mayor Hon Cecilia Aba Tito dragged and gunned down over a plot of land.’

The motive for the crime could not have been clearer. Equatorians have suffered and endured the most degrading and humiliating treatment from SPLM over the issue of their land. To put this in context, it is important to go back to the recent history of the SPLM/A.

Right from the inception of this monstrous organisation in 1983, as argued elsewhere, the SPLM/A was formed with the aim to conquer and subjugate Equatoria. The rebellion of Bor which was a product of corruption was seized on by the Jieng as a means to avenge Kokora.

Kokora itself was a reaction of the Equatorians to the unruly behaviour of the Jieng under the leadership of Abel Alier in the regional government of South Sudan during the reign of General Jaafar Mohamed Nimeiri in the late 1970s. Please see ‘Fudging the issue – President Kiir and Corruption in RSS’ and Jacob Lupai’s articles on the subject in South Sudan Nation and South Sudan News Agency websites.

When SPLM/A ventured into Equatoria, it treated the people brutally as if they were not South Sudanese brothers and sisters. It killed more people and raped more women and young girls than at any time in the entire history of South Sudan.

From early 1990s, ironically it was common to hear people in Equatoria preferring the Arabs to the Jieng because of the rampant atrocities meted on the people.

During the war, the Jieng soldiers routinely displaced Equatorians from their homes in their villages under gun point. This continued until 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was concluded.

After the CPA land grab became the order of the day with Equatorians frequently murdered without any accountability, for example, the disappearance of engineer John Lewis. Often, the Jieng boldly and promptly declare their intention to settle all over Equatoria. They refer to Equatoria as a Jieng colony.

A certain Deng Ajak on 13th August 2014 had this to say to a certain Ben Tombe: “Ben Tombe, let me remind you slaves don’t talk like that to the masters. Dog without tooth? You are colonized remember? Is it dog without tooth that colonized you or us Dinka, the hero tribe in South Sudan? Just for your information colonization is not over yet. Those of you who don’t want to respect our right to colonize will very soon have no where to put their heads. We colonized Bari Speakers, Zande, Kakua, Madi, Taposa, Acholi, Lotuka and every single tribe in Equatoria and Western Bahar el Ghazal. We will continue to neutralize you people until you diminished. It is true you people are not humans. You don’t have the right, we do. Clement Wani Konga is misleading you today, but if we want tomorrow he will disappear. He talked about no one will sit on the heads of Equatorian, do you people really are human? do you think you have any home left? There is not Equatorian family which have never given birth to a Dinka. If being Gay is to be legalized today, all Equatorian men will marry to Dinka men. Even today almost all the servants in Dinka homes every where in the country are Equatorians too. You feel ashamed, Ben Tombe.”

Please see the comments on this article, ‘Angry Security Council visiting Nairobi for South Sudan sanctions talk’

Indeed they (Dinka) are in every nook and cranny of Equatoria with their cattle terrorizing the locals to realize this objective. Nobody in Equatoria is against the Jieng coming to live in Equatoria, but this needs to be done through the right channel following the law of the land and not through thuggery and abuse of state power.

Now, Cecilia, a promising daughter of Equatoria has become a victim of this heinous policy of the Jieng. But the murder of Cecilia must not be seen from this angle only as it also fulfills another horrendous policy of the Jieng which is to render Equatoria leaderless: orphanization.

As already pointed out, the Jieng desperately want to control Equatoria and its people and this goes back to the first Anyanya war of liberation. From 1983 Dr John Garang cleverly adopted the undeclared policy of destroying Equatorian leaders in order for the Jieng to prevail.

Equatoria had to be made an orphan for the Jieng to control it.

The literature on social control and domination posits that for any powerful group to exercise their power in order to have control over any other group depends on their ability to render the targeted group leaderless. Without this, it is almost impossible to succeed in colonising any people.

This is why the imperialists and colonialists in the yester century destroyed indigenous leaders in their colonies and replaced them with handpicked leaders honed to serve their interest.

The SPLM has consistently since its birth worked to destroy Equatoria leadership. In the bush, capable Equatorians were not recognized and promoted in the forces even when they have all the necessary qualifications.

Deliberately, they were kept in the rank and file to be led by illiterate and incapable Jieng officers such as the likes of President Salva Kiir.

Those whom they could not control whether in the forces or civilians were brutally murdered. For example, Peter Kidi, Luka Kpakaciro, Col. Martin Kejivura, John Nambu, Didinga chief, Acholi chief, Madi chiefs and so on.

Prominent Equatorian leaders like Bishop Paride Taban and late Dr Samson Kwaje were slapped literally by Kuol Manyang Juok and others for no good reason but to humiliate them in front of their people reducing them to nothing.

These acts in themselves not only erode authority but have a huge psychological effect in how these respectable people would view themselves and in turn how others view them. This was deliberately done to make Equatorians feel helpless in order to submit to Jieng.

From 2005 the SPLM targeted the would-be future leaders of Equatoria and they set out to kill them. For example, the Equatorian police officers murdered in Yambio, the doctor murdered in Yei, the two new graduates from Makerere murdered in Maridi over the issue of federalism recently and now Cecilia.

The common factor in all these cases is that these eliminated young lives possessed acumen and have demonstrated promising leadership skills and qualities. In addition, all those cases have not been investigated and allowed to fizzle out with the killers roaming the streets in contempt of the people.

No accountability and no justice!!!!

The destruction of these Equatorians who would have been future leaders is met by constant training and promotion of young Jieng to positions of power.

The ministry of education discriminatively sends young Jieng abroad for training using state resources while obstructing the other tribes from receiving the same service.

The purpose is Jieng investment in education to build future leadership capability that will allow them to dominate South Sudan for generations to come. Their formula is: kill the skilled Equatorians and replace the same with Jieng and over time Equatoria will be properly subjugated and settled.

The impact of these evil Jieng policies if not stopped will have grave consequences for Equatoria in less than two decades from now.

The immediate consequence which is seen now is that they have almost succeeded to decide who can lead Equatoria and not who Equatorinas want as their leaders of choice.

So, in a sense the Jieng have taken the power of decision from the Equatorians which means Equatorians basically are subjects. Here the red light should be flashing to any concerned Equatorian to think of the future.

The relentless killing of skilled Equatorian persons and prospective leaders without corresponding training to replace the lost would-be-leaders due to: 1) deliberate marginalisation in education, 2) pauperisation – the inability to afford educational fees, means that there is a constant reduction of talents and skills in Equatoria.

The net effect will be the re-stratification of South Sudan social groups with Equatoria turned into an underclass, a group without leaders and educated people to protect the community and their lands.

Should the Jieng succeed in this policy, it will directly feed into their settlement plan because powerless people without leaders can not protect themselves and their land such as the case of the Aborigines in Australia and the Indians in the Americas.

Given the danger facing Equatoria now, SPLM/A needs to be stopped. The key to halting this deadly plan lies with Equatorians and it is a simple one.

First Equatorians need to desert the SPLM to deal a mortal blow to the Jieng power base in South Sudan.

Secondly, they need to follow their true leaders who no doubt have plans to stir the whole country away from the ongoing catastrophe.

Though the murder of Cecilia might have been done by few people from the ‘born to rule’ for their personal gain, the force behind its implementation comes from a policy that advances the interest of an entire group: settlement and orphanization of Equatoria.

The whole Jieng ethnic group benefits from this barbarism in terms of depleting skilled Equatorian people and also in terrorizing the people to deepen control over Equatoria which surely constitutes an aggression on Equatoria.

Cecilia’s murder is not only a political homicide case, but it is also a case of violence against women. Men in South Sudan generally are uncomfortable with women leading them or women in position of authority.

The fact that the accepted policy that women must occupy twenty five percent of positions across the board in South Sudan government has not been implemented is due to the male-centric attitude that have long permeated the South Sudanese society.

The suffering of women, especially Equatorian women under the SPLM system is heart breaking. The Jieng are taking liberties with Equatorian women simply to humiliate them.

For example, working Equatorian women are daily subjected to threats of sackings and unemployment if they refuse to have intimate (sexual) time with the illiterate ‘born to rule’ placed as their bosses. Other women, especially the morally principled ones face threats of death.

The Jieng have gone as far as to design something called I.I.B. which means interview in bed. If a woman applies for a job, she is likely to be subjected to this degrading and humiliating process.

The worse case scenario which people do not want to talk about due to shame is the forceful rape of mothers in front of their husbands and children by Jieng soldiers. This happens frequently in Equatoria.

The victims need to speak out about these crimes to remove any shame or stigma attached to it. Keeping quiet allows the assailants to continue with their crimes without the prospect of accountability. Equatorians need to support such families as a duty to help them recover from their traumas.

The gruesome murder of Cecilia symbolizes two things. First, the intense hate towards women. For if it was not the case why did the murderers abuse the body of the late? Cecilia being an Equatorian, intelligent and a woman combined all the elements hated by the the Jieng.

The brutal murder is to send a message to all Equatorian women that they either submit or they face the consequences.

Secondly, Cecilia is a symbol of resistance. Her personal fight to protect her property is one of the cases that make the millions of cases of land grab in Equatoria.

Therefore, she is the embodiment of Equatoria’s struggle against the Jieng policy of land grab and forceful settlement.

As a woman, that must have come across to her murders as an affront.

Thirdly, even if Equatorians are members of the ruling party the SPLM, they are not protected. If they stand up to the system they will be kidnapped and murdered like Cecilia. They are only there to be used to advance Jieng’s interest and once they are not needed they will unceremoniously be disposed of.

Sadly, no prominent woman has come out openly to condemn the gruesome murder of Cecilia. Even Rebecca Nyandeng who masquerades as a leader has failed to advance the cause of sisterhood.

Indeed, tribalism has taken deep root in South Sudan. Were Cecilia to be a Jieng, the media, Jieng Council of Elders and the Jieng SPLM machine would have been roaring with its loudest voice condemning the barbarity of the crime and asking for justice.

But since it the Jieng machine operating its well laid out policies of settlements and oprhanization, it goes eerily quiet.

Will Cecilia get justice? Not easy to answer given the pattern of similar crimes committed against Equatoria. However, justice may come to all the victims of SPLM’s policies through other means in the future. Ryszard Kapuscinski in his book, ‘Shah of the Shahs,’ shines some light on such means. Here, he argues:

“It is authority that provokes revolutions. Certainly, it does not do so consciously. Yet its style of life and way of ruling finally become a provocation. This occurs when a feeling of impunity takes root among the elite. We are allowed anything, we can do anything. This is a delusion, but it rests on a certain rational foundation. For a while it does indeed look as if they can do whatever they want.

Scandal after scandal and illegality after illegality go unpunished. The people remain silent, patient, wary. They are afraid and do not yet feel their own strength. At the same time, they keep a detailed account of the wrongs, which at one particular moment are to be added up.

The choice of that moment is the greatest riddle known to history. Why did it happen on that day, and not on another? Why did this event, and not some other, bring it about? After all, the government was indulging in even worse excesses only yesterday, and there was no reaction at all. “What have I done?” asks the ruler, at a loss. “What has possessed them all of a sudden?” This is what he has done. He has abused the patience of the people.” (Kapuscinski 1985, p105 Kindle version)

Kapuscinski wrote his book in the mid 1980s to tell about his experience of the Iranian revolution of late 1970s. But the above quote since then has been vindicated in Tunisia, Burkina Faso and many other places. Nobody expected a radical change in Tunisia and Burkina Faso at the time.

It came as a complete surprise to the Tunisian and Burkinabe rulers with Mohamed Bouazizi setting himself on fire in a market and the Burkinabe masses setting the parliament on fire. The rest is history.

While the Jieng terror machine concentrates on its war with Riek, the real problems are in Juba. It demise will come from within and not without. For three decades they have abused and terrorized the people.

Their main weapon: fear, is losing its power to subjugate. Soon or later they will be seen fleeing with their system in tatters. It is then that true accountability for their excesses will be appropriately addressed.

Finally, as Cecilia is a victim of long practised policies of SPLM/A to promote Jieng settlement and orphanization in Equatoria, it is absolutely important for Equatoria to not let Cecilia’s death be just another statistic.

Cecilia stood up against both policies in her life. She never shied away from leading and she personally fought the land grabbers though she lost her life. Cecilia should be kept alive by Equatoria government naming a road in each of the Central Equatoria major towns and also by naming a land mark building in Juba in her name. This should ensure that the murderers’ intent to destroy her comes to naught.
[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul

Causes of Current War: Tribal Politics & Idea of Leadership in South Sudanese Society

BY: MALITH KUR, LONDON, Canada, NOV/14/2014, SSN;

The current state of affairs in South Sudan hasn’t come as a surprise, but it’s a manifestation of the ugly face of the political class in our nation. It’s shown that the idea of leadership in South Sudanese society is the antithesis of political leadership in other nations. It’s out of this conception of leadership that South Sudan has faced this crisis before its third independence anniversary.

What follows identifies the causes of this unfortunate crisis. It also proposes possible steps forward to re-establish peace in South Sudan.

Tribal Politics:
The reason the country is facing this situation is that South Sudanese politicians, and most of us for that matter, define leadership in terms of tribal and regional affiliations. We do not have a national agenda when it comes to politics in the country.

What we have is a glorification of some politicians, which is what most of us take seriously. A politician’s achievement doesn’t matter in South Sudanese politics; what matters is where in the country a politician comes from.

If we take John Garang as our example, we see that he is popular now because he is dead; otherwise, he isn’t a popular leader, given his regional or tribal backgrounds.

Although his political strategies had paved the way for our independence, his contribution would have been irrelevant if he were alive and led the country today.

Throughout the years of the struggle, his leadership was considered as a continuation of Dinka domination, but no one wanted to speak about the number of Dinkas who died fighting for South Sudan’s independence.

In historical reality, however, the so-called Dinka domination remains a political myth if one takes a brief tour of South Sudan’s recent history.

History of Political Leadership in South Sudan
It’s true that tribal political orientation is at the heart of the current crisis. However, this crisis has its roots in the history of political leadership in South Sudan. This history does not go beyond 1955 because South Sudan did not have formal governmental structures then.

Formal leadership began, for instance, when Equatorians led the Anyanya I Movement in Torit in 1955. Nonetheless, when the Addis Ababa Agreement brought peace, Jaafar Numeri appointed Abel Alier to lead the subsequent, tenuous self-rule administration in the then Southern Sudan beginning in 1972-78.

For political reasons, Numeri dismissed Abel Alier and appointed Joseph Lagu, former leader of Anyanya I, in his place in 1978. Alier came back few years later, but he was removed again by presidential degree.

When Alier and Lagu were gone, Joseph James Tambura assumed the leadership in the South.

Following these political changes, the Addis Ababa Agreement was dissolved, and the re-division of the South into three regions occurred under Tambura’s watch in 1982 before the second civil war began in 1983.

When the second civil war started, John Garang emerged as the leader of the SPLM until his demise in 2005. After the death of John Garang, Salva Kiir assumed the leadership of the SPLM. Kiir’s ascension to power followed the hierarchical design of the SPLM leadership.

Now, if you look at this historical sketch of governance in South Sudan since Anyanya I, the communities out of which top leaders emerged are Madi among the Bari speaking groups, Azande, and Dinka.

The historical truth here is that none of these communities made any efforts to help those politicians come to power. Why is this important to mention? It is important because this is where the root causes of the current crisis lie.

Causes of this war
First, no member of Nuer ethnic group has ever taken top position in South Sudan. Therefore, some members of the Nuer community want this to happen now.

The demand for Riek Machar to become South Sudanese president is the real cause of the war, which has nothing to do with the democratization of the SPLM as a political party. The myth of Dinka domination has strengthened this resolve.

Consequently, South Sudanese, who lost their lives in Juba in December 2013, cannot be the cause of this war because most of the dead were soldiers taking part in active combat with the security forces.

Second, one-party dictatorship has developed in South Sudan. SPLM in South Sudan has become like the ANC in South Africa. A politician in South Africa must first become the leader of ANC before dreaming of leading the country. The SPLM has assumed this character.

For this reason, every politician in South wants some association with the SPLM. We now have the SPLM-DC, the SPLM-in-Opposition, the SPLM leaders, and who knows some other funny names of the SPLM may come up later. The role of the SPLM as a source of power is another major cause of the current war in South Sudan.

Third, the other causes of the war are political impunity, corruption, and weak state institutions. These factors are playing a major part in the current crisis. The weak institutions of governance in South Sudan provide fertile grounds for political violence.

None of the politicians leading the current uprising or those who are protecting the regime expect responsibility for their actions. No one will hold them accountable for anything.

Fourth, proxy warfare did not end with the independence of South Sudan. Sudan’s territorial ambitions in relation to disputed areas remain a catalyst of instability in South Sudan.

People who rebel in South Sudan, for whatever reason, will have no shortage of arms coming to them from Sudan. Unstable South Sudan allows Sudan to keep Abyei and Panthou (Heglig, to the Sudan. Ed.).

As long as the political class in South Sudan places its interest in power over the future of the country and the welfare of its citizens, this war will not end.

Fifth, South Sudan has ten states with a population of approximately 12 million people, which means that each state could have an average of 1.2 million inhabitants. However, we are asking for more while we know that the country relies on oil revenues.

This demand has raised a number of questions. What economic energy will those small states have? Where the money is going to come from to fund those states? These are not new questions.

South Sudanese who opposed the decentralization policies of 1980s raised them. They asked these questions because what South Sudan needed then, and still needs now are not more divisions but development. South Sudan needs a way out of this mess.

The Way forward
South Sudan needs unconditional peace now, not tomorrow, and the search for peace must be a people-driven exercise. The people of South Sudan must be the first stakeholders in the decision-making process when it comes to the settlement of the current crisis.

The parties to the conflict who are negotiating in Addis Ababa are not interested in peace, but war to gain power or maintain it. In the end, those who will continue to suffer are South Sudanese, who have nothing to gain in this senseless destruction.

Furthermore, what we can do, as responsible citizens, to avoid unnecessary political troubles is to leave political ambitions in the hands of politicians. Individual political leadership is not a tribal responsibility. Politicians are responsible for their political programmes.

As we search for peace, we need to avoid for two reasons the impression that there is a war between Dinka and Nuer:

First, South Sudan does not belong to Dinka and Nuer. It is a community of different ethnic groups bound to live together in peace and prosperity.

Second, Dinka and Nuer as communities are not responsible for political differences in the government. But if some members of the Nuer community want to fight against the government of South Sudan, that would be their choice that has nothing to do with all Nuers because all South Sudanese are in that government.

Most of the time we blame the political class inside South Sudan, but the Diaspora South Sudanese community needs to avoid incitement of violence. People inside South Sudan do not want war, but the people who are recruiting children to fight on their behalf, children who are supposed to be in school, rely on Diaspora’s political support.

South Sudanese Diaspora communities have become reliable constituents for the opposition forces inside the country. They have become their gateway to promote their destructive cause, but what South Sudan needs is a peaceful change, which promotes co-existence instead of division and killing.

In our collective search for meaningful political change, we need to understand that change is a process. It takes time to build democratic institutions and establish fair political practices. Violent opposition is not a political change but destruction.

In this context, South Sudan needs to discourage the creation of ethnically motivated federal system. It has the potential to cause more problems than solving the ones we already have.

Federalism in South Sudan is not the prerogative of those who are engaged in a power struggle; it is the prerogative of South Sudanese and their elected representatives.

South Sudanese do not need to be told how to be ruled; they must tell the politicians how they should be ruled.

South Sudanese are the principal stakeholders in the debate about federalism. A federal system South Sudanese have sanctioned provides the central government and the state governments with certain responsibilities to manage the affairs of the country within the boundaries of national laws that promote South Sudanese nationalism that transcends ethnicity.

South Sudan as a society should take these steps as part of comprehensive political reforms, constitutional review, and national reconciliatory process, which must lay the foundation for social reconstruction of South Sudanese society.

By Malith Kur (
London, Canada

SPLM-IO proposes removal of Vice Pres. Wani Igga, so Machar is next


Latest BREAKING NEWS: The SPLM-In-Opposition faction led by Riek Machar have dropped their demand for President Salva Kiir to step down but now propose instead the removal of Vice President James Wani Igga as well as the elimination of the vice presidency itself.

Igga was appointed vice president in August 2013, a month after President Salva Kiir sacked his deputy Riek Machar. He belongs to the same party as Kiir but hails from a different region of the country, Central Equatoria.

Now the armed opposition faction SPLM-IO is calling for his removal as part of a power-sharing deal that is being negotiated at peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

“We believe that the positions of the Vice President and the two deputies to the Prime Minister will complicate the working relations between the two principals [Kiir and Machar] and therefore should be expunged from the government structure,” SPLM/A-IO chief negotiator Taban Deng announced on Monday.

Taban argued that SPLM-IO has already made “strategic concessions” on the issue of the powers of the Prime Minister, during the most recent talks held at the IGAD Summit meeting in Addis Ababa late last week.

In particular, SPLM-IO conceded their earlier demands that Riek Machar should be considered head of government and chair the Council of Ministers.

“This means that we have given him [Kiir] everything. He is now the head of state and the head of government. We have nothing to concede more,” said Taban Deng at a press conference in Addis Ababa on Monday.

He noted that Salva Kiir’s negotiators have proposed that the leadership of the transitional government should consist of a president, vice president, prime minister and two or three deputies to the prime minister.

Taban opposed this structure saying it would “lead into confusion,” adding, “too many cooks spoil the broth.”

He called on Kiir’s party to make ‘sacrifices’ to reciprocate SPLM-IO’s concessions and bring peace. He compared the proposal to remove Igga to a Sudanese precedent, in which the vice president in 2005 was demoted in order to bring rebel leader John Garang into the government.

“We have given the example of the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement]: Ali Othman was the First Vice President. But because President Bashir wanted peace in his country and he wanted the war to end he has to make that big sacrifice, removing Ali Othman and putting John Garang in his place.”

Taban Deng suggested that Igga could return to the parliament after his removal from the vice presidency: “The current vice president was the Speaker of the Parliament, and as you know Speaker of Parliament is a very high position.”

It is not yet clear whether Igga’s position is a red line for SPLM-Juba negotiators or instead some might be open to considering the proposal.

Igga was reportedly not Kiir’s first choice for the vice presidency; the current health minister Riek Gai Kok was approached to accept the position but declined.

The vice president has also been in tension with some leading Equatorian politicians. During a dispute within the ruling party in July, involving Equatorian proponents of federalism, Igga was referred to derisively by another very senior Equatorian politician who implied that he was a mere puppet of the president.

Igga is from Central Equatoria but he is not from the state capital Juba, instead hailing from Lobonok Payam south of the city.

The SPLM-Juba faction headed by Salva Kiir is yet to make a public response to the proposal to remove the position of vice president, though Igga himself has previously said he is not willing to stand aside for Riek Machar to take his place.

On a related matter, it is unclear whether the negotiators have yet discussed options for the line of succession for the proposed transitional government. Taban Deng’s proposal did not specify whether, in the absence of a vice president, the Prime Minister would be next in line for the presidency.

Such a line of succession would be unacceptable to the SPLM-Juba negotiators because it would put Riek Machar second in line to the presidency.

Meanwhile, the spokesman for the SPLM-Juba delegation Michael Makuei told press on arrival at Juba Airport yesterday that the two sides made progress in the most recent talks in Addis Ababa.

He said the talks were adjourned until 25 November to allow for further consultations on the proposed structure of the transitional government. In the meantime, a joint security committee will begin meeting to discuss implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement.

LATEST: NO Peace deal in Addis between Kiir and Machar

From Agencies: NOV/08/2014, SSN;

Leaders of two warring parties in South Sudan have failed to reach a peace deal Saturday, November 8, 2014, in the IGAD mediated talks in Addis Ababa.

The extraordinary summit of five African Heads of State in Ethiopia has failed yet again to hammer out a power-sharing deal between South Sudan President Salva Mayrdit Kiir and his former deputy, Dr Riek Machar, despite earlier reports that a pact was signed under international pressure to end violence soon to enter its second year.

This is even after President Uhuru Kenyatta, who is Chairman of East African Community (EAC) and Ethiopia’€™s Hailemariam Desalegn, who chairs the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), steered two day intensive talks.

The talks, which kicked off on Thursday (November 6) reportedly stretched into the night on Friday and into the wee hours of yesterday (Saturday), with Presidents Kenyatta and Desalegn determined to resolve a power-sharing deal between Kiir and Machar.

The country’s state-run news agency said closed-door talks in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa had seen President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar engaged in two days of intense negotiations, but had boiled down to no agreement.

“In the meeting, Kiir and Machar engaged in a blistering discussion, with President Kiir asking Machar to drop his rebellion and join his government while Machar lectured Kiir on the goodness of federalism and other democratic alternatives that can be utilized to solve the current crisis,” the news agency reported.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional body that was supervising the talks, adjourned the meeting for two weeks, and asked both sides to cease hostility, the agency said.

Earlier reports said that Kiir and Machar had agreed to commit to an unconditional, complete and immediate end to all hostilities, after the UN Security Council and leaders of East African nations threatened to impose economic and travel sanctions on the leaders of the world’s youngest country.

The reports, citing a statement by IGAD, said that any violation of the deal would invite asset freezes and travel bans throughout the East African IGAD member states.

The IGAD members also reserved the right to directly intervene in the violence and to prevent weapons from transiting through their countries to South Sudan.

At some point the efforts of the Kenyan and Ethiopian leaders seemed to pay off, with Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary, Amina Mohamed, even tweeting summarily on Friday night “€œthere is a deal on South Sudan. Parties agree on immediate cessation and on all other issues except one€.”

After the resolutions were released, she again tweeted: “The final communique contains sanctions against violators of the cessation of hostilities, asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargo.”

Before entering into a second straight night of talks to try to bridge the differences between the Kiir and Machar parties, the regional leaders led by Kenyatta and Desalegn affirmed they would not rest until a comprehensive peace deal was reached.

Manoah Esipisu, spokesperson for the Kenyan presidency, was equally optimistic: “€œMy understanding is that the leaders are determined to make progress as they see this as a pivotal stage in the negotiations.”€

“But it is, as expected, a difficult process,”€ he told the press in Addis Ababa.

It would have been the third deal to be reached, since two previous accords have failed to end violence as clashing fighting continued, especially around the country’s oil installations.

South Sudan descended into violence at the end of last year when fighting broke out between soldiers and rebels loyal to Machar and government loyalists backing Kiir.

Nonetheless, Presidents Kenyatta and Desalegn succeeded in getting the South Sudan’€™s political leaders to commit to an unconditional and complete end to hostilities.

IGAD, also accepted the request by both parties for a further 15 days to consult and iron out the remaining outstanding issues.

The Government of South Sudan led by President Kiir and the SPLM/A (in opposition) under former Vice President Machar also agreed to immediately stop recruitment and mobilisation of civilians.

In a communique issued at the end of the 28th Extra-ordinary Summit of IGAD Heads of State and Government, also attended by President Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Omar Bashir (Sudan), Ismail Guelleh (Djibouti) and Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (Somalia), the leaders warned the warring parties that any violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement would invite stern interventions to protect life and restore peace and stability.

Freeze of assets:
The final communique contains sanctions against violators of the cessation of hostilities, asset freezes, travel bans and arms embargo.€ IGAD threatens Kiir, Machar with asset freeze over South Sudan conflict.

The Summit was also attended by Dr Dlamini Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahboub Maalim, Executive Secretary of IGAD, and the IGAD Special Envoys for South Sudan, Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia, Gen Lazaro Sumbeiywo of Kenya and Gen Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa El Dabi of Sudan.

There were also representatives of the United Nations, the People’s Republic of China, Denmark, Japan, the European Union, the Troika (the Governments of Norway, US and United Kingdom) and the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF).

Khartoum new sharpest sword: Working with both parties to South Sudan conflict

BY: Garang Atem Ayiik, SOUTH SUDAN, NOV/06/2014, SSN;

Sections of the media reported that former Vice President of South Sudan, Dr Riek went to Khartoum to solicit support for his rebel movement and chief rebel negotiator, Taban Deng was in Heglig directing last week offences against government’s positions in Bentiu.

This week, his President Salva Kiir returned from Khartoum after a two-day working visit to Khartoum. The two presidents of the Sudan are reported to have agreed to resolve the outstanding security issues; stop support and harbor of rebels from both countries, besides they agreed to form a joint committee to seek to cancel Sudan’s foreign debts; and agreed on administration of Abyei.

Between the lines however, there are issues that required detailed attention. As President Kiir planned to visit Sudan, two things happened, an onslaught by Riek’s rebels on government’s positions in Bentiu and an air bombardment in Bar-ghazel area by Sudan; and second increased allegations of diplomatic muscle of rebels in Khartoum by Dr. Riek and Taban Deng to garner support for their movement.

Why would Khartoum show signs of working with the government of the Republic of South Sudan and at the same time with the rebels? Where does Sudan’s love weigh big? This article tries to consider Sudan decision paths, and highlight South Sudan’s key risks.

In the ongoing war between the government and the rebels, Sudan has a choice to choose a real partner modeled along the current Uganda’s role in South Sudan conflict. Sudan has a choice to fully support the government or support rebel but it chooses to be in between.

Middle ground taken by Sudan can be interpreted in two folds; one, to keep the two weak – South Sudan fragmented along tribal lines that will never have capacity to face Sudan head-on: on border issues; Abyei and other outstanding issues; and second, balance her oil interest between the two South Sudan power protagonists, government and rebels.

With Sudan economy relying mainly on oil revenues from South Sudan, Sudan can’t afford not to hedge her economic interest. Her two-path support approach ensures she is partially in good books with the government and rebels. So in reality, no true support but economic conditionality.

My view is that if Sudan truly supports the government of the Republic of South Sudan, it should support and work with the government of South Sudan to liberate Great Upper Nile from the rebels.

This will have two achievements; one, secure Unity State and Tharjath oilfields for production resumption, this will increase both governments’ revenues; and second, this will mark the withering of Machar’s rebellion.

If Sudan truly supports the rebels, it can work with the rebels and cut the economic throat of Republic of South Sudan by disconnecting Paloch oil production. This will put South Sudan economy into coma and truly display Sudan’s enemy status to South Sudan.

From signals coming from Sudan and South Sudan bodies’ languages, I get a feeling that South Sudan is not sure of Sudan’s degree of relationship going by recent accusations. However, as Sudan is a necessary evil, South Sudan has no choice but to turn a blind eye on Sudan’s possible slaps through rebel support.

Sudan has a history and strength of using divide-and-rule power intrigues. South Sudanese can learn from he liberation era challenges. A divided South Sudanese was a cheap source for manipulation and misuse.

With wars of South Sudan self destruction, the outstanding issues will be things of the past, Abyei status will never be resolved, possibly South Sudanese can trade-off her rightful economic things and oil dependency will increase.

The aim of this article was to try to illustrate that Sudan’s interest is not South Sudan’s interest. It is author’s belief that if Sudan supports any party to the conflict, this is designed along her benefits contrary to South Sudanese benefits.

Everything to South Sudanese whether on rebels or government side, is all cosmetic.

As the say experience is the best lesson, SPLM has benefited from its liberation experiences. A divided SPLM along tribal lines, divides the nation along tribal lines as correctly diagnosed by SPLM in Arusha, during SPLM party meeting in Tanzania.

With all ills we have done to ourselves, South Sudanese need peace though not necessarily to hold hands with Khartoum over outstanding issues but for the good of her citizens.

As they say in economics, ‘there is no such thing as free lunch,’ and as such, there is no such thing as free support, it is all cost on South Sudanese and their economy.

Garang Atem Ayiik is an independent South Sudan economic policy commentator who lives in South Sudan and can be reached at

Kiir: “I can’t bring peace alone & there are rebels inside UNMISS!”

FROM: Al Jazeera et al, NOV/02/2014, SSN;

In the latest interview with Al Jazeera’s reporter Nick Clark that was aired last Saturday, Pres. Kiir adamantly reiterated that ‘there will be no sharing of power’ with Dr. Riek Machar, his former vice and now leader of the opposition SPLM fighting Kiir’s government.

Very explicitly, Kiir made it abundantly clear that in an agreement with Riek Machar that is being negotiated, the post of prime minister will have ‘NO executive POWERS AS THERE IS NO SHARING OF POWER.’

Repeatedly, Pres. Kiir stated that the position of the proposed Prime Minister won’t have any EXECUTIVE POWER AT ALL.

For Machar to accept peace, Kiir firmly stated, ‘there will be no power sharing, and that after the agreement, WE GO FOR ELECTION.’

In his characteristic sarcasm, Pres. Kiir inferred that ‘Machar wants me to resign,’ adding, ‘he, Machar, is negotiating himself in and I am negotiating myself out!’

When Al Jazeera Nick Clark reminded Kiir that in the recent Arusha meeting Kiir shook hands with Machar and both accepted full responsibility and ceasefire, he asked Kiir what it will take to achieve if Kiir is clean, Kiir simply retorted, “you ask Riek.”

Nor surprising, as usual, Kiir repeated, ‘I don’t compromise alone.’

Weirdly, in response to question as to whether the current war was due to disputes and differences in the SPLM party, Kiir dismissively refuted that the war was a result of tribal rivalries or differences in the party.

Just over three years after the world’s newest country was founded, South Sudan is in deep trouble: At least 10,000 people were killed, 1.8 million displaced, and 100,000 are in UN protection camps across the country.

President Salva Kiir has struggled to contain a rebellion led by his former deputy Riek Machar which dates back to December 2013 when vice president Machar was sacked by Kiir.

Violence erupted amongst the presidential guard in the capital Juba and sparked a series of massacres on both sides.

Now sexual violence is said to be at the worst levels in the world, child soldiers are being forced to fight and aid agencies say millions could be on the brink of famine.

There has been a series of broken deals and ceasefires. Progress was made in Tanzania two weeks ago when all parties agreed to take collective responsibility for the conflict.

In this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, we meet Salva Kiir in Juba as another round of negotiations is ongoing in Ethiopia in a bid to forge a long lasting peace. What will it take to end the bitter rivalries that have engulfed South Sudan?

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir said in an interview broadcast on Saturday that the United Nations bases in South Sudan are hosting “people who fought physically” against his government, saying these people have ‘guns’ and are ‘agitating.’

This is at minimum the third time that Kiir or his spokesman have made public remarks associating the people under UN protection with ‘rebels.’ The majority of the approximately 100,000 people under protection of peacekeepers are ethnic Nuers.

Kiir made these remarks in an interview with Al Jazeera television recorded last Tuesday but not aired until Saturday. Asked about the situation of the civilians in the UN ‘Protection of Civilians’ sites he said that the suffering of these people is “something they have subjected themselves to.”

“There was no reason for people to run into the camps,” he said.

The president was then challenged by the Al Jazeera interviewer that the people were “fleeing from conflict.” Kiir replied pointing out that some ethnic Nuers in some areas “are safe – they did not die.”

Al Jazeera journalist Nick Clark challenged the president again, saying, “They ran for their own safety – there’s 27,000 still in the camps around Juba and they’re still too scared to come out.”

Kiir replied, “This is one group from the categories that ran to the UN camp. This is a group – the people who fought physically, who were involved in the conflict, when they saw that they were defeated, they ran to the UN for protection.”

He was apparently referring to defecting Nuer members of the Presidential Guard and other SPLA units who fought with Salva Kiir’s forces on the night and morning of 15-16 December in Juba.

The United Nations has reported that these ‘defeated’ Nuer troops were pursued by Kiir’s forces in the early morning of 16 December.

In a human rights report, the UN said Kiir’s troops “ chased them through civilian neighbourhoods, shooting at them on the way… Many soldiers began conducting house-to-house searches, killing, looting, and conducting arbitrary arrests.”

“Corroborated witness accounts indicate that Nuer civilians were targeted and gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law were committed in the process,” the UN Human Rights Division reported.

Apparently some of the surviving Nuer soldiers laid down their guns and uniforms and sought protection of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), along with tens of thousands of Nuer civilians.

In the interview with Al Jazeera, Kiir went on to reiterate his demand for the guns of these former soldiers to be returned to his forces. “I have been asking for their guns, but the guns have not been given back to me, up to now.”

He added that the group of people under UN protection in Juba “will not accept to come out,” adding, “they are agitating the rest of the other categories, pumping into them fear that if they come out they will be slaughtered.”

‘Rebels inside UNMISS compounds’

Kiir made similar comments in January when he accused UN peacekeepers of plotting to take over the country and harboring his enemies on their bases.

“You will get guns with uniforms [on UN bases]… People come to them with guns. I asked them to give us back our guns… so there is a problem with the international community and it is something that people will have to thrash out with them.”

Similarly, Kiir’s information minister and the official government spokesman has designated unarmed Nuer civilians within UNMISS bases ‘rebels.’

Speaking on 18 April 2014, a day after the massacre of more than 50 ethnic Nuers inside a UNMISS camp, Minister of Information Michael Makuei said, “We cannot continue to accommodate rebels inside UNMISS compounds.”

Kiir’s government has made no arrests in connection with those killings, which took place at that UN base on the outskirts of Bor. The perpetrators are known to have gathered in the government-controlled town of Bor in preparation for the attack.

The attack on the UNMISS base came after the Mission released a human rights report saying that “members of the Presidential Guard, also known as the Tiger Battalion” were seen participating in “mass killings” in Juba in mid-December.

Watch the whole interview here: Al Jazeera video

South Sudan War of Choice: It’s only a dispute of leadership

BY: Santino Aniek, NEW YORK, USA, OCT/25/2014, SSN;

We became fascinated by the stories of brutality of the war, realizing that suffering is the only tangible price to get jobs in South Sudan. War has become the most accessible and continuous leading alternative in finding jobs in the government sector in Africa especially in South Sudan, to personally engage and demonize citizens through violence.

The best illustration in the head of every South Sudanese people is the tribal war, Yau Yau war and the war of choice which is now killing our citizens in hundreds of thousands. Now a day in South Sudan, war has replaced tolerance, understanding, dialogue and compromise and it is the most habitually used throughout the regions.

The champions of the war of choice has influenced their tribesmen to sustain their ruthless ideology of division as well as mobilizing them to fight an endless war on South Sudanese people, by engaging their supporters with deceptive information.

Indeed, one of the many galvanizing preaching information was the genocide and coup in Juba, and has been the point of struggle to establish a national public mobilization involvement of young people and their tribesmen to help them fight this war of choice.

From the higher military commands to the youths leaders are now campaigning to fight the free South Sudanese people, and are now trying to build a fashionable struggle philosophy of discriminatory killing and the endless destruction against innocent people has been a central issue in this war of choice.

As is always the case, the future of a country is a shared responsibility between the government and its citizens and as common sense tells us, nations cannot survive if the citizens are divided internally.

In other words, an individual alone cannot survive the future of a nation, but it is a collective responsibility of the citizens and the government. The crux of the debate is therefore argued that the government may have reinforced and deeper propelling force pushing the country into conflict.

However, South Sudanese people solely believe that the government has full responsibility and is mandated to provide services, and maintain law and order for its all citizens across the country.

In fact before the war, the citizens were extremely worried that the country was declining so profoundly that it will become vulnerable to future attacks within and outside by its traditional enemy in Khartoum.

The government was very aware of the risks they were assuming, and they choose the war only with a great reluctance knowing that the civilians are going to be pretentious.

In the end, the government has chosen the war for one simple reason; they believed without a war they would not maintain their day job because the public were fed up with government policies toward human services and development services in the new nation.

In those days, the reaction and the outcry by many citizens to the government was proceeding unanimously that it was practically possible to hold the government accountable for the setback that has been facing the nation for the last eight years.

In addition, the role of local communities to participate and contribute in maintaining security and peace as a paramount priority was also declining, because there was no good relationship between the government and the local communities.

Nevertheless, it is truly that there is no way that the government alone can provide and sustain security or law and order in the country without the help of the local communities at large.

Meanwhile, it was the hope of each and every South Sudanese people prior to independence that the government is going to create a partnership with the local communities to address the current challenges and the conflicting wounds of the civil war.

Sadly, the government was happy to accept the gospel of the war without wanting to address the issues. More generally, it is widely known that there is a very disturbing trend occurring in the new nation in which our people’s lives are being threatened by this war of choice from those who want to raise their families through bloody job, and it is a gloomy side from which our history is being reanimated.

Furthermore, it is tremendously despondent that regular people get caught up in this conflict for subjugation by a very few avaricious individuals who have been advocating for conflict in South Sudan.

Oftentimes, the popular culture identity of us against them whereby popular politician forms a group of armed men and provides them with false platform of information exhibition of intricacies and powers them to annihilate innocent people’s lives is now gaining a countrywide support among the South Sudanese society.

In fact, the philosophy of war has become a part of politics identity since the country has been engaging in so many wars and now has an opportunity to link this philosophy directly to their experiences they had in the 21 years of civil war.

Similarly, this link between tribes and politicians is becoming more and more ubiquitous, and has been attracting the public inquiry in recent years that is triggering critical instability and uncertainty in the country.

In this situation, it is increasingly signifying both in national government and local government as well as individuals and communities are now striving of joining this war of choice, and this new politics identities of a largely exclusive in the country has achieved so much support among the South Sudanese communities.

It is in the view of this, my article would like to bring to the forefront of modality in the ways of informing the citizens of South Sudan to accept peace, tolerance, compromise, forgiveness, dialogue and negotiation for “everlasting peace”, because the country has reached a limitation, and we need to change course to overcome this crisis with more thoughtful and compassionate responding to this tragic war of choice.

The inscription of politics identities of inclusive of all the tribes of South Sudan has to be a part of the government’s responsibility and power sharing in the next government is instantaneously fundamental.

Subsequently, the election of 2010 has encouraged opposition politicians and civil society activists and now has an opportunity to compete with the Ruling Party to get their message across in part, because of the availability of political risk and lesson learnt during the civil war.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the public also has an opportunity to realize that the government has lack responsibility and accountability that empowers the public to direct their concerns and views point to the government as a result of rewarding those who kill innocent people.

Sadly enough, the government is frequently attacking those who happen to disagree with the militias, while they are rewarding militias with a higher position and building a conducive relationship between the two.

There is another aspect to this story, and that is the government is denying many South Sudanese people who are qualify to hold these positions in the government, but tragically these ruthless pathetic criminal, and unwanted human beings in the South Sudanese society are given these important position.

This practice appears to be conflicting or contradictory to the laws of any nation, unless the government succeeded in implementing laws and orders, the country may have to accept this madness brought forth by the narrowed-mined war custodian.

Nevertheless, my article is trying to highlight the war of choice within the category of public discourses and the deliberations of this conflict, which aids the advancement of participatory of these militias that are now dragging the country into a civil war.

These so-call leaders uses the communities with a deliberately simple message to turn the communities against each other and try to make sense to these actors who truly believe in a destructive articulation with the intention of participation in the government workforce, and they always signal the distribution of disadvantage in fashionable society of new nation.

In the view of this, my article adopts a theoretical approach that uses the experience of two wars, and the take away in these wars is obviously, the vital resources needed to fight the war and the human suffering is tremendously heartbreaking.

More importantly, the predicament and hardship our citizens have been facing and the mentality of rewarding criminals has encouraged a sizable number of people to join the war of choice.

As a result, many people are extremely suffering and lost their lives in the name of positions or jobs in the government substantially, especially in the Greater Upper Nile of the World.

Meanwhile, keeping the likelihood of early mobilizing our people especially in the loop of all communities to embrace “everlasting peace”, my article however, uses relevant information from the episodes of the two conflicts that has been going on for quite some time.

Nonetheless, the quaintest mechanism is that South Sudanese self-proclaimed-politicians and so called leaders in the new nation have lost the ethics and values of leadership to the extent of reaching borderline of intimidation of its own citizens, and so it is becoming a struggle.

In terms of politics, in South Sudan in this day and age, war has replaced political philosophy and has become role player in promoting a false debate and creating conflict among the South Sudanese society.

The enablement of the prevention of inclusive participation of all South Sudanese citizens in the government has gone a long way of no meaning and seem to form a dictatorship process that raises in attempting to make the war of choice a pillar upon which societal politics rest on.

However, accountability and transparency are the normal demand by the citizens from their government and most of the times in South Sudan, it is not possible to operate and function freely and normally without interference and intimidation by the government.

Equally enough, reform is not only necessary but urgent considering what has been proceeding in the new nation has been extremely troubling and all the South Sudanese communities including international communities are becoming exceptionally concerned.

In fact, what happened has shown the absence of law and order in the country and it is a clear failure of the leadership, which needs to be addressed with urgency, and has to be on the top of the agenda of the next government.

Nevertheless, the new nation has totally failed to reach a democratic transition as a breakthrough improvements meant to be pursued during the country’s civil war with regime in Khartoum. Even though, few communities who are supporting the war of choice think that the current war will look like an improvement than the past civil war, it is totally misleading the public because we are killing future generations and it is only a dispute of leadership.

Furthermore, this war of choice remains the number one sources of acquiring wealth and an employment to those who have nothing but to kill innocent people in order to get jobs in the government.

Though, war in South Sudan also encourages few individuals to own wealth through the enhancement of creating conflict by giving preference to those who support their causes, and this practice is believed to be against the norms and the values of the South Sudanese people.

More importantly, war has become a key player among the South Sudanese communities. Today it is transforming to a field of an employment and offers people with new belongings, fame and self-identification. Obviously, given the fact that the majority of our citizens still have no access to their daily news, war is becoming the window of misleading.

Therefore, while trying to adopt the model of public rights for the citizens to know what the government is embodying, South Sudan departs from other nations where the right of the citizens are being manipulated by the government and tried to make nonsense accuses to covered up the dishonest burden.

The importance of these claims during struggle mention that the country will be moving toward a democratic approach to emphasize the need of the citizens is now proven to be an empty promise.

Studies indicated though, issues of politics of division and politics of isolationism are the main dominants in fairly politicized fashion and other broad issues like tribalism is part of the factors that caused this war of choice, and therefore can be categorized into issues of crime, corruption, service delivery, poverty, economy, education, political party dominance or proportional representation and the need for political reform in the new nation.

Yet the sweeping changes of eight years ago in South Sudan have now shifted from animated to worst despite the tremendous experience of 21 years of civil war, which was the hope to build a unifying country. In addition, the establishment of the politics of division, politics of isolationism and its subsequent undemocratic initiatives is clearly represent a worst foundation for future extensions of equal access and opportunity to all citizens in South Sudan.

The aim of my article is to examine the war of choice and how self-representation and the expressions of selfhood emerging from these individuals that are seeking an employment through war and has not constituted a mediated public sphere, which is not creating avenues for public discourse in South Sudan.

The aim should be understood against the background of the government and the social political realities in which the new nation define relations among different classes of people in South Sudanese society.

What we are observing now however, is the dynamics of power rocking that is playing itself out in the way certain attitudes and personalities seek to become dominant while others may be relegated or silenced in the course of political structure taking place in South Sudanese politics.

Nowadays such a regime of anti-freedom and equality, encourages individuals and groups to bring their own experiences and opinions into public debates leading to new understandings of the political structure in the society.

In addition, my article present an exemplary of intervention in which a government and rebel may bargain in order to avoid falling into a civil war and however, the two parties may adopt the mentality of forgiveness, tolerance, compromise, dialogue, and peace to reach an agreement.

If they want the fighting to continue, the government and the rebels have to decide what level of atrocities they want to commit, and a third party may intervene to halt atrocities. By including a number of different parameters, the exemplary underscores how complex the intervention conundrum actually is.

Therefore, this work critically examines the potential of war of choice as a means of reinventing politics through mediation and intervention. War of choice has consequently become a channel through which different interest groups in South Sudanese society seeks an employment especially in the government sector using different kinds of messages and ideologies.

However, in this regard to the debates of war of choice in the South Sudan context, conclude that such a war has become a lens through which few people may begin to organize themselves and commit atrocities to get a position in the government.

Equally, people of South Sudan are now able to grasp the dynamics of an evolving political of division and politics of isolationism with several attempts of individual and group interest in particular ways in order to either remain important or kill their opponent.

While demonstrating the impact of the struggle for freedom and equality access to free its own citizen, the idea of “right to live” needs to be implemented in South Sudan now or else.

Nevertheless, the war of choice advertising remains an affordable in South Sudan. It is however, remain to be effective that targeting the vast majority of audiences in the country. The principle of reconciliation, tolerance, dialogue, compromise, and peace among the South Sudanese communities is immediately needed.

Despite the dominance or popularity of the war of choice, our citizens must abandon this recklessness practice once and for all and adopt peace and unity.

The overall interpretation from the perspective of war in general, continue to tell us that war is extremely horrific, and therefore, our undertaking has to create a way forward strategy of a collective compromise, because we need to change the culture of war and the mindset of these ruthless politicians who are always dragging us into conflict.

As a final thought, our citizens need to think only about their future and the future of the country they liberated some years ago. They have duty not to support any politicians who moralizes violence against innocents people, and they also have responsibility to reject the validity of any form of division once and for all.

We must continue to appeal to a system of tolerance, compromise, forgiveness, dialogue, and peace that is designed to empower all the citizens and build successful politics of understanding and put our differences aside. We must embrace peace and unity, because those cold-blooded leaders will never be defeated by the use of this war of choice.

Santino Aniek is a concerned South Sudanese in Upstate New York, U.S.A. He can be reached and find me on Facebook, on Skype and on twitter @saniek.

South Sudan accused of threatening aid groups

From NEWVISION, OCT/25/2014, SSN;

International charities working to stem chronic disease and hunger in war-torn South Sudan are facing increased harassment, surveillance and threats of expulsion from the government, according to a charity Friday.

A letter to over 100 international aid agencies from South Sudan’s NGO Forum detailed the “increasing trend of harassment and interference targeting NGOs” that is “marked by increased hostility and threats from officials”.

Incidents include the detention and expulsion this month of one foreign worker as “escalating rhetoric and the overall hostile tone toward [the] international community” rises, the letter said.

It also detailed concerns over the alleged “increased surveillance of NGO communications”.

Last month South Sudan’s Ministry of Labour ordered all international aid workers out of the country before another ministry rescinded it.

South Sudan, one of the world’s poorest countries, became independent in 2011 after decades of battling hardliners in neighbouring Sudan, which also had a long history of cracking down on aid groups.

Now 10 months into its own civil war, the world’s newest country is blighted by what UN officials call “a man-made crisis” that has caused widespread hunger, left 1.4 million people homeless and a third of the population needing help.

But the NGO Forum said government officials “have adopted a hostile and almost irrational approach toward NGOs” that includes trying to ban the use of the words famine, disaster and catastrophe.

The UN’s World Food Programme is still trying to trace South Sudanese staffer Mark Diang, who was abducted at gunpoint last week by plain clothes men from an airport in the north of the country.

In a meeting with officials this week, international representatives were “threatened and intimidated personally and organisationally”, leaving them “increasingly vulnerable”, the letter said.

British charity Oxfam, which authored a report predicting famine in parts of the country, was reportedly “directly in the line of fire” at the meeting, but the government also “threatened” the 36 charities that signed the report and demanded an official apology and retraction.

A spokesman for the South Sudan government could not be reached for comment.

Towards SPLM unification, again? What a tragedy for South Sudan


As president Kiir and arch-rival Machar met face to face to initial yet another futile agreement deal on October 20th, 2014, at the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge outside Arusha, Tanzania, the day will stand out as an inauspicious and unpropitious day in the political evolution of South Sudan nation as specifically pertaining to the political behavioral evolution of our so-called political leaders.

If the assertions by both rival sides (SPLM ruling and SPLM-in-Opposition) that the goal of the talks and the agreement thereof is the re-unification of this monstrosity known as the SPLM again, then the oppressed peoples of South Sudan are once again being callously and unashamedly betrayed by the same personalities.

Yes, not only once, twice or thrice in our life time, but for the nth time, is the nation of South Sudan silently witnessing another duplicitous realignment of personalities who until this very moment have combined, colluded and commissioned the murders of hundreds of thousands of the citizens.

Sadly, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge parody comes after the abysmal and clear failure of the IGAD-negotiated Peace Talks in Ethiopia, whereby both sides of the government and the rebels came out immensely disappointed by the IGAD mediators.

In the latest statement from government spokesperson, the unpredictable minister of information, Makuei, the IGAD mediators were more interested in the participation of one politician at the peace talks and that was Dr. Lam Akol was deliberately prohibited by Kiir from traveling to Addis.

But more pertinently, IGAD also wanted to dish out an almost equal proportion of the share in a new government of national unity to each of the three, i.e. SPLM ruling, SPLM-in-O and SPLM ex-detainees, which didn’t bode well with Makuei’s boss, Kiir, hence the adjournment of the Addis talks.

Now, seriously, if after all those many months that the IGAD has been coercing, cajoling and counselling these same SPLM ‘compatriots’ in Ethiopia but to no avail, what difference would Tanzania’s ruling party, the Chama Cha Mapinduzi and Pres. Kikwete do differently to achieve concordance among a bunch of diabolically cantankerous and self-seeking persons?

Nonetheless, one important anomaly needs to be pointed out about this gang of so-called SPLM ‘leaders’ and that is their selfish propensity to fully and criminally exploit any chances whereby they are being feted and accommodated luxuriously and freely at someone’s expense, and even get paid for their irresponsibility.

We clearly saw this behavioral manifestation during the unnecessarily prolonged pre-CPA talks in Nairobi and Naivasha, where greed became a prominent characteristic of these SPLM gangsters. The IGAD Addis is a rendition of their greed of financial exploitation.

According to Tanzanian President Kikwete, he had invited the Kiir and Machar “to a dialogue aimed at reunifying the South Sudanese SPLM ruling party.”

Furthermore, quoting the Secretary-general of Tanzania’s ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi, Mr. Abdulrahman Kinana, Kiir and Machar had been invited “to the intra-SPLM dialogue with the hope to re-unify the party.”

However, it should be recalled that a week before (October 12 to 18) the so-called Kiir-Machar Summit at Ngurdoto Lodge, a bunch of SPLM ruling and SPLM rebel and ex-detainees representatives had been meeting in Arusha and according to Mr. Kinana, “the SPLM family have reached progress on establishing a framework for the SPLM dialogue, including shared principles, objectives and agenda for engaging dialogue.”

Seriously, for many of us concerned South Sudanese, this is the biggest and scandalous exposé of the SPLM dishonesty and dis-ingenuity. What’s there that the two SPLM protagonists have to talk about to ‘unify’ their long-exipired party?

The SPLM for all intents and purpose is a dead party, what Kiir, Machar, Pagan or Lam Akol are supposedly leading are mutually antagonistic and mutually destructive, self-serving but deadly clones of the former SPLM that only serve the particular interests of these personalities and their tribal peoples or criminal gangsters.

Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba, who incidentally is leading the SPLM-in-O group at Ngurdoto, posed the following in his latest book, ‘South Sudan: The State we aspire,’ “What’s the difference between confusion and a vicious circle? In essence, there’s no difference between the categories…… but in the context of South Sudan, confusion-cum-vicious circle is the political environment the political elite engineers in order to de-conscientise the masses and prevent them from appreciating the oppressive reality in which they are submerged.”

Dr. Adwok further goes on: “Because most political leaders practise double talk, it becomes absolutely necessary for them to generate confusion about their real intentions and they create a psychological environment which could be described as a comedy of political impotence.”

Precisely and unfortunately, the Ngurdoto document just signed by the so-called ‘three’ factions of the SPLM, which will serve yet again as another roadmap for further negotiations to reunite the SPLM and end the war, epitomizes the ‘confusion-cum-vicious cycle’ Dr. Adwok Nyaba referred to above.(pp 148)

Succinctly, Dr. Adwok Nyaba concedes, “…the comedy of political impotence is the havoc the political elite, former revolutionaries of the national liberation struggle, pursuing a personal agenda for power and wealth, are wrecking havoc with the destiny of the people of Southern Sudan.”

The biggest misfortune is that the civil societies and other stake holders in the current predicament facing our nation were deliberately excluded by Tanzania’s president Kikwete with the obvious complicity of the three SPLM leaders and this doesn’t bode well for any possible or probable future resolution of the crisis in the nation.

The SPLM as a whole is seriously and permanently debilitated by internal contradictions, schisms and rivalries which have cumulatively wrecked havoc among these so-called leadership or former revolutionaries.

Nothing good will ever materialize even if God himself came down and took these SPLM ‘leaders’ up into Heaven to negotiate among themselves.

These SPLM criminals, like the biblical people of Babel who disobeyed God himself and built the metaphorical ‘towers of Babel’against God’s will, must be destroyed and dispersed into different directions (many into prisons for life).

More concisely, the SPLM leaders have collectively lost their legitimacy to rule the country anymore because of the crimes they have committed or commissioned that, as Dr. Adwok Nyaba even wrote in his book (pp 148), that with the preponderance of evidence, “it would be easy to pick up and send to the International Criminal Court-ICC- in The Hague many of those in positions of authority today in South Sudan.”

Since coming to Juba in 2005, Pres. Kiir and his ex-deputy, Machar have never really resolved their political differences from the bush era, on top of their bitter tribal differences, a fact overtly exacerbated by the big educational disparities, the latter a PhD holder and the former an primary school leaver.

On the other hand, Kiir has never forgiven or forgotten those so-called Garang’s Boys, such as Pagan Amum, the leader of the former detainees group, for their mischievous role in his (Kiir’s) marginalization and abuse during the bitter animosity with Garang when the late briefly contemplated dumping his deputy, Kiir,

Moreover, in the current opposition groups, those of Machar and Lam Akol still behave like two bitter ex-wives married to the one husband, never will they ever consensually collude and come together to even overthrow the Kiir regime, a near-miraculous expectation those many South Sudanese opposing the Kiir government had hoped would happen sooner than later.

Lately, the Machar’s SPLM-in-O, has publicly and wholeheartedly embraced the popular demand for federal system of governance in the country. If now SPLM unification has become a top priority, is Dr. Machar not once again exhibiting his traits of betrayal to the Equatorians, the Nuer and Western Bahr el ghazel supporters who stood out to support the rebel SPLM?

If the improbable were ever to materialize that a united SPLM came back to life and took over the running of the Juba junta, that would be the biggest tragedy of our nation and its people.

A South Sudan government with Kiir, Machar, Pagan, Alor and company would be diabolical mockery and a painful insult to all those innocent compatriots needlessly eviscerated during the so-called struggle for regime change.

Once again, one would imagine Kiir boldly and without shame stand up in the dead beat parliament to pronounce a general amnesty for his own crimes and for the crimes of other SPLM co-conspirators.

Bitterly, the nation will be again forced to swallow the painful realities that they will and must have to live with once again ad infinitum, the ‘confusion-cum-vicious cycle’ of SPLM political disasters, one after another.

Like it or not, tribal domination will be overtly expedited, there will be no accountability for any crimes commissioned by the ruling SPLM gangsters, people will be murdered and brought with decapitated heads to the government morgues and other unimaginable egregious crimes perpetuated blatantly and lawfully.

In conclusion, whatever the case, the nation should not countenance or allow the tragedy of SPLM unification and the comeback of the SPLM monstrosity to again damage, desecrate and disintegrate the stalled progression and evolution of our nation.