Category: Featured

Addis Ababa Agreements are Not New in the Sudanese Politics!

BY: Dr. Justin Ambago, UK, OCT. 9/2012; The Obama US administration can now congratulate itself for finally bringing Omer al Bashir, better known as a wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) sitting head of a state to seal a deal with his southern neighbour none other than General Kiir Mayardit of the new republic of South Sudan, in spite of the bitter tastes the two still have for each other.

As for the two Generals on the political divide it is a hard task to sell this Agreement on the streets of Juba or Khartoum and it is everyone’s knowledge that how much this Addis Ababa Agreement might have been whitewashed by Thabo Mbeki’s African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP), the fact remains that the masses at the grassroots in the two countries will remain sceptical of it for obvious reasons.

It is not the first agreement to be signed between the two parties with one party well known for systematically dishonouring them in a compulsive repetitive manner, probably a deeply entrenched behaviour ingrained by religiosity and social misconceptions.

This latest Addis Ababa Agreement between presidents Kiir and al Bashir is even seen as a continuation of the former Naivasha comprehensive peace agreement, often referred as the CPA African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP), the fact remains that the masses at the grassroots in the two countries will remain sceptical of it for obvious reasons.

For the NCP aka NIF this agreement will provide president al Bashir with a breathing space and maybe win for him the love of the US administration. This is necessary for al Bashir in a hope that it will also neutralize the urge of the international community to implement the ICC arrest warrant on his head, at the same time it is also hoped that the economic package that comes with the agreement may also reduce the general discontent in the streets as a result of the collapse in the economy following the secession of the oil rich South. All these are yet to be seen!

In Juba the picture however remains unclear and the news of signing an agreement between SPLM and the NCP is not really seen as a breakthrough in the new countryproblems given the real nature of the multifaceted challenges in interplay. The SPLM-led government cannot praise itself on this occasion because the agreement in its totality was signed out of desperation borne of a purely self-inflicted economic collapse.

The new country is 98% dependent on revenues generated from its only industry which is the Oil. And when president Kiir in a clearly knee-jerk reaction decided the abrupt shut down of the Oil production without a clear set policies as to how the country was going to survive in itself was and still remains a sign of immature leadership.

President Kiir and his colleagues in the SPLM-dominated government are no doubt desperate to put their hands on oil money otherwise their days are numbered. The dream to take foreign loans or get huge packages of financial grants from the so-called the Republic of South Sudan friends both faded out in the first week that followed.

The US and Europe are both in their worst economic situation and cannot afford to splash out money especially so to a government best known for public corruption and embezzlement of funds. How much proof that the international community needs more than the public admission by the South Sudan Head of State General Salva Kiir Mayardit that officials in his government have stolen well above $4 billion of public money before it is put off from lending money to Juba .

The ambitious and luxury dream of building a new capital city in the marshland of Ramciel coupled with the hope to construct an alternative Oil pipeline to the port of Lamu in neighbouring Kenya and another to the port of Djibouti through Ethiopia are all but how Juba intends to distract the citizens from criticizing its chronic financial mismanagement and misappropriations. A government that has categorically failed to bring to book its top officials which the President have identified in name as public thieves, can hardly be trusted to embark on any development schemes, let alone when the cost goes beyond $15 billion.

In this Addis Ababa Debacle, South Sudan in its efforts to reclaim its occupied territories of Kafia Kingi, Hufrat el Nahas, the Megainis Mechanized Scheme Area, al Joda, the Commercial Kaka and the Abyei Enclave, sadly ended up creating a new Abyei in the so-called Mile 14 which is now being ethnically contested by the nomadic Baggara from the Rezeigat tribe.

The flow of oil from fields deep in South Sudan may resume to flow through the pipelines in the northern neighbour though often seen as an enemy. And of course, it is hoped that economic strangulation will be relieved in favour of President Salva Kiir administration. Nonetheless, it is no longer a secret that unless there is a proper disengagement between the different political and military groups across what is now two Sudans, and hopefully to be followed by a healthy neighbourly relationship, no sound-minded human being can expect that this latest Addis Ababa Agreement is actually going to translate into peaceful coexistence in the region.

To compound the South Sudanese worry is the fact that government in Juba has now been internationally established as not only tribalistic, but it is also corrupt and kleptocratic in every meaning of this expression, these are based on the declaration by the country president, and his letters to other heads of states where he sought their help to recover the stolen funds.

To further confirm how deep the new country is in an administrative vacuum and widespread mismanagement, you only need to read the reports of South Sudan Auditor General, Hon. Steve Wondu a diplomat and a world class economist of high calibre. No doubt that this is a well-placed gentleman in his job.

South Sudan probably is the richest country in natural resources in the region, maybe only second to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, just like the DRC the people remain entrapped in abject poverty. Plagued with extremely weak and corrupt government institutions and almost non-existent transport network. It is extremely sad that, our country is rapidly sinking in the sea of abundant resources.

At this moment in time it is hoped that the people of South Sudan should learn their lesson, though, through the hard way. The sudden, unplanned and abrupt decision which led to the oil shutdown and what followed thereafter was one disaster after the other. Yet all want not negative though.

This particular period with all its upheavals prompted the South Sudanese politicians and masses alike to revisit their stands in as far as the ruling SPLM party is concerned. Today even the blindest SPLM supporter begins to see the intolerable corruption within the party ranks and files. The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), South Sudan national army is no exception to this self-discovering.

When the President came out openly to declare that he is leading one of the most corrupt governments in the world with identified 75 top embezzlers of the public funds, hell was let loose and now we are reading the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNIMISS) Human Rights Violation Report in Jonglei. The Report categorically describes in a lengthy detail how the SPLM misconduct during the infamous Jonglei Ethnic Cleansing Campaign (a genocide orchestrated to exterminate the Murle ethnic group from the surface of the Earth).

The UNIMISS Report has received a wide condemnation from the Jonglei State Governor Cdr. Kuol Manyang and he was also supported by South Sudan Chief Human Rights Commissioner Hon. Lawrence Korbandy who went even further to describe the entire report as 100% nonsense(Sudan Tribune). However, those who know how close Ms Hilde Johnson is to the SPLM leadership since the days of signing the Naivasha Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) to date would have seen no reason why such an ally suddenly not only abandoned her friends, but even went an extra mile to discredit them.

Oil has become the single factor that pushes things around in South Sudan, and between it and its neighbours and especially with the republic of Sudan ( North Sudan ), this is crucial to understand. The concerns are that the South Sudan Oil Industry must undergo an overhaul, MOT. It is badly in need of overhauling with the introduction of a third party that can guarantee transparency and accountability.

Indeed, there is what one can call a national crisis when a hand picked elites who have turned the country, of size even bigger than states in Europe, into a totalitarian state. The common citizens in South Sudan do not understand how the Oil industry operates and how the money is spent. This has resulted in the general feeling amongst the populace that NOT only is the country only National Capital is being stolen by the government in Khartoum which controls the pipeline to Port Sudan and the oil refineries well placed deep in the north, but there is also a growing concern that the SPLM cadres have also behaved like vampires when it comes to Oil Revenues in the face of a completely neglected development projects and the absence of basic services, e.g. Health, Education, Security, Food and Transport.

Addis Ababa Agreements are Not New in the Sudanese Politics. And dishonouring them is also a common phenomenon. Its obvious that in the absence of real democracy, freedom of speech and expression, free press that can bring to light wrong policies and expose corruption, one agreement will go and another will come, but the status quo will remain the same. As a South Sudanese or friends of South Sudan, who reads this article, you need to come forward to champion a proper nation building. All agree that the real change can only come through the people of South Sudan . The challenge that faces the nation is how to create a people centered state where the people are enlightened and empowered and not just taken for granted. It thus needs no over-stressing that the resumption of Oil Industry under the same corrupt structure only makes things worse. Some will understand the argument, while others may need a while to appreciate it.

However, in a few weeks time we will all see that a badly managed Oil industry will NOT only drive the new republic of South Sudan into a political chaos, but it will as well likely set a precedent to anarchy and precisely ungovernability. Do not ask me how, better ask our neighbours in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DRC.
Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, Secretary General of the United South Sudan Party (USSP). He can reached at: or or ambagoramba@

Objection presentation on the Partial Agreement on Post-Secession Issues between the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan

Co-authored by: Beny Gideon Mabor and Dr. Thuoi Loi, Commentators on Politics and Governance, Juba, South Sudan, OCT. 3/2012;

We are honored and privileged at this roundtable to have been asked for a comment on the post secession issues agreement reached on September 27 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and we do not represent any level of government nor political color but purely personal views in accordance with public interests. We substantially object the protocols of the agreement as follows:

1.Framework Agreement On The Status Of Nationals Of Other States And Related Matters (Four Freedoms).

As you have already heard the items of the agreement from the Pag’an Amum, SPLM Secretary General, please allow us to definitely refute item per item through social media as the only forum for individuals to express our views in accordance with press freedom guaranteed by the constitution and the law. First, on the framework agreement on the status of nationals of other states and related matters or generally the ‘four freedoms,’ part II of the Framework Agreement that is freedom to reside, move, undertake economic activity, acquire and dispose of property which is the intention of the whole agreement.

The legitimate questions here are as follows: (1) where do we benefit as South Sudanese in these freedoms considering our level of poor private sector development, trade and industry? (2) If such freedoms were
original desires of the Sudanese people before independence of South Sudan as stipulated in this agreement, why South Sudanese overwhelmingly voted for separation by 99.83 percent if peaceful co-existence was a voluntary will of the Sudanese by then? (3) We’re confident that nothing binds us anymore or any common interest between the Republic of South Sudan and Sudan with exception of few mutual interests governed by international law.

The four freedoms that exist between Sudan and Egypt are that they are both Arabs and Muslims and they share many things in common, unlike South Sudanese whose majority without any denial are Africans, Christians and animists. Therefore, the question is if there are advantages or well being of such freedoms, why not the Government of the Republic of South Sudan enter into such agreements with sisterly East, South and Central African Countries that have no conflicts of interests in politics, governance and religious beliefs with the Republic of South Sudan?

To our fear and the rest, the framework agreement will be a silent driving force toward potential unity of the country at any time should political leaders score their game. Germany did the same and South Sudan cannot be an exception if we don’t watch out. This potential unity project was also cemented by Ambassador Francis M. Deng three weeks ago before he left to go and take up South Sudan Embassy in the United Nations in New York.

With these so-called four freedoms, if the agreement is ratified by the Assemblies of the two States as the National Assembly in Sudan already ratified the agreement, then Sudanese spy agents will immediately thrive in South Sudan under disguise of the agreement on trade and trade-related issues stipulated under Article 3(v) of the Cooperation Agreement. Worriedly, they will do homework of collecting information across all sectors including strategic ones and send them to their masters in Khartoum Administration that may possibly jeopardize our national, economic and security interests.

Generally, those who supported the so-called four freedoms are the few ones with properties in Sudan and that is an ugly face of always advancing personal interest over public interest. We dismiss it and there is no
reason to have the four freedoms.

2. Outstanding Negotiations and CPA Commitments (Disputed & Claimed Boarder Areas and Abyei Referendum)
The above items are the focal point of all misunderstanding of the post-secession issues between Juba and Khartoum. The African Union High Level Implementation Panel and South Sudan Delegation were mishandled by Khartoum Delegation and President Bashir in person arrogantly rejected the agenda on Abyei Referendum and the disputed and claimed areas to be worked out.

The question of who is a resident of Abyei became a stalemate and the parties in presence of the AUHLIP mediating team failed to reach amicably a solution. From where do we expect further understanding on the final status of Abyei, disputed and claimed areas through AU Peace and Security Council as agreed under Article 4(2) of the Cooperation Agreement? And whether by law it is acceptable for the Permanent Court of Arbitration to entertain the same case of Abyei which was before it four years ago and its ruling was outrightly rejected by Khartoum government?

Legally speaking, we are not aware of other Arbitration Court than the Hague-based PCA whose its judgment on Abyei was final and have no jurisdiction to retrial the same. The AUHLIP, Ethiopians Government and the United Nations in ignorance of this bad faith from Sudan, yet have pressured the Republic of South Sudan to sign the soft agreements that were selectively worked out under the influence of Khartoum.

Therefore, where is the independence of the mediators and the best will of the agreements in such situation where a party in dispute has upper hand and conflict of interests in resolving dispute in question? Why the headache viability of the two states is only a major burden on the Republic of South Sudan and Khartoum does not care about it?

The tyranny government of the National Congress Party so far violates the principles of the African Union Constitutive Act and the United Nations Chapter concerning relations and cooperation between states and respect of each state sovereignty and territorial integrity. In fact Khartoum government even further violated the agreement on Article 2 (2) of this very Cooperation Agreement long time ago since the coming into force of the said agreements. Otherwise, they would have not entered our air space, encroached onto our lands and continued supporting militant groups to destabilize peace and security in South Sudan.

Indeed the Cooperation Agreement is of no use but a tactical delay in the best interests of Khartoum. It must be rejected and we seek other means of demarcating our boarder with Sudan and any means the voice of the Ngok Dinka people be heard even without referendum. The young men and women of 18 to 45 years know this more than anybody.

3. On Oil Agreement
This item is an agreement signed hurriedly by South Sudan Delegation knowingly that it is not good decision. They also know very well that it is not the popular will of the people of South Sudan whose Peoples Assembly endorsed the oil shutdown six months ago and whose civil population went on street across South Sudan in support of the same wise decision.

Compulsorily, the agreement was easily agreed by South Sudan Delegation or both parties with only option to survive and recover the economic bailout the governments are facing in the two countries. But is that the best decision? What is different now and before the war broke out in Heglig (Panthou)? This is clear evidence that there is nothing new about oil agreement. Khartoum has stolen our oil and the Government would have learned the lesson that catch a thief and take care of yourself. There is no reason to allow oil flow through their facilities again.

Second, the Republic of South Sudan gave up its economic interest and undertook to provide hostile Khartoum government with what is so-called transitional financial assistance (TFA) worth 3 billion US Dollars, the largest economic package ever given in the world in total defiance of our lowest gross domestic product upon which oil receipts account for 82% of the GDP according to the World Bank Economic Report in March 2012. The 3 billion US dollar to date in the minds of many stakeholders and the citizens is not clear and has no legal basis to pay it.

Therefore, the question is why we pay Khartoum such money including acceptance of oil to flow through Port Sudan again when in fact we did not reach agreements on two strategic issues of border demarcation and the fate of the people of Abyei? Is it not clear that Khartoum will increase their military position with this very money and will not listen to us nor reach any agreement on the outstanding issues of the CPA and commitments?

Nevertheless, it is finally clear and of course undeniable that our government has terribly misused the oil money for the last eight years as salaries and other dubious businesses engineered by corruption. The reason why we are where we are today. Do you know why the government was under pressure to sign the oil agreement? It is simply because the government failed to revitalize non-oil revenues and finally failed to build alternative oil pipelines through other friendly countries for the last eight years.

It is evident that we are running out of reserves to run the government. Ironically, whose fault is that between the citizens and the government?

With this oil agreement if mistakenly ratified by the South Sudan Assembly, will the Government of South Sudan and our President Gen. Salva Kiir promise to form a government of accountability, transparency and the rule of law where the suspects of corrupt offences accused to have stolen 4 billion USD are weeded out?

We are afraid when the SPLM Secretary General said that they have brought the agreement but that the effective management of resources is not his responsibility but of the government.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the South Sudan National Legislative Assembly, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Cooperation Agreement not to ratify these agreements. This is in consideration of the above implications surrounding the partial deal that the Republic of South Sudan incurs double losses in its resources and security interest.

The renegotiation of the CPA 2005 is a clear negation of our sovereignty and integrity. The people of South Sudan have suffered so far and it is not new to us to continue suffering until the Government of the Republic of South Sudan secured a good deal on its oil transits mechanism through other means in order to safeguard our total sovereignty and territorial integrity as the foundational principles of our constitution which we are ready to defend and abide by it.

(Thanks you moderator Gabriel Joseph Shadar, Philip James and Radio Miraya dear listeners.) The authors can be reached thru:
God bless South Sudan
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are those of the authors and don’t represent the website)

Beny Gideon Mabor,

Dinka Malual betrayed: Going North or Going it alone?

The devil is in the details of South Sudan and Sudan oil agreement for Dinka Malual

Martin Garang Aher, AUSTRALIA, SEP 2/2012, SSN; September 27, 2012 will be reminisced by Dinka Malual of Northern Bahr el Ghazal as the month which brought back to life the dark history over the control of the frontiers with Rizeigat Baggara of Southern Darfur. On that day in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, presidents Bashir and Kiir swapped the rhetoric with brotherhood; a new cowboy-hat-on-the-bald amity; and together they signed oil agreement which is courteously wrapped in throngs of other subsidiary agreements to form an angel in the framework.

The entire deal, which comprised of nine bilateral agreements, included the diabolical insertion of Mile 14 pasture-land between Dinka Malual and the Rizeigat into the national frame of both countries, thereby making it a bitterly contested border zone.

Panthou is already a thing of the past and Abyei referendum, always used as a winning bargain or peace mantle by South Sudan, remains as elusive as ever.

To Dinka Malual, nonetheless, Mile 14 situation is almost akin to the time between 1860 and 1880 when Zubeir Pasha formed forces with the Arab Rizeigat and drove Dinka Malual beyond River Kiir/Bahr el Arab.

Though the Rizeigat had had the backing of the authorities most of the times that they ventured southwards, their numerous attempts in the early twentieth century had been prohibited forcefully by Dinka Malual. The result had been continuous traditionally acknowledged seasonal agreements between the two communities on how to access pastures on either side of River Kiir.

It is important to note that Dinka Malual never go to Dar Rizeigat for pastures. Always, it is Dinka Malual that are forced to open up and be accommodating. And judging by the recent Kiir-Bashir agreement, they have once again been forced – perhaps sooner or later – to relent for the sake of peace that ought to kill them.

Of course the anger is enormous in Aweil community worldwide. Some think they have been abandoned by their government through allowing another opportunity for the marauding Arab Murahaleen to resume their rustling; while others view it as a trading off of their land for Abyei, a region that initially legally and administratively chose not to be part of South Sudan.

Common men are asking whether Aweil should shoulder Abyei’s problem. But the reality is that both Aweil and Abyei will always shoulder their own problems with Rizeigat and Misseriya. And all have burdens to share with South Sudan and the Sudan.

Where is Mile 14 conundrum, or what Mr. Magdi Gigouli, a notable Rift Valley scholar, referred to as ‘Abyei in the making’ heading to? Might we be seeing old wounds being pricked once again?

Paul Malong Awan Anei, the governor of Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, a former general in the SPLA army, a native of Dinka Malual whose part of his native area lies within Mile 14 and a veteran who sustained more than eight bullet wounds from the Baggara as the then zonal commander in the Second Sudanese Civil war in Aweil area Command Post, made a no less show prior to the conclusion of Kiir-Bashir talks in Addis Ababa.

Upon sensing that his state’s national security would be offered as a sacrificial lamb, he hastily went to the Ethiopian capital where he had talks with his boss, president Kir and the mediating team.

One is unsure if in the tense and pressurized atmosphere of the negotiations Kiir was able to listen to him.

Governor Paul Malong’s message to South Sudanese upon return in Juba and to Aweil citizens in particular was no less categorical.

“I want to assure you that we are in Mile 14 and we will be there to stay. This is our area and we know how to manage relations,’ he said.

He had indeed fumed earlier on that implementation of such an agreement would be done when he is not there. Whether this indicates a resignation or an old adage, ‘over my dead body,’ is a matter open to interpretation.

The whole scenario of withdrawing SPLA forces ten kilometers south of Kiir River thereby paving way for creating a safer border demilitarized zone (SBDZ) carries an emotional charge among Dinka Malual of Northern Bahr el Ghazal.

To the Rizeigat, it may mean an implementation of the boundary which the British governor of Bahr el Ghazal, Mervyn Wheatley and the then governor of Darfur, Patrick Munro agreed on and imposed in 1924; Dinka Malual never accepted the agreement that went any mile beyond Kiir River.

And to Dinka Malual, it is another imposition in which they are never consulted that had just occurred. The Sudanese had a delegation of Rizeigat presenting their case to the African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP) while South Sudan government never spoke with the Dinka Malual, the custodians of the border clues.

This already justifies trouble. Both Dinka Malual and Rizeigat are a surprise to one another when it comes to what goes on along Kiir River. In all the historical wars on Kiir River, it begins with pastures, picks up in the water, culminates in the rustling and fully accelerates in the blood.

Many South Sudanese would not agree with Mile 14 being a contested area. However, given the economical implications that the oil shut-down had created, sceptics perceive this latest agreement as a sell-out to Khartoum for the oil to flow.

Khartoum might praise its negotiation skills and view Kiir-Bashir agreement as a booty of war of attrition.The economic implication of oil stoppage gives an impression that South Sudan is dying for cash. The national treasury is running dry.

In any sense, South Sudan is now frantically paying heavily for halting its oil torrent which constitutes the mildly-spoken ‘lifeblood’ of the two nations by many analysts.

The craving for economic freedom that accompanied government decision to stop the oil flow in the first place is now being run down by an avalanche of desperation. People are angry and hungry. When South Sudan shut down its oil earlier in 2012, hunger was a minute thing that could be sustained. What was at stake was the national pride and economic freedom.

The South Sudan chief negotiator, Pagan Amum – just like his country men and women who demonstrated on the streets of Juba in support of the decision that halted oil transit through theft-perforated pipeline of the Sudan – asserted his contentment saying it was a matter of national economic freedom. So it was, no doubt.

But to Dinka Malual, the adored economic freedom is now forfeiting their land for cash. The freedom in demand for Malual Giernyang or Malual Buoth Anyaar, as they fondly call themselves, is not only economic or political, it is freedom from dispossession that they must counter from any Sudan, be it South Sudan or Sudan.

And as the governor asserted, so are the people of Aweil who will have to join the land when it goes north, or hang on to it to the detriment of peace between the two Sudans.

Martin Garang Aher is a South Sudanese residing in Western Australia. He can be reached at

Regards, Martin Garang Aher.
‘Busara itakulinda, ufahamu utakuhifadhi’
Mithali 2:11
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent the website.)

Did Abyei paramount chief Deng Kuol Arop sell his soul

BY: Leon Nyerere, CANADA, SEP. 30/2012, SSN; Before I delve into the subject, I’d like to inform the readers that I’m using ‘devil’

Kiir’s boondoggle in Addis: Only a partial deal to sign?

Editorial Analysis; After serious haggling since last Sunday and six face-to-face meetings, the presidents of Sudan and South Sudan, Omar Bashir and Salva Kiir, have finally signed Thursday, September 27, 2012, a partial deal, basically, to resume oil exports from South Sudan through the Sudan and a security arrangement.

1. OIL DEAL: Since President Kiir unilaterally shut down oil production and exports through the north last January, and briefly blundered in the occupation of Heglig (Panthou) oil refinery, the South has been under continuous international pressure to reconsider restarting the oil production, especially in the light of its dismal failure to secure any international financial assistance.

South Sudan is almost 99.99 percent dependent on oil revenues but the Sudan is the main beneficiary of any resumption of oil exports through its territory. Besides paying the Sudan transit fees, South Sudan will unconditionally bear the entire responsibility of repair and rehabilitation of the oil facilities. Experts predict the entire process will take several months before we see oil flowing again and will cost millions.

Now, Kiir has voluntarily and politically surrendered and ceded the South back to the jellaba North, who, given the not-so-long-ago history, will be tightly holding South Sudan at ransom. The oil exports will be at their mercy– any time we disagree, they shut off the pipeline for a million pretexts!!!

More importantly, however, what will now become of the LAPSSET accord that President Kiir recently signed with Kenya and Ethiopia to export South Sudan’s oil southwards, since he will now be deeply entrapped with paying the Sudan in the new Addis Accord?

2. Security Deal: This accord, again, unfairly favours the Sudan than South Sudan, as it encompasses demilitarization and mandatory one-sided withdrawal of South Sudan army (SPLA) 10 miles from an undefined 1200 miles long border not yet demarcated completely. In the event of SPLA supposed retreat beyond the so-called demilitarized zone, would the Arab Sudan be in any more hurry to embark on any negotiations on North-South border demarcation?

3. Disputed territories: Clearly, President Kiir severely lost on this since those disputed areas of Hofar el Nahas, Mile 14, Kaka, Goda, and others, have been conceded as they will continue under Sudan’s firm control.

4. Abyei loss: This is President Kiir’s greatest blunder and loss. Predictably, the proposals of the African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP) were a non-starter for jellaba Sudan and at the same time, the intransigence of the prominent Abyei sons in the South Sudan side was a complicating factor. For the first time ever, the Arab Sudan is now pushing for complete division of Abyei region into two parts, one for the Dinka Ngok and the other part, northwards, for the Arab nomads. Apparently, all South Sudan inducements to the north Sudan, be it oil money or unfettered grazing rights, are no longer attractive anymore. The Arabs, like the Dinka Ngok, are gunning for the most precious and lasting asset, the land.

Will President Kiir push the South into another war because of Abyei impasse, therefore scuttling the entire peace process? Alternately, how effective will resorting, once again, to international arbitration at The Hague be advisable?

5. The Four Freedoms: These entail the right to work, to move, to reside and to ownership of properties on both sides of the border for citizens of the two countries. Unfortunately, these freedoms are heavily and unfairly in favor of the jellaba and other North Sudanese, who under President Kiir’s dubious policies of accommodation, have allowed South Sudan trade and commerce to be almost completely strangled by the Sudanese who come and go unfettered in South Sudan. They own more businesses in the South than South Sudanese owning any in north Sudan. Conversely and unarguably, South Sudanese in north don’t enjoy any freedoms freely, whatsoever, a fact seen in the numbers of South Sudanese migrating en masse daily back home in utter misery.

*The summit between President Salva Kiir of South Sudan and President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, which began Sunday, was supposed to last just one day to meet a deadline set by the African Union and U.N. Security Council.

As of Thursday, September 27/2012, the two presidents sign a partial deal.

*An economic deal that would include revenue sharing between the two nations of South Sudan’s oil wealth is desperately needed by both economies.

In January, South Sudan shut off its oil supply — which is shipped and exported through Sudan’s infrastructure — saying that Sudan was stealing oil revenue. The South got around 70% of the formerly united country’s reserves when it became independent last year.

Both countries, especially South Sudan, have seen hyperinflation and a squeeze on incoming foreign currency, which has hurt their economies.

*Under the agreement, the demilitarized zone along the border will mean the militaries of Sudan and South Sudan and other armed groups will not be allowed in a prescribed zone on either side of the border, creating a buffer between the forces.

*The deal as signed is described it will be at best a partial victory, analysts say,

*The status of disputed areas along the border and the fate of Abyei — a border region claimed by both countries — are crucial security issues that will need to be addressed if the two recently divorced countries are to have lasting peace.

In April, Sudan and South Sudan slipped close to all-out war with a series of tit-for-tat air raids and ground attacks that prompted the African Union and Security Council to push the two sides to act.

*The Security Council had given the sides until Sunday to come up with a deal or face sanctions. But the negotiators say that has been informally extended until the end of the talks.

*The status of Abyei has been a matter of contention since the South declared independence on July 9 of last year.

Under a 2005 peace agreement that ended Sudan’s two-decade civil war, Abyei residents were to take part in a referendum on whether to join the South or remain a special administrative region within Sudan. The vote was to take place in January 2011, at the same time as the referendum that led to South Sudan’s secession. But disputes over who was eligible to vote prevented the referendum from going forward in Abyei.

*Sudan and South Sudan have been under increasing pressure from the African Union and Security Council to resolve the matter peacefully.

SPLM is Too Big to want to rig Elections

By: Buot Manyiel Buot, JUBA.
SEP. 26/2012, SSN; The Republic of South Sudan was ordained into the community of nations on 9/7/2011 after successful conduct of the referendum as sanctioned by Comprehensive Peace Agreement-CPA, and just like other budding
democratic Nations, it relishes multi-party democracy, through its constitution, based on the ideal of political pluralism in which all individuals are freely allowed to evince their views on issues connected to democracy, including good governance and political intercourse.

All legitimate political forces in this Republic, including Sudan People’s Liberation Movement- Democratic Change or DC become recipients of that universal political right.

Although the last elections are way back, almost three years ago, and that revisiting their impact is legally time-barred, I feel it worthwhile to assess them in summary. To begin with, DC was subsequently formed in Khartoum during the last quarter of 2009, an unmistakable culmination of the Kanena conference by adversaries of South Sudan and dissident politician in the person of Lam Akol, who contested a precarious sponsored quest for presidency in the elections of 2010 against the incumbent president of South Sudan Gen. Kiir, and he (Lam) was indubitably voted down prima facie.

His party –DC was doomed to failure in all constituency seats throughout the then Southern Sudan with the exception of hometown of Upper Nile, where they got some handful of parliamentary dockets. His misguided search for State palace
and the entire scheme of DC was/is no more than a foreign project, designed externally to perpetuate imperial political hegemony. At least that was the view of political analysts and social commentators, and even in the mind of an average citizen.

During the elections, DC presented to the electorates certain claimed political programs contained in the so-called DC Document which were meant to rule South Sudan if and when it wins elections, but the fact was/is such ideals only befit men who are domiciled in the utopian perfect society in an imaginary Island. In fact, such ideas are applicable to utopian world but not the Republic of South Sudan or any civilized nation.

In this progressive world, some peculiar truths appear like fictional drama and are too good to believe, and this fact renders DC’s political comedy in its document to be too good to believe, notwithstanding to the contrary. Moreover, some ideas in the same Documents are no more than petty political invectives reserved only for somebody fanatical about power. In certain issues with regards to ideology raised by DC, SPLM has got express and ready answers.

Generally, some other reasonable matters regarding governance propagated by DC were almost literal replica of the SPLM political programs inherent in its manifesto. Electorates didn’t buy anything.

SPLM was/is too big and popular to want to rig elections. DC ruffled feathers crying fault for alleged election fraud, but the cry was no more than misguided quest for power.

But the million dollar question begs itself that what were these political hopes in which DC was disappointed? What were these wishes in which it was frustrated? And what was that faith that was abused? Nothing.

Observing critically at DC political programs, there is but none new agenda or ideology that the SPLM failed to conduct experiment whether in the past or present. During the elections and its aftermath, all DC
did was to present a showcase in which it portrays itself as an angel of benevolence and provident of salvation, but the ostensible hope of rescue from distant horizon fell into deaf ears and blind eyes of the electorates.

Honestly, and without any remorse for this statement, there was no way DC could have won the elections under any circumstances. We know and DC knows. The “Party” SPLM has fought the war of liberation to free the peoples of South Sudan from social chauvinism and political subjugation by Arab fundamentalists. The party has had the capacity to
transform the political face of this country, deformed by Arab imperialism. It therefore develops certain visions of a better society in which human beings can achieve genuine emancipation and fulfillment of self-worth as free members of global community.

When the Party waged revolutionary war, it carried with it the aspiration of the entire nation, showing the world over that it is capable to achieve the unimaginable- that hard political expedition for Statehood to its realistic conclusion. Despite political backlash from various quarters, SPLM legacy will endure to be told to generations coming as long as history books exist on earth.

Now the ultimate objective is to model South Sudan to suit the specifications of the civilized nations. To those who wish to compensate SPLM, all you are asked to do is to honor the monumental feat, modesty, and valor of the Party and rally your support for it to achieve full potential of our aspirations. During the war, you expressed forbearance coupled with noble duties of patriotism, obedience, loyalty, comradeship and fidelity.

After DC lost elections, having been defeated with landslide and angered by such results, it embarked on a perilous campaign calculated to corrupt, interrupt, sabotage or delay the conduct of the referendum. Those calculated subversive maneuvers are expressly discernable from the utterances of its upper political echelon.

Dr. Lam Akol, the Director for DC, on Sunday 5 September 2010, published a notoriously lengthy article titled, ‘South Sudan Referendum’: First things first. ( and respectively). Lam with his political agility in the said article spoke his mind, adorning almost every phrase with political/academic jargon, but others are wiser that him and knew his mind.

As a matter of fact, his mental element on the Referendum was characterized by a mixture of indifference and double-dealing, usually acting in bad faith by pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another ultra-motive. Every calculated move by Lam is unmistakably a relentless pursuit of power.

Although DC statements by its leader are not entirely frank or devoid of deceit and hypocritical motives, but the statements, however, portrayed the peculiar picture we shall probably ever have known of the mind of the Leader of DC.
For those who harbor political curiosity and wish to know the content of the article that I have alluded to above, you can follow the link as shown and read out the article for your satisfaction, but I quote some phrases here for our deliberation: Dr. Lam had this to say….”there would be no way for a free, fair and transparent referendum. Therefore it would be in the interest of the advocates of unity and separation alike to unify their ranks and join efforts to impose the favorable climate for the dissemination of their ideas about unity or separation so that they reach the Southern citizen, the voter in this referendum. It is also in the interest of both camps to ensure a free, fair and transparent referendum in order to make its result acceptable to all, hence, obtain recognition of the international community” Unquote.

This statement is an unwarranted expression of indignation about referendum, a typical case of apathy and political duplicity for a leader of a political party to harbor such ideas about referendum- the potential destiny for the peoples whom he purports to represent.To analyze it, one discerns that he told what Jalaba in Khartoum desired to hear.

First and foremost, parties to the CPA, which is the vanguard of referendum didn’t need to engage in any activities outside stipulations of the Referendum Act. It was of no need to unify the ranks of the advocates of Unity or
Separation to impose their interests. The regulating authority, i.e. the Referendum Act has to be adhered to strictly, and that was the position of the SPLM. And today we have the country with International
Recognition- thank God.

Here is also another quote posted under Lam’s Article by James Okuk, a quasi-ambassador for DC who sacrificed virtue
over egotism, he had this to say….”The crucial question I would ask Dr Lam Akol here is: What would be a guarantee that the environment may be made conducive by the CPA’s partners to conduct a fair, free and transparent referendum for Southerners as desired since the last five years and more months have offered some proves that those partners are
not interested in joint and full implementation of the CPA?

Also the critical question I may ask those who will not agree with Dr Akol’s position is this: What will be the use of unrecognized referendum full of quarrels and possibility of third war between Khartoum and Juba? Conclusion of another peace agreement with NCP and Northerners? I am looking forward to get some convincing answers here, otherwise I may consider viable, my position that advices for the postponement of the referendum until 9th January 2012 and then go for war of unilateral declaration of independence of South Sudan after that if nothing good comes out in regards to fair, free and transparent referendum with recognizable end-result.

This position is a middle-way compromise to allow the unionists to enjoy the status quo for a further one year only
of the CPA extended life-span but at the end of that year to also allow the separatists to start enjoying the dignity of the independence of South Sudan”. Unquote.

Read and reread such utterances, subject them to analysis and you will find atypical case of conspiracy on the part of DC stalwarts. Little did Okuk know that Dr. Lam was not a seer or custodian of the Referendum for him to know the conducive environment that guaranteed transparent conduct of the referendum, so the question directed to Lam was immaterial and rebuttable.

Little did Okuk know also that there were both internal and external dynamic which guaranteed to warrant the successful, transparent and timely conduct of the referendum, after all, the price and cost of non-implementation of the referendum clause was designed in such a way as to make it very expensive and a cost too much to pay. During the referendum, there was no need at all for a middle-way compromise for Unionists to enjoy the status quo as suggested by Okuk. Such a position would have been a direct contravention of the Referendum Act.

Nonetheless, it was then implemented as required by law, its results being recognized without quarrels or third war between Khartoum and Juba.Now we’ve a republic with international recognition, Thank God.Dr. Lam at the time prophesied that an independent South Sudan will replicate ungovernable Somalia, while Okuk advised for the postponement of the conduct of the referendum until 9th January 2012. Fortunately, the practical political realities
now are completely different from Lam’s prophecies, to his dismay and that of Okuk.

It was sad day for all of us and none is sadder than the betrayed homeland, given the fact that everything we’ve worked for, everything that we believe in during our struggle was just almost crashed into ruins by such emotional prophecies about the referendum. But we emerged triumphant notwithstanding, and now there is only and only one thing left for SPLM to do: i.e. to devote whatever strength and power at its disposal to forwarding the victory of the cause for which we have sacrificed so much too much. Indeed, 2.5 million died – killed for a dignified and honorable cause.

While DC may have failed to achieve certain motives about the referendum, it opened up another front to destabilize the nation and divert public attention, i.e. it embarked on a hazardous political adventurism to demonize and vilify SPLM almost in everything about public policy, almost everything- from democracy to good governance, foreign policy to press freedom, answerability to accountability, rule of law to administration of Justice, infrastructure to economy, education to health, and security to defense, just to mention but a few.

DC is attacking SPLM political records per incuriam, by disregarding tangible scores of the SPLM and assigns itself a behavior sort of quasi-veto over political strategy of the SPLM. Almost on every other issue, DC has a reason to assign blame and vilify SPLM conduct. But I wonder if ever DC will achieve any political breakthrough by politics of
blackmail and treachery. I supposed this path of political confrontation is a limbo too useless for DC, for this nation and indeed for the whole humanity which is set to achieve genuine aspiration.

I am also afraid that if such state of affairs continues unabated, DC risks fading into absolute political oblivion, unless it changes political behavior. I also suspect that this path of perpetual political conflict is a decision taken out of sheer wantonness without regards to conventional wisdom and political maturity. DC must mature.

Conversely, DC’s propaganda and vilification against SPLM are administered with such furious generosity and with such diabolic gusto that even the most ignorant members within our social fraternity would have a reason to infer that SPLM is being confronted not so much as to inculcate political responsibility and accountability, but rather to cow
it into blind submissiveness so as to forgo its programs and probably ideology, and this explains the bitter irony with which DC always depicts SPLM’s image, otherwise such sustained political blackmailing and unfounded propaganda are utterly foreign to our political anthropology, at variance to the most fundamental and secret principles of our
character, and totally at discrepancy with our traditional passion for loyalty, patriotism, respect and equality.

DC must mature. Political experiments indicated that any leaders who sacrifice virtues on the altar of inexpediency or relegate patriotism and loyalty into insignificance in relation to theory and practice of politics are doomed
to failure. DC must mature.

Lastly on a separate note, I’ve a message to opinion writers with regards to succession politics dominating our political discourse these past weeks. Succession politics, at least must be avoided now, because writers who seem to favor certain individual for next presidency propagate unhealthy opinions, some of which are reminiscent to the
horrifying events of 1991.

We detest the resultant aftermath of 1991 and do not need a repeat. Succession politics must be evaded for now or
else, the prophets of doom will swallow their ill-motives if the nation returns to business as usual even after 2015. History and political experience of the past convinced most of our citizens that many leaders of this nation tried to ascend to power by illegitimate means only to fail miserably.

Also experience taught us that politicians who took refuge under the guise of politeness and deceit, cant and flattery, cunning and duplicity were never forgiven by history, at least politically. To those opinion writers, I wish to forewarn you that invoking tribal sentiments and exploiting trivial invectives of regional connotation can’t ascend any president to power in our context.

Such leaders may have been highly educated, fought for aspiration of their believe and sacrificed their blood, but that doesn’t mean automatic destiny to presidency. It is only through harmonious political consensual intercourse that we can sail amicably.

Reach the author via:
(The views expressed above are those of the author and don’t reflect the views of the website)

Conflict may hurt Juba’s bid to join East African Community

Posted September 18/2012

In Summary

*An applicant must also demonstrate the potential to contribute to the integration in the bloc.
*South Sudan is facing US dollar shortage and has restricted the volume of transactions, affecting trade.
*South Sudan loses about $1 billion a year in hard currency to neighbouring Kenya and Uganda through remittances, informal trade and imports of goods

A volatile currency and rampant insecurity could hurt South Sudan’s bid to join the East African Community (EAC) bloc.

The country, which seceded from Sudan last year under a 2005 peace deal, hopes to tap into the potential of the EAC common market, which has 133 million people.

Sporadic cases of violent conflict between Juba and Khartoum over oil export deal and border disputes threatens this dream.

The dispute led the south to halt oil exports through Sudan erasing its main source of hard currency, leading to serious instability in its import and export trade.

The oil shutdown wiped about 98 per cent of the landlocked nation’s state revenues. It has almost no other industries apart from oil after decades of civil war with Sudan.

“There are some issues within the treaty that they must conform to, there are certain conditions they have not met, we are negotiating with them,” EAC Affairs minister Musa Sirma said. “A country must be stable, a country must have free economy based on good business culture.”

According to Article 3 of the EAC Treaty, parties seeking membership of the bloc must adhere to universally acceptable principles of good governance, democracy, the rule of law, observance of human right s and social justice.

An applicant must also demonstrate the potential to contribute to the integration in the bloc.

Besides, a State is obligated to prove that it has the capacity to establish and maintain a market driven economy and policies that are compatible with those of the EAC.

Mr Sirma said South Sudan is facing US dollar shortage and has restricted the volume of transactions, affecting trade.

South Sudanese Commerce minister Garang Diing Akuong was quoted by Reuters as having said that the country aims to seal a $200 million credit line from an international bank within three months to cover imports and bolster the local currency.

South Sudan loses about $1 billion a year in hard currency to neighbouring Kenya and Uganda through remittances, informal trade and imports of goods as diverse as medicine, cement, clothes, furniture and food, he told the news agency.

Pres. Kiir won’t be re-elected again: Reply to Ateny Wek

BY: Isaiah Abraham, SSN; Mr. Ateny Wek Ateny, a columnist with the Citizen Newspaper, Juba, wrote a spirited piece challenging Mr. Mabior Garang Mabior, the son of the founding father of this nation about the later expression of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Mr. Ateny called Mr. Garang junior names including that of a ‘prodigal’ son. He fumed and argued until he gets to why this author couldn’t take it anymore.
I have just picked three enigmatic lines from his article written on Citizen Newspaper dated September 4th 2012, Vol. 7, Issue No. 234. One line reads thus: “Garang boys still control everything…”.
Before we argue much as to why such a statement is terrible and uncalled for, allow me to briefly rehearse key words from Alan Boswell of the McClatchy Newspaper publicized interview with Garang junior. Mr. Garang Junior was reported to have said that the government is doing little on corruption drive/ fight and that the current leadership has abandoned the path charted forward by his father.
He was also quoted to have sought the need for intervention or a change through the people and not through the army. Lastly Mr. Garang quizzed and squared Mr. Kiir’s security against him, and for the death of a Kenyan worker on a bus related to Mama Rebecca Nyandeng, the mother of Mabior Garang Mabior.
As natural as everything else, opinions are subject to different interpretations; each of us will slice part of Garang’s argument differently. Some might not agree with his alleged statements, but others will go extra mile personal or political. To this group they will think that it will be too much from the mouth of a young man whose father and Kiir are somewhat one and the same thing. The two in fact are joined at the hip; the two started the journey together and are respected by many. I don’t know whether my colleague Ateny Wek was right to jump to such an aggressive position.
Ateny falls in the category of the people who sees Garang and Kiir differently. To Ateng, Garang isn’t Kiir and the opposite is true. I agree. In fact the majority of Kiir home boys are pushing hard to anoint Kiir anywhere at the expense of Garang, but Mr. Kiir has kept away from such a school, at least publicly. That is another argument another day, but the extension of that argument has spilled over to this topic, and I shall reference it as we go along.
Anyway, we still have a long way to go given our patronage tendencies and allegiance that must not be wished away overnight. The strings are being pulled and normally it goes that way until at a certain time when the chicken comes home to roast.
To this author it will be callous for anyone to disrepute either; both are important leaders of our time. Kiir himself can’t accept that his colleague be treated that way, and I gave him the credit for not poking his neck anywhere to claim superiority over his brother John Garang.
Garang and Kiir are birds of the same feathers; they come a long way together and are still even together; I must repeat myself. It is the death that has separated the two leaders. I don’t think it is fair for the young man from Aweil to try to go between the two. Thus the two shared failures and successes of the SPLM. If SPLM is rotten under Kiir, the excuse shouldn’t be roundly shouldered by him, but he also has a role to play to correct whatever Garang didn’t do well.
Garang boys vs Kiir boys
Now let’s look briefly the sentence above, “Garang boys are still controlling everything”, especially  the word ‘still’. To me Mr. Ateny wasn’t sure why ‘Garang boys’ are allowed to continue to ‘control’ things at Kiir’s time. To him, the ‘boy’s reign should have been gone with the late leader. That is his opinion and I don’t have to argue much, but I now doubt his girth about anything. I will fear now his judgment and reasoning, the very person I thought he won’t be subjective.
Many Dinka are like that! They are horrible when it comes to us vs them.
But also the two words: ‘Garang boys’ has a connotation. Mr. Ateny carefully used these two words consciously and hence my contention. His choice of these words didn’t just come out while he was writing his pejorative piece, the man had earlier consulted his conscience and concluded that for him to raise the bar, he must dredge something up to settle a score against people whom he sees as anti-Kiir.
Remember we have been hearing these maundering statements every now and then, specifically during Kiir ascension to power; it was from people who are interested in separating Kiir from Garang. Please Ateny, there were/are Garang boys vs Kiir boys, Kiir himself was one the boys under Garang. But Kiir and whoever else are leaders on their own right, and we must respect them, and not to insult them.
“SPLM rooted in the way it was designed”
I find the second enigmatic statement from Ateny so offensive; It partly reads like this: “ the culture of the SPLM rooted in the way it was designed. If Mabior sees the failure of the SPLM led government, which is systemic with its fluctuating political culture from communist to capitalist”
The composition of this passage was wrong, the intent was also wrong as does the phrasing. If the culture of the SPLM was faulty, then what does that got to do with Mabior reminding you and me about them?
You one moment attempt to say failure and just try to push to someone else, yet in another split second you put a blanket on the face of Mabior. If there are failures from that time to date, because of that ‘design,’ who has stopped Kiir from correcting the wrong ‘design’? How about changing ideology from communist to capitalism, what relevance are we attaching into our affairs at the moment?
If Mr. Ateny intention was to charge Garang of having erected a wrong foundation, then his attempt to exonerate Kiir is off the mark. Corruption, mismanagement and lack of vision aren’t ideological, but methodological or means under poor governance.
Therefore, it is just unfair to try to gag Garang junior because he is the son of Dr. John Garang. Mr. Mabior openness is good for us all; this is self criticism and shouldn’t be thrown out of the window. After all he is a South Sudanese like everyone else in this land, and has every right to express himself. If he says things aren’t going people’s way, who is this Ateny to say that they are?
Majority of our people are dissatisfied, save for a few around the corridors of power. What will he say about Kiir hands in glove in tackling of corrupt practices in his government? Is that not a concern? I think it is so! To me there is a huge concern and a weakness from the top man in our land. He must do things differently to prove to many his worth being there.
People might conclude that by being indifferent and indecisive perhaps he’s is one of the corrupt people in the land.
Second, Mr. Garang has voiced what we all know; this isn’t secret anymore. There is total leadership deficit and this must be corrected next year during party Convention. There are manageable crisis such as insecurity in some parts of the country, and then food insecurity, lack of infrastructures or services as well as the diplomatic dirt for not being proactive and visional. The list however goes on.
The so-called post outstanding differences between the Sudan and South Sudan are by products of our failure to appreciate situations before they actually occur. The government acts haphazardly and impromptu and not on a laid out one, two and three strategic plans. No guidance, no supervision and no evaluation, and thereby no nothing. That is exactly what Mr. Garang Junior lamented about.
We must not bury our heads in fear because the security people will torture us, people of this land are to be free from ineptitude and poor guidance from Kiir camp.
Garang was an undisputed leader
Ateny, if Garang was alive we won’t have been at this state, I must say this with certitude! That man was gifted, he knew what step to take, why to take and what it would take to take it. Of course he wasn’t god, but his developmental agenda fits our fertile grounds. May be you don’t know him, and only heard from FORUM instigative and negative onslaught against him in London.
Of course we know the turncoats that are becoming hard cores and inner circles of the system currently in Juba. Time is coming when you will be accounted for the mess you have done against the people of this country. South Sudan can’t be led like that and someone can’t step up to hush anyone.
Garang junior wasn’t whistleblower but truth teller — change is inevitable
The third enigmatic statement from Mr. Ateny Wek Ateny on his dying line goes like this: “the prodigal son of the former leader is a whistleblower for something yet designed to come”. Mr. Ateny, Mr. Mabior wasn’t a whistleblower about any impending coup d’etat or anything similar to that school.
Look, no one will remove President Kiir through any violent means. He is an elected leader and our people are law abiding ones. The army you see are disciplined; they were brought up by reasonable man. Kiir will be president until election time in 2015, be assured of that. But take this from this little author; Mr. Kiir will not be the president of this republic beyond 2015. I will tell you why.
The man has lost his base, and has since resigned to that situation. He still holds on the skeleton anyway, but the reality is that the SPLM, which should have been his very base, is infiltrated and not anymore standing united the way we came in-2005. The true cadres of the party have no courage to market Kiir the same way they did it few years ago. They aren’t closer to where the national matters are discussed. Some people have already found their way, and are running the show.
But to be exact, the trouble started when Kiir formed his first cabinet after election in 2010. The party should have been on the fore front to nominate who should be the Minister, Deputy Minister, Undersecretary and so on. Mr. Kiir sat in his villa house in Juba and called his two men (Machar and Wani) and the trio divided the seats among their cronies from their respective three regions.
This has alienated so many able people. You see, the party regionalized its own regional slots and not the executive. Executive is about specialists, a group of people with specific and technical knowhow.
The Magayas, the Agnes of the NCP and the Bettys and the likes shouldn’t have been in the Cabinet in the first place. Their political backgrounds are murkier and darker than one could imagine.
Can anyone dream of appointing turncoats, straight to the heart of the system, as if SPLM has no men/women from the bush who could run the government? If we had managed then to run the movement for many years without anything and under difficult challenges circumstances, how about now when we have everything in place to manage things?
Gen. Obote could have been the right man in Interior not the Magaya if the position was reserved for the Equatorians.
Return Awut to the Council of Ministers
I seize this opportunity to request His Excellency the President to return Ms Awut Deng Achuil to the Cabinet. Madame Awut is an achiever and shouldn’t be left in the cool. His problem was busybodies in the Council of Ministers who were denied ghost names in payrolls. She a fighter, has a character and not corrupt. Please sir, make use of this lady talent; don’t listen to lies, overturn her resignation letter and reappoint her in another production ministry such as Commerce.
Kiir consultation is limited
Kiir had no time consulting his party secretariat on serious national decisions. Yes once the president is elected he ceases becoming partisan, but policies are always generated by the party. The party initiates and forms any part of his move. Our President casually connects with his party and that shouldn’t be the case. He made all his big decision around Council of Ministers and in his house.
Take for example the shut down of the oil production; the decision was made elsewhere or by a few without careful study about its economic repercussions. Literally experts weren’t consulted and here we are in an economic quagmire, whom do we blame? Of course the Chief Executive who felt short of making use of his base.
People thought there are plans after that, but to date they are in distant future or in pipe dream/nowhere. The President and his small kitchen cabinet emotionally made so many decisions on behalf of everyone else, even that of a party. Though the decision to shut down oil production has become a blessing in disguise, it wasn’t carefully thought out.
Dr. Garang won’t have reached this stage if he was there, and that is exactly what the young Garang was trying to say.
Kiir will not be re-elected again
Mr. Ateny must be reminded that Kiir re-election bid will be a daunting task. If it happens it will be with a price. In essence the party will divide into pieces. Some people are quiet now because time hasn’t yet come, but once that time arrives, you will hear power struggle issue come up everywhere; that is if Kiir insists of running again for another term.
If he cares for the party will have to give others the chance. The SPLM Chairman is walking under tight rope, very exposed and must be left to retire. Dr. Machar is angling and will not wait longer until 2020. Then he will be 68 years, an age bracket not suitable for this generation. I love him!
However these days there is a charge by Central Equatoria City Council against him that he has grabbed large chunk of land around Juba town.
If proven true then that is bad precedent for the top man to do just that. Another concern is his laissez faire type of leadership. I’m not sure whether South Sudan is ripe enough for that kind of a style. To me they will finish themselves off one by one, and there comes a failed state.
This is a Third world country, someone will have to lead using carrots, brooms and sticks at times to guide and correct. Dr. Machar if elected must be asked to abandon his federation project. It is too earlier to go federal; some governments can declare their independence in parliament or put difficult bumps for anyone to check their activities.
Unity and the Promised Land
I hear elsewhere that Mr. Ateny erroneously beat a confidence chord that Mr. Kiir will be elected president for few more years, because he has united the people of South Sudan and had actually brought about independence of the country. He even called ‘father of the nation’. Well, Ateny shouldn’t be carried out. We all know his achievement and everyone is proud of him being there. Everyone appreciates our leader patience and humility in the face of problems, but you are overstated things for undue credit. Kiir is the first president of the Republic of South Sudan period, nothing will erase this accolade for anytime to come, but to call him ‘father of the nation’ is wild claim, naivety, and disparagingly insulting. I will leave it that way!
Unity of South Sudan is faulty
Mr. Ateny, we are not yet united, we are not near there; instead we are closer to polarization. In which way did he unite the people of this republic? His unity with militiamen in 2006 and in between was bound to happen regardless and irrespective of who/what approach he uses; they had no choice after the CPA was signed. What we now see as unity is faulty, it is on sand and likely to crumble anytime. Mr. Mabior didn’t mention it, but this is my generalization about Kiir’s poor records.
True, sharing of national cake is one of the elements that brings about unity, but that is ephemeral in substance and in nature. Representation is materialist, unrealistic and can’t bring the real unity. That arrangement isn’t sustainable and lasts for a short period of time. The unity we truly yearn for therefore is the very one that would be in our minds.
Today we have a government with all faces in it, but still we didn’t reach the unity of our people. The question is why? Unity goes beyond inclusiveness, it has to be in our behavior towards one another. Someone does it in Rwanda and in few centuries to come, the issue of Tutsi vs Hutu will be history.
If we are united we won’t have people running away from one another-federation quest or people crying for autonomous. We would have been comfortable with who comes to power, provided that he/she delivers.
I still hope that time will come when we shall a Juba Commissioner from Murle, or a Toposa becoming a governor in Upper Nile State. I long for a situation where our people shall embrace one another and not in lens of tribes, classes or groups.  Kiir didn’t do enough there, and will leave it that way.  
On the journey to the Promised Land, no single person can brag about having brought us freedom. Even Garang with all his extraordinary efforts couldn’t say he had singlehanded freed this country. But also under the CPA foundation it was possible for anyone to bring people out of the bondage.
That agreement was too grounded on rocks. Kiir had even failed to use it properly. He has been reclusive and never stayed longer in the presidency in Khartoum. He shied from making himself heard. The today issues such as the Disputed Areas or the problem in two areas of South Korfofan and Blue Nile would have been heard. People were surprised when Panthou became a disputed land.
Mr. Ateny must not make mistake that Mabior family is jealous about Kiir’s presidency. Dr. John Garang’s family is hardworking and are working for their self-reliance. Mama Rebecca is a tough lady; they are building their own lives like everyone else and this is encouraging.
The young Garang moreover has been careful, quiet and his timing is right. If he isn’t talking who will voice the concern of the people of this republic? We must be tolerant and allow constructive criticism.
This author is an SPLM member and has no reason not to say things the way they are. I love this party, I love my president and our big brother John Garang de Mabior, and many more who participated in the struggle of the people of South Sudan.  
The SPLM is dying and unless the Chairman listens to voices of Garang Junior and others, he will kiss the ground in shame. The best way to go is to take serious the recommendations by the Committees he had formed, then peacefully give way to others to try it. No third option.
Isaiah Abraham lives in Juba; he’s on JUBA
SEPT. 8/2012

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website.

A Country of the Laziest Never Prospers: A case of South Sudan

By John Adoor Deng, Australia

SEPT. 02/2012, SSN; Almost countless articles get posted daily on South Sudan news channels, the question is, are these articles being read widely? If they are read, are their messages internalised or are dust-binned?  Whether affirmative or not, it is still an obligation to many writers to continue talking their minds to the masses.

This article is intended to highlight triggers that seem to precipitate our national backwardness.  The independence of South Sudan comes with tasks for building a nation from scratch to complete settlement. This scratchiness of our country calls for the spirit of hardwork, diligence and togetherness.

However, current indicatives in the country are pointing to a disastrous direction. Majority of our population are ignorantly lazy even to put food on their tables.  They sit daily under shady trees to just play cards, play jokes, and talk politics immaturely and in the evening crowd homes of the few working individuals.

Although many money-earning jobs are available at their disposal in the form of construction, building of houses, waiter jobs, cleaning and other manual jobs, this category of people will tell you that these are not jobs for them! Despite the facts that they hold no qualifications, they want ‘office jobs’ with no idea of what is done in the office.

These utterances are very economically poisonous in our national rebuilding. Brothers and sisters in this dark category must know that the country of the laziest never prospers. For example, the reason why communism failed was because lazy people did nothing while getting the same wage that non-lazy people get. So the non-lazy people said, “why should we work if they’re getting paid to do nothing!”

Again, in the recent crisis in Greece, economists are referring to Greece as country of the laziest. South Sudan will never prosper if this uninformed mentality is not eradicated. Job is job; people must appreciate any opportunity that earns them money for living.

Also, on a government level, the state of the country is symbolized by a lack of discipline within the system and deep-rooted corruption within the bureaucratic maze of the country.

Our founding fathers had envisioned an Independent South Sudan which was free, transparent and corruption free. Greed has seeped in so much within certain sections of society that this has become an endemic disease.

Despite the valiant efforts of the Anti-corruption movement, there is a long way to go before we eradicate it from our society. The basis for the solution lies in having discipline inherent in our day to day affairs. Our forefather’s centuries ago were known for this, now we are known to be lacking in it.

It pains me deeply to write about triggers that precipitate our national backwardness. I felt it had to be written to come to terms with realities. It is not a rant nor is it a piece to gain attention.

I am a proud South Sudanese as anyone could be. However, I want South Sudan which stands up to all those ideals that our forefathers had set it out to be. I want South Sudan which has pride in its identity, its multiple cultures and treasures, the numerous languages that it has been ordained with, and a nation of hardworking men and women.

As much as we would love to have these, the reality seems that we are far away from these ideals.

The Author is John Adoor Deng, MPRL & Director of South Sudan Support Foundation. He can be reached at:

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website.

Mabior Garang, son of South Sudan’s founder, blasts country’s leadership

SEPT. 01/2012, SSN; NAIROBI, Kenya— In a move that’s likely to shake the foundations of