Category: More Views

The Specter of Tribalism: A political Quagmire in South Sudan

BY: John Juac, CANADA, APR/20/2015, SSN;

With vast forests, plains and hills, South Sudan has an estimated population of some eight million. This population, though very small for all that land, is composed of many different cultures and languages, a few of whom have ever known peace and unity among themselves.

Having never existed as a sovereign state and its citizens being a minority group in old Sudan, collective action among South Sudanese has been historically shaped in response to the aggressive nation-building pursued by successive Khartoum regimes that sought to Arabize and Islamize African people of the region.

Today, in the absence of a clear-cut enemy, it is a major challenge for southern nationalists to devise a common identity that unites the putative nation beyond competing loyalties to tribe, clan and region.

Riffle through opinion pieces from South Sudanese online media, one discovers that the single issue dominating the public debate on national identity is the fear of tribalism and regionalism.

Here is what a debater said: “When formal independence came in July 2011, everybody had an optimistic view a national consciousness would rise above tribal and regional interests, and now the new country continues to face these same old problems which place roadblock in the way of national consolidation.”

It is true that the nascent country is to a large degree ethnically fragmented, with each group seeking to maximize its own objectives- a process that has significantly weakened the ability of the nationalist government to work toward national integration.

The spread of political activity has also stimulated the development of a more local tribal consciousness which impairs potential national unity. There are a number of African countries where disparate tribal groups have managed to coexist, but not in the newly independent South Sudan.

More than sixty tribes who compose a South Sudanese nation still in making have serious difficulties in settling down in peace with each other, and these difficulties are clearly evident in current Nuer-Dinka strife.

Nuer and Dinka, the country’s major but traditional rival groups, are again at each other’s throats; they are trying to oust each other off the land and paradise. The waves of allegations of exclusion from the new state power and relative resource deprivation have served to high-lighten the cultural identity and solidarity of subordinate groups, leading Nuer politicians backed up by some from the national minorities to rise in bloody armed rebellion.

The bloody armed rebellion, which erupted in December 2013 amid allegations of a coup against first President Salva Kiir, has left more than 10,000 people dead and displaced more than a million.

While internally displaced persons are stranded at various UN compounds countrywide, those who had crossed into neighbouring countries live at refugee camps under the most appalling conditions. And it is unlikely that these refugees will return to their homes soon.

Successive attempts by regional mediators to end the bloodshed in South Sudan-backed up by pressure from the international community-have failed to produce any lasting impact.

Thus, many have lost hope of stability and unity, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement dominated government in Juba is quite unable to bring the country under its control.

Huge portions of three states of Upper Nile, Unity and Jonglei and their populations are falling away from any effective administration as the armed rebellion rages on, and all this occurs with an extraordinary and even frenzied violence which the history of South Sudanese politics of armed struggle alone is unable to explain.

Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, heroic leaders involved in this audacious power game, simply have forgotten about how much South Sudanese had suffered the piratical excesses of Sudan’s Arab Islamic state for forty years before independence.

There were many years of colonial pacification, military promenades and heavy hand of an authoritarian colonial system.

There was barely a region in South Sudan which escaped repressions of Arab Islamic state’s colonial army as well, and when the fresh upheavals erupted in the early 1980s, death and destruction became the rule of daily life.

Kept in office by a combination of local intrigue, opportunism and external pressure, Salva Kiir and his central ministers are for the most part petty-bourgeois adventurers with no vision of a national cause.

They are in any case quickly mastered by external pressures, and the so-called National Legislative Assembly is mainly composed of ambitious political adventurers who do not have much in common with the people whom they claim to represent; they are reactionaries as many critics said.

They live thanks to the help of foreign capitalists and do not worry about their brothers and sisters who die of diseases and poverty in rural regions.

Salva Kiir’s regime gives its orders in the name of people but in fact these orders are given only in the name of those who govern, and this means that the regime protects only the lives and ill-gotten gains of those who govern.

Because of their indifferences to the suffering of their fellow-citizens, Salva Kiir and Riek Machar had refused during recent peace negotiations to end the more than 15 month long war.

Now the hostilities have started up in the Upper Nile region because they have been building up their weapons and capacity to fight.

Countless reports have also high-lightened the continued recruitments of unemployed youths able to bear arms into armies that could be counted in millions, and the introduction of deadly firearms and explosives of hitherto un-dreamt of efficacy has revolutionized South Sudan’s traditional warfare.

According to some insiders, the majority of population object to the war; they feel it is not their war. They want peace and leaders who are able to make peace, but such leaders like Salva Kiir and Riek Machar do not care about making peace.

They only care about gaining or clinging to power through acts of violence, and it is likely that the regional peace makers trying to persuade them stop fighting each other may storm out of their peace mission in future.

These are ugly scenes in the embattled country where political power is viewed as an end in itself, divorced from questions of ethics, morality or religion, and political leaders resort to killing their fellow-citizens.

Since power is the sole end of their political actions, all necessary means for achieving these goals are legitimate, including violence, murder, dishonesty and bad faith.

They pay lip service to questions of nationality and nationalism that are of great political importance to the new country because the ability to define the contours of the nation and thereby the conditions of citizenship are key instruments for political entrepreneurs to gain power.

One interesting thing in South Sudan is that the head of state and his minister of war are ignorant of the facts about power politics.

They think they can put down the rebels with less costs, though they are locked in a complex triangular battle against the rural insurgents on the one hand and underground urban dissidents on the other.

Putting down the rebels with less cost is one thing and stopping people rebel is the other, but one does not think you can stop people rebel unless you address the issues that make people rebel in the first place.

On the other hand, defeated in the narrow arena of Juba politics, Riek Machar and Taban Deng Gai have taken up their stand in the forests of Upper Nile region, where they have set up a brief government of their own.

Although Riek Machar and Taban Deng Gai might possess a vision of a national cause and the will to fight for it, they lack the influence and organization to maintain their leadership in wide regions of the country flung into confusion and disturbance.

The ethnic Nuer rebels have been ruthless enough during the first months of armed conflict when they tried to put down their enemy troops without giving a thought to the morals of the case. Backward looking, a warfare of this kind is confined to South Sudan alone.

Analysts have suggested that Riek Machar and Taban Deng Gai should move from the ethnic Nuer armed struggle of limited aims toward national armed struggle, but the ethnic Nuer nationalists would never buy that suggestion.

They are consistently pressing for limited political concessions to the point where they are able to take over the post-independence state and emerge at the head of the government.

Can such development be possible in South Sudan?

The effective political opponent is no longer Arab Muslims, but the ethnic Dinka majority whose power rests now on the tribalist regime of Salva Kiir, so the choice now for ethnic Nuer nationalists is the same as that facing African Muslim rebels in Sudan; this choice is to fight or submit.

But here, too, the choice of fighting imposes a second choice, just as the case of African Muslim rebel movements in Sudan.

To have any success, fighting will have to draw on the active participation of the majority of South Sudanese people, for it is the majority which must provide the rebel fighters and the means with which those rebel fighters could succeed. This means that ethnic Nuer nationalists, if they are to have any success, must develop a practice and theory of anti-Juba regime liberation. Such as will emerge from the interests of majority. They must fight not for control of the existing state structure as this is in harmony with the interests of the minority group, the SPLM ruling clique. They must fight for reconstitution of an entirely different type of southern state. They must, in short, turn their backs on ethnic Nuer insurrectionary action and embark on a national revolutionary struggle for social change. The whole drama of ethnic Nuer nationalism in South Sudan is encapsulated in its attempt to achieve this necessary development of practice and theory, and this is to prove extremely difficult at this time.

It seems that there was no serious attempt to think through the actual problems of the situation that would emerge.
Militants of ethnic Nuer rebel movement are mobilized and trained in cattle camps to fight the hated government, but this is done without a political preparation. Nuer ethnic nationalists, having realized that the first independence has gone badly, they call for a second independence, a messianic kingdom, where all wrongs would be righted, where official exactions would be ended, and where prosperity would reign supreme. Despite a revolutionary rhetoric, often used to conceal practice of traditional power politics to safeguard the interests of the movement, ethnic Nuer rebels are divided by ethnic quarrels and by differences of leadership and strategy. Vaguely liked by a corresponding opposition to the central government, these ethnic Nuer rebel fighters are holding out in several areas in Nuerland under different leaders with loosing co-ordination between them. Such loosing co-ordination is only a shared intention to overthrow what has remained of the central government’s authority. But can ethnic Nuer rebels seize state power and retain it, if only for short time, or all talk of this nothing else than cutting the skin of a bear that has not been killed? That is a question which has recently become an urgent one for the ethnic Nuer rebel leaders.

Although they are united in opposition to the existing regime, the ethnic Nuer rebels and some exiled opposition group are divided as to the tactics of bring an end to the despotic regime of Salva Kiir. The exiled group asserted that violent route to power would not bring any benefit to the young country; therefore, the group wanted to work through the legal and constitutional channels with the aim of winning the vote of the people and thereby achieving institutional change through democratic process:

“We have proclaimed the winning of democracy as one of the first and most important tasks of our designed theory and practical program and we are taking up this front; we do not think that a society can be transformed by destroying the institutions that govern it; we also believe that when the current despotic tyrant finds himself compelled to introduce a multiparty democracy as the only means of avoiding a nationwide uprising, people would freely elect their representatives to sit in the first constituent assembly; then they would have used their voting power in a way which serve as a model to the mass of the people; with the successful utilization of voting power, an entirely new mode of people’s struggle would come into force.”

The peaceful but broad democratic movement, the group leader argued, offers still further opportunities for the people to fight the very state institutions. They would take part in all elections to individual diets and so it would happen that the ruling elite and its party organization come to be much afraid of the results of elections than those of the armed rebellion. In addition, the conditions of the struggle has essentially changed, the group leader maintained. Rebellion in the old style, which up to 1983 gave everywhere the final decision in South Sudan is to considerable extent obsolete. So let us have no illusions about this: a real victory of an insurrection over the regular army in a bush fighting, a victory as between two armies, is one of the rarest exception.

But Riek Machar and other ethnic Nuer rebel leaders also count on it just as rarely. For them it is solely a question of making SPLA soldiers yield to moral influences, which in a fight between the armies of the two warring countries, do not come into play at all. If Riek Machar and fellow ethnic Nuer rebel fighters succeed in this, then the government troops fail to act, or the commanding officers loss their heads, and the rebel movement wins. If they do not succeed in this, then, even where the regular army is in the minority, the superiority of better equipment and better training, unified leadership, of the planned employment of the military forces and of discipline makes itself feel.

The most that Riek Machar and his movement can achieve in actual tactical practice is the construction and defence of the single liberated zoon. Mutual support; the disposition and employment of reserves; in short, the cooperation and harmonious working of individual detachment, indispensable even for the defence of one quarter of the town, not to speak of the whole of
a large town, are at best defective and mostly not attainable at all. The concentration of the government forces at the decisive point is, of course, impossible. Hence the passive defence is the prevailing form of fight: the attack will rise here and there, but only by way of exception to occasional advances and flank assaults. As a rule, however, it will be limited to occupation of the positions abandoned by the retreating government troops. Furthermore, the military forces have, on their side, the disposed of artillery and fully equipped crops of skilled personnel, resources of war which Machar and ethnic Nuer rebel fighters entirely lack.

No wonder, then, that even guerrilla struggles conducted with the greatest heroism may end up with defeat of the rebel movement. The time of insurrection carried through by small conscious groups at the head of unconscious peasants is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of social organization, well trained fighters and politically educated leaders of different backgrounds must be in it, and they must grasp what they are going in for with body and soul. The history of the last fifty years in African revolutionaries or insurrections should have taught the leaders of ethnic Nuer rebel movement.

But in order that the people may understand what is to be done, long persistent work is required, and it is just this work which
ethnic Nuer nationalists are not pursuing. If they pursue this with success, it may drive their enemy to despair. A mountain of literatures on insurrections show that it has also been more recognized that the old tactics of guerrilla warfare must be revised. Everywhere the unprepared onslaught has gone into background and everywhere the urban opposition politicians are utilizing the electoral politics to win all posts accessible to them. In South Sudan, where for less than three years of independence the ground has been undermined by rebellion after rebellion, where there is no a single political group which has not done its share of conspiracies, insurrections, and other revolutionary action.

As a result, Juba regime is by no means sure of the national army. The conditions for an insurrectionary coup are far more favorable in South Sudan than in Uganda and Kenya. But the exiled opposition group has realized more that no lasting victory is possible for them, unless they first win great mass of the people, in this case, the majority peasants. Slow propanda work and parliamentary activity must be recognized here, too, immediate tasks of opposition group. Success are not lacking; a whole series of the national, state and even municipal elections might be won and they might overthrow Salva Kiir and his ruling SPLM nationalist party in a free and fair election. The opposition leaders back home should agree with the exile group that the chance of achieving parliamentary majority in parliament can no long be withheld.

Of course, Riek Machar and fellow ethnic Nuer armed groups do not have to renounce their right to revolutionary action.
Their right to revolution is, after all, the only real historical right, the only right on which all modern states without exception rest. The right to revolution is so incontestably in general consciousness that even a military general derives the right to a coup d’état, solely from this popular right. But whatever may happen in South Sudan, the opposition leaders would have a special situation and special task. They would count on million voters to send them to ballot box, together with young men and women. They would be thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and revolt. The leaders of the SPLM nationalist party would perish under the legal conditions created by democratic process. Whereas the opposition leaders, under this legality,
get firm muscles and rosy cheeks and look like eternal life. And if they are so crazy as to let themselves be driven into bush fighting in order to please Riek Machar and Taban Deng Gai and their ethnic Nuer rebel movement, then nothing else is finally left for them to break through this legality so fatal to them.

John Juac Deng

Michael Makuei and his Incoherent Message about the Alleged Bombing Attacks by the Sudan

By: Riang Yer Zuor Nyak, APR-12-2015, SSN;

It appears that whenever officials of the regime of Salva Kiir get any chance for one to open up one’s mouth to say something to the public, it is the kind that always betrays the regime. This is because they try very hard to blame everything negative on the war. Then that forces them to justify the war.

But, any attempt to say something, in justifying the current war, is always a futile one. It almost always means having to say something about Riek Machar in connection with the war. One would just go on and on hoping to stumble on a magical word that can enhance the regime’s tattered image.

In his statement on Friday, April 10, 2015, condemning the alleged bombing in the northern parts of the country, Michael Makuei, the regime’s Minister of Information and Broadcasting, spoke about a lot of things as the reasons behind the motive for the attack.

At one point, the motive of the alleged bombing was about Sudan transferring its own problems on to South Sudan; at others, it was about undermining the sovereignty and independence of the country; and yet at others, it was about supporting the SPLM/A and interfering in the internal affairs of South Sudan.

In that statement to the media, Michael did not even attempt to make these accusations look as several pieces of one big plan by the Sudan against the country. That shows how incoherent the regime can be. The regime can try to make anything negative on its part look as if Dr. Riek Machar and the SPLM/A are responsible without, first, finding a convincing connection.

In his press statement, Michael stated that “Sudan wants to transfer its internal problems by trying to make unfounded allegations to justify the cause for these attacks and the killing of innocent people.” Though this is not clear, it would not be outrageous for one to make a guess that Michael was talking about Khartoum’s accusation that Juba is hosting and supporting Sudanese rebels.

This means that he read the alleged attacks as being carried out against Sudanese rebels in the areas. But why was he not explicit? Was he trying to hide something? Why was he explicitly stating that there were no Sudanese rebels in the areas in question?

In the same statement, Michael had this to say: “This belligerent act is a clear indication that Sudan wants to take advantage of the current war of Riek Machar, which is unacceptable. It is an activity aimed at undermining the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of South Sudan and the stability between the two nations.” There are two interesting points in this statement.

To begin with, the Minister started out by pointing out that by bombing, Sudan was acting to take advantage of the current war, and then he described the war as Riek Machar’s. First, he stopped short of mentioning what exactly it was that Sudan was going to achieve by taking the advantage.

Second, by bringing Riek Machar’s name in his verbal attack on a foreign country, Michael was trying to get public sympathy by associating Dr. Riek Machar with the act by trying to connect alleged attack with the on-going war in the country. He was trying to make it look as if the alleged attack had some connection with the civil war and that Dr. Riek Machar, as the leader of the SPLM/A, is associated with the war.

Well, Dr. Riek Machar is associated with the war, as Salva is associated with the same. One leads the forces on one side of the war, and the other leads the forces on the other side. Anyone who tries to deny this has a problem. But, it is not a question of whether or not Dr. Riek is associated with the war; it is a question of how and why he is associated with the war.

Dr. Riek Machar is leading a resistance movement that is resisting a regime that has committed and is determined to continue committing genocide. He did not initiate this war, he was forced to resist. Calling this war Riek Machar’s is the type of cheap politics (politics of name calling) that the tyrant and his cohorts have been engaged themselves in, for a long time, since the war started, thinking that, somehow, people will end up buying it.

The war is Salva Kiir’s. He forced the war on the people of South Sudan by attacking the people on December 15, 2013. He did it to interrupt a democratic political process that had begun during the first part of 2013 within the SPLM Party, and to serve his tribal hatred. He is still pursuing the people to this day. Whatever is going on currently is a war of resistance. Who is the author of such a war? Is it the attacker, or the resister?

The other point is that Michael Makuei talked of the Sudan as undermining the sovereignty and independence of the country. Can it really make sense for the regime’s officials to talk of that? Sovereignty and independence of South Sudan have been sold out by the regime in exchange for it to remain in power at the expense of the people of South Sudan.

Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) have called South Sudan their home; SPLA-North of both the Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile has called South Sudan its home; Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) of Dar Fur has called South Sudan its home; and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) factions of Dar Fur have called South Sudan their home.

All of these foreign armed forces have areas that they control within the South Sudanese borders. Only God knows what these foreign forces are meting out against South Sudanese in those areas under their control. In addition to this, the rest of the country is divided between the government controlled areas and SPLM/A controlled areas.

Salva Kiir forced the war (the one that has made it possible for the country to be divided into government and SPLM/A controlled areas) on the people. Later, he invited foreign forces (each in its own specific territory of control) to establish themselves in the country and help him fight the war that he started.

With a situation such as this, where is the sovereignty and independence that Michael Makuei was talking about as being undermined by others? The regime has undermined the sovereignty and independence of this country. Michael Makuei (if he has suddenly come to the realization that independence and sovereignty of one’s country are important) should have begun by condemning his government before condemning others of doing the same. It is hypocritical, irresponsible and a double standard to condemn others for doing the same thing that one does without, first, condemning oneself.

Michael Makuei also expressed the amount of patience that the regime has allegedly had with Sudan. He stated, “We have been patient for so long while Sudan continues to train, host and provide arms and logistical support to the rebels of Riek Machar.” He might have been trying to insinuate that Sudan has been doing many things against South Sudan by coming up with the stories of training, hosting and providing arms and logistical support to the SPLM/A. But, he failed to indicate what he and his colleagues are ready to do in retaliation. It is just the usual empty threat.

The truth is that Michael does not have evidence to support the accusation. As to the training, the SPLA has many military officers who are capable of, and have been, training SPLA soldiers in the bushes of South Sudan. It does not need foreign military personnel to provide training. Therefore, the statement that Sudan trains “…rebels of Riek Machar” is unfounded. The SPLA under Dr. Riek Machar, simply, does not need foreign trainers.

As to the hosting, every South Sudanese who is familiar with the geography of the country knows that SPLM/A is not hosted by any foreign country. SPLA bases are within the South Sudanese borders. Foreign countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda are hosting only South Sudanese refugees.

If Michael Makuei considers refugees as parts and parcels of the SPLM/A (in fact, Salva himself once accused IDPs in the UN protection sites as rebels of Riek Machar), then he should have also accused Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda of hosting the SPLM/A.

Michael Makuei also failed to substantiate his accusation that Sudan supplied SPLM/A with arms and logistical support. Maybe he wanted the public to take as evidence that there are SPLA forces around the border with Sudan. But the problem is that there are SPLA forces around the borders with Central African Republic, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda.

Is Sudan providing those forces with arms and logistical support? Or, is he (at a later time) going to accuse those other countries of providing SPLA with arms and logistical support, just by being around their borders? It is not the responsibility of foreign countries to clear South Sudanese bordering areas of the SPLM/A. The anti-people forces of the regime have to go themselves to do that, if they are capable of doing it.

The truth behind these kinds of accusations against foreigners is that Michael Makuei and the rest of the regime are embarrassed and perturbed by the fact that they have failed to crush the resistance movement with all the arms and foreign armed supports that they have at the regime’s disposal. They want to give an impression that the pro-people forces are surviving because of some foreign hands behind them.

Michael Makuei also claimed of Sudan’s interference in the internal affairs of the country. He stated, “This is a clear act of sabotage and interference in the internal affairs of another country, which is unacceptable under the international law.” He, definitely, continued this from his claim that the SPLM/A got support from the Sudanese government.

But, if he cannot support his positions with evidence, will they not remain as meaningless as the statements were coming out of his mouth? Can he really prove that the alleged aerial attacks have any connection with the support of the SPLM/A? Can he prove that the alleged attacks were not targeted at known bases of the Sudanese rebels operating from South Sudanese territories?

The burden of proof remains on Michael Makuei.

The author is a South Sudanese. He can be reached at

The Question of Self-driven Rebellion in South Sudan

Quote: “The rebellion without truth is like spring in a bleak arid desert,” says Khalil Gibran.

By: Simon Yel Yel, Juba, APR/04/2015, SSN;

Rebellions, by groups outside the military establishment of a country and which aim to overthrow a government, are the most common hitherto types of political conflicts in most African countries.

These rebellions are generally initiated by urban elites who are in state of sulky dissatisfaction with the way the government had treated them and their region or ethnic group. They mobilise a section of their regional or ethnic supporters, acquire arms clandestinely and often supported by a neighbouring country and sometimes by an outside power as well.

Initial grievances of the leadership of such a rebel group would vary from being blocked from achieving political power, under representation of their region/ethnic group in the government and administration of their regions, deliberate neglect of access to development funds, blockage of their ethnic group from the private sector and allocation of their land to other ethnic groups (of the ruling ethnic group), etc.

These grievances may be shared by other ethnic groups, in which the rebel group forms alliances with others and the rebellion becomes more widespread. T

he sustenance of such rebel movements is only possible if it is supported by a neighbouring countries from where it has bases and arms supplies. Their case can make sense because they are not after the interest of megalomaniac like white army but the interest of all people.

Hence, the youth become an important and accessible pool for recruitment at a very low cost to rebel movements. The most accessible youth to the power hungry rebel leaders are rural youth, they know less about the importance of life and therefore, one twisted word of politician can make them believe in him and follow him blindly.

More importantly, the easy availability of small arms has enabled such rebel movements to turn into powerful and destructive forces capable of causing serious harm and destruction in rural areas.

Since small arms do not need much training while their possession gives considerable power to those who posses them, rebel movements thus become very attractive to the youth, including those in their early teen years.

Conflicts between states and rebellions trying to overthrow them vary in intensity, scale, and duration depending on many factors.

These factors also vary depending on the depth of the grievances, the political indoctrination of the supporters, the quality of the leadership, the strength and weakness of the state, the seriousness of support from neighbouring states and the outside powers.

In Angola, the control of the diamond mines is very important for the sustenance of UNITA and support from other African countries to break the arms embargo has been and is also crucial, as revealed recently by a UN Report.

While the rebellions which want to overthrow the government are driven by the possibility of gaining political power and the prospect of economic gains. They can’t compromise anything rather then overthrowing the government by all means.

Sometimes helped by the Western powers to sanction the government, impose no fly zone and and even bombarding if the possibility of overthrowing the government is low.

The cooked rebellion in Libya ended in brutal killing of late Gadaffi because the rebels and Western powers were not looking for nothing else then power.

The same thing is now happening in south Sudan where the UNSC adopted the sanction regime and threatening the government of more sanctions should it fails to meet the rebels’ demands.

The rebellions seeking secession are often driven by their perceived political, economic and cultural oppression. Like SPLM was fighting for the secession of south Sudan due to political and economic oppression by Khartoum regime.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the vicious competition between the super- powers in Africa was an important factor, if not in starting conflicts, certainly in sustaining them. The Americans and the Russians in particular, and less so openly the British and the French, competed for (a) “the hearts and minds” of the African elites and their followers; (b) political and diplomatic allies; (c) strategic allies; and (d) mineral resources.

The rivalry and competition took various forms: supporting governments, overthrowing governments, supporting/opposing political parties, covert activities in support of or in opposition to governments, and supporting, if not initiating rebel movements.

What needs to be emphasized here is that, at the time, the support or opposition of one super-power or another was and still a very powerful force in the political survival or demise of an African government.

These cold war interventions that they set in motion socio- political forces in some of the strategic countries, processes that led to serious internal conflicts which have outlasted the Cold War itself and continued until today.

In Congo, the Americans intervened 1964 to remove Lumumba and install Mobutu, an intervention which has set in motion serious and unforeseen consequences which are still unfolding to this day where coup come after coup.

In Somalia, it led to the collapse of the state and production of Alshabaab which is now becoming threat to the whole region now.

In Angola, it has led to the long and tragic civil war. Similarly in Mozambique (through the proxy of apartheid South Africa), it has led to another vicious civil war which has fortunately been temporarily resolved.

In Libya, it has led to formation of more then one governments, Tripoli become headquarters of GNC running their own government, Tobruk becomes the headquarters of the so-called recognized government by Western powers where Benghazi becomes is headquarters of the Shura Counci of Benghazi Revolutionaries, meanwhile Derna has declared itself an Islamic Caliphate and becomes no-go zone to any government official.That is the imported Western democracy in action.

Internal divisions, external interference, colonial legacy, history of cultural oppression, intense rivalry and competition for political power, etc., a combination of these factors constitute the root cause of these major conflicts.

The forces which fought in the civil war can easily be mobilized to “go back to the bush” and the good examples are, Congo, south Sudan and Libya . How long the peace lasts will depend on: (i) how militarily strong the new ruling group/s are and how weak the opposition groups are, (ii) how acceptable the post-conflict arrangements are to the groups which have accepted to give up fighting and join the “power-sharing” arrangements.

Since 2005, the government of Southern Sudan by then embarked on absorbing all the militia groups and political oppositions in search of national unity of purpose among Southern Sudanese. Till 2011, when we obtained our independent the leadership established an open government system whereby all unreasonable discontented elements were accommodated.

Some took this style of leadership for granted and used their positions to betray the whole country to the world accusing the government and labelling South Sudan as a failed country. Many were either caught red handed in corruption or accused and yet believe themselves to be innocent of public looting.

False illusions and illiterate prophecy believed by the intellectuals to imposed themselves in a leading position are well realized by conflict perpetrators and built on, hence pushing our country into merciless loggerhead.

In the recent failed coup attempt, many foreign hands are either directly or indirectly involved in fuelling the situation to its current level.

The UN statements within the country and indecorous suggestions of Ambassador Cohen and AU leaked report of Obasanjo to place our country under UN trusteeship plus sanction drafted by US and adopted by UNSC are clear evidences of ill intentions within the international community.

Giving the above factors causing coups in Africa, Riek Machar and his loyalists failed to come out with a clear socio-political agenda to enable them negotiate the government with facts and build a political stance.

Their (rebels) negotiation begins with stepping down of the president Salva Kiir and ends with making Riek Machar either a ceromonial prime minster or first vice president with his own independent army loyal to him a part from the national army(SPLA). Something that common sense can’t buy at all.

Moreover, the tribal militarization from the rebel side and recruitment of underage boys to engage in power struggle against the legitimate government proved beyond doubt that the rebel groups lost the political direction to convince south Sudanese and world at large but continue to engage in whatever it takes to get power with support from the biased International community (Trioka).

To conclude, conflict resilience and nationalism (replaced by tribalism) which are almost gnawed in the current conflict remain the main pillars in restoring hope and confidence among the citizen of South Sudan and to easily defeat the SELF DRIVEN REBELLION in our country.

Oh God bless south Sudan.

Writer can be reached at or 0955246235.

An open letter to African Union: No UN Trusteeship

cc. Embassy of United States of America, Juba
cc. United Nations Mission in South Sudan.
By: Bol Madut Ayii, Juba University, MAR/29/2015, SSN;

The leaked report and proposals made by AUCISS prompted me to react and question its legality under the principle of international law, with this regards, the functions and powers of the AUCISS were not extended to call for the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president in the proposed transitional government of national unity but rather to investigate the atrocities committed during the crisis and the persons responsible.

Under the principle of international law, it is a violation of the state sovereignty and peoples’ rights to meddle into the internal affairs of sovereign state.

The proposal made by African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) is beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

My legal argument is based on the followings;

Part A: powers and mandate of AUCISS:
The mandate of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan were the following:
–To investigate the human rights violations and other abuses.
–To investigate the causes underlying the violations.
–To make recommendations on the best ways and means to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healings among South Sudanese communities with view to deterring and preventing the occurrence of the violations in the future.
–To make recommendations on how to move the country forward in terms of unity, cooperation and sustainable development.

Having spelt out the mandates of African Union Commission of inquiry above, the leaked report by AUCISS which recommended the exclusion of the constitutionally elected president from the transitional government of national unity is a clear demonstration that the AUCISS acted beyond its mandate and therefore amounts to ultra vires.

What the AUCISS did to South Sudan is the same cause that led Morocco withdraw its membership from African Union and up to date, Morocco is not a member of Africa Union.

Morocco withdrew from African Union due to the following reasons:
1–The AU recognition of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is a portion of Western Sahara that shows the bias of African Union.
2–The African Union is undoubtedly a corrupt and weak institution and includes countries of even worse human rights record.

Part B: UN trusteeship:
Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations (UN), designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence. With the independence of Palau in 1994, the council suspended operations.

The Charter does not specify the actual territories to be placed under UN trusteeship. Article 77 merely states that the system shall apply to three categories:
–(1) territories still under mandate,
–(2) territories “detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War,” and
–(3) territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

South Sudan doesn’t fall within the category of UN trusteeship, Article 76(b) of the UN Charter provides; to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement; as the definition signifies, South Sudan is an independent state and has its elected government, South Sudan is not under the mandate of any colony and therefore it doesn’t fall in trust territory.

South Sudan did not declare its inability to administer and run its administration and therefore, there was no voluntary placement of UN trusteeship, lastly South Sudan gained independence as the outcome of the internationally recognized referendum and thus it was not just a detach from an enemy state.

With the above detailed conditions of placing a country under the UN trusteeship, there are no legal grounds that qualify south Sudan to be placed under the trusteeship.

Again, the Charter is equally nonspecific on designating the administrators of trust territories. It states simply that the individual trusteeship agreements shall designate the authority in each case, which may be “one or more states or the Organization itself.”

Therefore, it will give UN and its influential members such as United States of America a chance to nominate a person of their choice which might not be in the interest of the said trust country as well as international law norms.

During the World War 1, there were 11 trust territories placed under UN trusteeship, and seven countries were designated as administering authorities. These figures exclude the former German colony of South West Africa, which after World War I had been mandated to the Union of South Africa, because South Africa refused to place the territory under UN trusteeship.

Among those placed under the UN trusteeship and their administers are:-
–In East Africa: Ruanda-Urundi administered by Belgium, Somaliland by Italy, and Tanganyika by the UK;
–In West Africa: Cameroons administered by the UK, Came-roons by France, Togoland by the UK, and Togoland by France;
–In the Pacific: Nauru, administered by Australia and on behalf of New Zealand and the UK, New Guinea by Australia, Western Samoa by New Zealand, and the Pacific islands of the Marianas, Marshalls, and Carolines by the US.
–In September 1975, when New Guinea acceded to independence, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands became the only Territory on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

All these countries were placed under UN trusteeship because they were not independent and the objects of Article 83 of the UN charter apply to their territories.

Article 83 in its entirety doesn’t apply to south Sudan and therefore any unilateral attempt by AU and its counterpart to place south Sudan under UN trusteeship is of no legal base under the principle of customary international law.

Part C: Sanctions framework and United States of America resolution
The draft resolution of United States of America was unanimously adopted by UN Security Council without deliberations and was swiftly voted for, this makes the writers to ask the distinction between UN and US?

The interest of U.S as a member of UN is not the interest of the whole world, no doubt that U.S is the world super power but that does not imply impunity.

We are pessimistic that peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved by imposition of sanctions, moreover sanctions will hinder the search for peace and increase the suffering of the people of south Sudan, under international law, we are not aware of the country that attained peace by sanctions imposition and that sanctions are not the practical solution to south Sudan problem.

Relatedly, US as a member of UN is at a right track to raise a motion before the UNSC expressing its position and opinion about South Sudan but its opinion is not absolute rather than subject to debate on its merits.

As I have stated above that there is no difference between US and UN, the facts of violation of South Sudan Sovereignty by AU, US and UNSC is of no doubt to what US did to Nicaragua where US supported the rebellion in Nicaragua by passing the budget in the Congress to back the rebellion.

In this case, Nicaragua brought a suit in the International Court of Justice ICJ and the court found US guilty, so in relation to this there is clear evidence that US and UN are supporting the rebellion in South Sudan directly and indirectly. Example is the arrest of weapons in Lakes state Rumbek in 2014.

To find the full text of the above cited case see Nicaragua v. United States of America (1984).
Travel Ban, Paragraph 9. Of the sanctions draft resolution states; decides that. For an initial period of one year from the date of adoption.

Of this resolution, all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of any individuals who may be designated by the Committee, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.

My question is, how will travel ban bring inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan? Of course the answer will be definitely NO because the denial of entry and transit of some individuals cannot be durable solution to South Sudan problem.

In conclusion I do hereby recommend the following:
1. AU must refrain from South Sudan internal affairs otherwise we will have no option than what Morocco did.
2. US must revive its resolutions and make sure that there is different between it (US) and UN.
3. UNSC must not sit idly waiting for US proposals to endorse without studying its effectiveness.
4. Removal of elected president through illegal means due to foreign interest will deteriorate the situation in South Sudan.


Drawn and Filed by Law Student from University of Juba and he can be reached through the following address: Bol Madut Ayii, or 0956252721

IGAD Mediation Model is flawed: It’s time for African Union (AU) or AU/UN Hybrid Mediation to take over South Sudan Peace Process

By: Oyhath Aromi, MAR/25/2015, SSN;

Enough is enough. The South Sudanese President Kiir Mayardit and his former Vice President Dr Riek Machar were given ample opportunity by Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators to negotiate and arrive at a compromise to bring peace to the war-battered country, but they failed that opportunity time and again – it is as if these leaders learned nothing from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which was by and large a compromise deal that in 2005 brought an end to over 20 years of war between the SPLM/A and Sudan government.

IGAD mediators afforded President Kiir and SPLM-IO leader Machar every chance, including to go it face to face, yet each time they failed to agree on almost everything.

Even as IGAD walked an extra mile in order to give the warring parties extra time to find a solution, even as the mediators granted the 2 principal negotiating sides their wish to exclude other South Sudanese stakeholders, like civil society organizations and political parties, from taking part in the peace talks, they are still nowhere near a compromise way forward.

The question is for how long this unproductive stalemate is supposed to continue? Don’t these leaders realize the magnitude of trauma, destruction and desperation this crisis has inflicted on South Sudan? Don’t the leaders feel the urgent need to bring an end to this war?

As prospects for a peaceful settlement to this crisis under IGAD mediation appears painstakingly remote, it is time to try an alternative approach.

My contention here is that IGAD mediation has failed to get the warring South Sudanese parties to find a stop to this unnecessary war and that this failure has to do less with interests of some IGAD members in South Sudan and more to do with a fundamental flaw in the IGAD mediation model itself.

IGAD, as a mediation model, has failed miserably not only in its on-going efforts to bridge the gap between the South Sudanese government and the SPLM-IO forces led by Dr Riek Machar but also in its earlier attempts at CPA negotiations.

I know some people will find this view a bit controversial, but the truth remains that the CPA could never have come to light had it not been sustained, determined US pressure which in the late phase of CPA talks literally forced the SPLM/SPLA leader, late Dr John Garang, to stay stationed in Kenya while his counterpart, Vice President El-Uztaz Ali Tah shuttled back and forth between Kenya and Khartoum to obtain further authorization from President Bashier.

Do I still remember those days? Yes I do, although I was obviously nowhere close to those negotiations. So, let us refrain from pretending that IGAD mediation was a success story at CPA negotiations and want now to replicate that experience this time around.

It was not and, again, my point here is that there is something fundamentally wrong with IGAD as a mediation model.

The theory that a crisis somewhere in East, West, North or South Africa is somehow best mediated by a group of countries in that region of Africa needs to be revisited, for it has so far produced mixed results at best.

It might have been fruitful in a few cases, as in the case of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in West African region, but it has certainly not been met with success in the case of IGAD, as explained above.

There is, therefore, a danger that a region-based model of conflict mediation (at least in the African context), like the IGAD mediation model, is piecemeal, patchy, inconsistent and inherently prone to bias, not least because of obvious interests of the group of regional countries involved.

The European Union, for example, does not employ such an approach in mediating conflicts arising within the European Union or even in crises in non-EU countries within Europe. The EU is always represented as a block.

In 2000, for example, the EU moved swiftly to save former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia & Montenegro from collapsing into chaos following violent demonstrations that erupted as a result of dispute over alleged elections fraud between supporters of former President Milosevic and his political opponents.

I don’t know why a failed regional conflict mediation model such as IGAD is being insisted upon by the Troika (Norway, United Kingdom and United States). Perhaps it is an experiment being tested in Africa? Or simply a manifestation of mediation fatigue on the part of the Troika stemming from their involvement in mediation efforts in an increasing number of hot spots in other volatile parts of the world!!!

I don’t subscribe, though, to the notion that the Troika (or IGAD) is to blame for helping establish “a politically unchallenged armed power in South Sudan”, as stated in the leaked draft report of the AU’s Commission of Inquiry.

Actually, all the Troika did was help South Sudanese get what they always wanted since the start of their first liberation struggle in 1955 –independence from Sudan –through their (Troika) help in making the CPA a reality.

South Sudan is not the first country in the world to attain independence and the Troika was not supposed to baby-sit the new nation. Therefore blaming the Troika for a catastrophe created by the SPLM, and the SPLM alone, is absurd, scapegoating and utterly pointless.

The AU should instead reevaluate the IGAD mediation model and embrace a more credible mediation strategy to help find a solution to South Sudanese war.

In the search to find a practical solution to this war, the most effective mediation model seems to me to be the AU or an AU/UN hybrid arrangement now stepping in. After all, AU/UN hybrid conflict mediation is not a new concept, as it has, indeed, already been in operation in Darfur (a region of Sudan just next to South Sudan), albeit in a human rights monitoring role.

To help South Sudanese people regain trust in themselves as a nation, if this alternative model succeeds, an AU/UN hybrid mission should lead a transitional government of national unity in South Sudan, as already suggested in the leaked draft AU’s Commission of Inquiry’s Report.

In short, an AU/UN–led transitional government will, among other desirable things:
o Stop land grabbing, a time bomb capable in its own right to send South Sudan into chaos.
o Combat corruption and theft of public monies, thereby saving much-needed resources to rebuild South Sudan.
o Give South Sudanese a break in terms of security, stability and real peace and allow return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their areas and villages.
o Neutralize tribal agenda which, by the way, is the centerpiece and the real monster behind this whole thing.
o Build the foundation and set example for a sound, transparent public service and create the right environment for a leveled playing field for a vibrant private sector in the young nation.
o Transform the current suffocating political and security climate inside South Sudan to a positive hope for an inclusive future for all South Sudanese communities.
o Pave the way for establishment of a people-centered representative governance system that will realize the principle of government of the people by the people for the people.

The AU/UN-led transitional government should make it one of its core objectives to help South Sudanese vote on such a governance system which they will follow to govern themselves at the end of the transitional period.

There is a danger, despite good intentions of the AU, UN and the Troika, of South Sudan sliding back to square one if such a system is not defined before the end of the AU/UN-led transitional period.

Of course, in every conflict, such as the present South Sudanese crisis, there are the culprits.

In the interest of healing, reconciliation and unity of South Sudanese and to send a powerful message to everyone that the prevailing culture of impunity cannot and will not be tolerated, anyone found to have been responsible for the killings of innocent civilians and violations of other human rights should be made accountable for their crimes, regardless of which side of the fence they stood during this war.

Justifying the Fallacy of Bashing Both Sides in South Sudan Conflicts

By James Okuk, PhD, JUBA, MAR/24/2015, SSN;

As long as both the SPLM-IO and the GRSS continue to use violence means for securing their political interests, facts and fictions will always get mixed to produce propaganda fallacies in attempts to justify one’s evil actions. The article of Stephen Par Kuol is not absolved from such one-sided bias. It is his right to be biased for the interest of the SPLM/A-IO, but he doesn’t have a right to force it on our throats without a response.

Mr. Stephen has already damaged his credibility when he lied that he was an eye witness of ‘genocide’ in Juba while he lived in comfort in New Sudan Palace Hotel and was driven on a standard car to Juba Airport for flight check-in to Nairobi as the city was under threat of rebel attacks.

Even myself who lived in 107, dodged some bullets to escape death narrowly on 16 December 2013, swallowed the bitterness of my house being attacked and looted badly with damages, and communicated with some of my neighbors who managed to reach UNMISS camp alive, cannot temper with my credibility to lie with a conclusion that ‘genocide’ took place in Juba.

Yes, some targeted killings took place but not ‘genocide’ as the SPLM-IO propaganda machine used to lie to the international community.

Also not all those who were killed in Juba during the outburst of the crisis hailed from one ethnic group. Other ethnic groups were affected too, including some foreigners.

If 20,000 members of one ethnic group were killed in Juba on 15, 16, 17 and 18 December 2013, then who would have been left among them in 107, Kor William, Gudele and Jebel to run for a dear life and take refuge in UNMISS camps?

Even those who took refuge in UNMISS camps were not all from one ethnic group. That was why you could see signposts in UNMISS camps pointing to one ethnic group on one side and other ethnic groups on the other side.

Armed Forces Status Issue: The amalgamation proposal is a recipe for another future eruption of senseless violence. The case of the CPA’s model of the Joint and Integrated Units (JIUs) is still fresh in our memories where the two armed forces clashed thrice in Malakal, for example. Thus, neither integration nor amalgamation of the armed forces of the two warring parties will work as long as there is no trust and good faith between them.

Also the proposal of proportional representation of the 64 tribes in the national armed forces will not set a good precedent for a one nation-building because it will, instead, entrench tribalism as criteria for tackling national issues of South Sudan.

Hence, it could be safer if the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement model is adopted for tacking the issue of armed forces of the warring parties. Thank God that veteran Gen. Joseph Lagu is still alive and kicking for consultancy on this matter.

Public Disclosure of Debts: If the SPLM/A-IO has already given a verdict that the debts of President Kiir’s Government are illegal then why should it be disclosed at will?

Why should Dr. Riek’s Resistance Movement negotiate with a kleptocrat and an illegal president if at all there is honesty in what the SPLM/A-IO posits? They should not stick to overthrowing him via violence means if they thought it was an easy matter to usurp power that way?

But is the SPLM/A-IO legal itself to demand for legality of another? It should be the citizens who have not taken arms against the state to demand such disclosers of government debts; not outlaws rebels.

Also the law-abiding citizens of South Sudan will not bother themselves asking for disclosure of debts of rebellions because rebels are never accountable to the citizens; only the legitimate government.

The Coup or No-Coup Narratives: This has not been falsified yet because no court verdict has taken place so far. The case has been stayed only until further notice.

But how do you call shootings in an army barrack which make politicians escape from their homes and declare rebellion resistance movement against the government within a very short period?

If it is running for dear lives why not run to non-violence asylum in another country rather than to violence rebellion in the bushes? Remember that a victim cannot resist, hence, no rebel can be regarded as a victim in the current crisis of SPLM failed leadership in South Sudan.

That is why the Intra-SPLM Arusha Reunification Agreement forced all the so-called SPLM leaders to apologize to the people of South Sudan and be ready to answer any proven war crimes against humanity. Victims don’t apologize.

Peace Talks in Bad Faith: In Pagak consultative conference, the SPLA-IO generals told Taban Deng Gai to carry on with peace negotiations in Addis but they will continue to conduct the violent approach on the ground with Paul Malong until President Kiir is gone for good.

Where is the good faith to demonstrate from the SPLM-A-IO even if the GRSS failed to bring peace out from around the corner of Makuei Lueth?

Hence, comes double standards of contradiction of mixture of both dialogue and violence at the same time but with the result of collapse of negotiations and continuation of warfare. This makes the region and the world skeptical about seriousness of the warring leaders of South Sudan in bringing good news to their people.

Thus, an agreement could possibly be forced on their throats by/before July 2015 as their hands are held on pens to sign it unwillingly with international guarantees for its implementation.

Diplomacy is an anti-thesis to Militancy: Diplomatic language is a language of nice and flattering expressions in order to cool the environment for tackling hot issues and gain something out of the deal at the end of the day.

The diplomacy of blaming and condemning both the warring sides is a correct one as long as the SPLM/A-IO and GRSS senseless war continues. This language may only change if the principals agree or are forced to end the war by any means.

So, it would be better for Stephen Par Kuol to keep his appeal to the regional and international community to himself because they are doing what diplomacy is supposed to do when there is no will for peace from the warmongers.


Dr. James Okuk is lecturer and public analyst in the area of politics. He lives in Juba and can be reached at

The Fallacies of Bashing Both Sides in South Sudan Conflict

By: Stephen Par Kuol, MAR/23/2015, SSN;

The diplomacy of war and peace making on the prevailing crisis in South Sudan has ushered in a querulous language that tends to blame both sides of the armed conflict for every thing on equal measure. It is a fallacious rhetoric that defies the logic of cause and effect.

Evidently, it has it that nobody is at the receiving end of this crisis. It lyrically goes: Both sides are dishonouring Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COH), both sides are frustrating the mediators by not negotiating in good faith, both sides are responsible for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the country, e.t.c.

For lack of words, we have called it “both sides narrative.” It is a long thread of diplomatic literature loaded with prejudice and intentional ignorance. Subsequently, the records are misinformed beyond rebuttal.

Even worse, Makuei Lueth’s SSTV has done some permanent damage on the psyche of its captive national audience who must be told exactly what Kiir’s fascist regime needs them to hear. Like in Joseph Geobel’s culture of anti-Semitic Propaganda, in Makuei Lueth’s culture of demagogic propaganda, a lie repeated so many times can be accepted to be the truth.

It is a fallacious communication in which, the three “f “words: facts, fictions, and fallacies are woven to mean the same thing (political lies).

One blatant fallacy Juba is apparently getting away with, for instance, is the distortion that the opposition is demanding two armies for the same country. This must be exposed as a malicious misrepresentation of our position on security arrangement calling for “a gradual and systematic amalgamation” of the two armies to create a new national army with true national character before the end of the transitional period.

The opposition also presented the crisis as an opportunity to recruit from the under-represented communities and regions into the inherently Jieng and Naath dominated army.

This is timely and critical, not only to end the cycle of political violence that tends to take on ethnic lines, but also to establish a new professional national army that reflects all the faces of South Sudan as an ethnically diverse nation.

In demographic term, this means proportional representation of all our 64 ethnic groups in the new national army.

Our position also calls for demobilization of all irregular armed groups including our Civil Defence Force (White Army), Mathiang-Anyor, Dotku Beny or any other active community based armed groups throughout the country.

Another fallacious fiction is the narrative that the opposition demanded payment of war debts it has incurred since it took arms in December 2013.

To the contrary, what we have demanded and are still demanding is the public disclosure of all the illegal debts Kiir’s Kleptocracy has been incurring in the name of the sovereign people of South Sudan (sovereign guarantees).

That we see as our rights as citizens of South Sudan who will inherent those debts by virtue of being citizens under the international law of agency. We have also presented wealth sharing between states and the centre in a decentralized federal system.

Speaking from ten years experience we believe that our proposal is beneficial to all our people in the states as the later has always been taking a lion share of the national budget (90%). This does not mean wealth sharing between the two waring parties as has been fallaciously presented in Juba’s media.

This is another bizarre mis-representation of the facts and issues presented in written public documents.

This fallacious propaganda cannot be allowed to go on without rebuttal. The facts must be filtered from fictions and fallacies to get into the crux of the issues at hand. In order to resolve this conflict, a new tone of communication must be created.

The diplomatic community and the global media must scientifically put the accurate weight of responsibility on a balanced scale. It is imperative that each party is squarely held responsible for what it does or does not do in this blame game without rules.

In another word, there is a critical need to put blame where it is due and credit where it is long over due. Flatteries and diplomatic niceties do not resolve conflicts.

A crisis of this magnitude in South Sudan needs aggressive and preventive diplomacy that must start with fundamental questions to address the root causes of the conflict as follows: what triggered the crisis in the first place, who did what then and who is doing what now!!

Unlike in December 2013 when Juba managed to mislead the world with the devilish gimmickry they called coup attempt, time has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kiir himself manufactured the ongoing crisis as a ploy to extend life span of his fascist regime.

That exploded in his face when his own institutions including the court and the military intelligence dismissed the coup narrative he is still chasing like a wind. Events since then have proven that it is the same tyrant regime that cooked the crisis, which is now violating all the agreements it signed with opposition since January 2014.

The UN and the international humanitarian community in South Sudan have also witnessed that it is Kiir’s regime that has been hampering humanitarian operations by harassing United Nations Mission and murdering aid workers in Greater Upper Nile.

With Yoweri Museveni behind him and appeasement from the region and beyond, Kiir has been overtly violating all the agreements including the COH. Militarily, the two fascist regimes of Kiir and Museveni’, their allied Sudanese terrorist groups and other foreign mercenaries have been on the offensive gaining more territories to dictate the terms of negotiation on the table until today.

On the diplomatic front, Kiir’s regime has been using the dialogue as a public relations exercise. They were always in Addis-Ababa to buy time as they continued to toil for military solution.

In what looked like a monologue with the deaf, they proposed that it is the opposition as the aggrieved party to make presentations and the government reacts to those presentations. This non-dialogical approach was designed to waste time and frustrate the whole process.

We welcomed that in good faith and proceeded as agreed upon. From the political framework to rainbow document, the opposition made elaborate presentations on all the areas of needed reforms in Kiir’s dysfunctional system.

On structural and institutional reforms, we made the case for the need to overhaul the current civil service and the public security sector, which are currently dominated by Kiir’s clan.

At the constitutional level, we exposed the decay of the regime by pointing out that the two branches of Kiir’s government (judiciary and executive) have been made the dockets of Kiir’s home state.

To entrench and institutionalize their kleptocracy, they have also taken the docket of treasury (both Finance and Central Bank).

For those who know the truth, this depicts Kiir’s clannish oligarchy as a criminal establishment that must be dismantled to form an inclusive national government.

On governance and system of government, we made the case for amendment of the existing one-man’s constitution to implement full-fledged federal system. In response, Kiir’s delegation acknowledged that federalism is historical and a political demand of the people of South Sudan but maintained without elaboration that the time to address it is not now.

On demobilization of irregular forces and formation of a new army, they have maintained that their political status as a legitimate government grants them the right to recruit from their ethnic states of Warap and Northern Bar-Elghazal.

In sum, the opposition forces and other stake holders made the case for institutional reforms, democratic transformation, peace, reconciliation and accountability for war crimes committed by both sides of the armed conflict.

Kiir’s delegation dismissed all the grievances and made it a point that they will not allow any thing that tempers with the status quo. To them, meaningful power sharing with other parties for a democratic transition leading to free and fair election means regime change and ouster of Salva Kiir.

That is very clear from their English, which is heavily loaded with legitimacy and the sovereignty of South Sudan. From what we have heard so far, Kiir and company have arrogated the sovereignty of South Sudan to themselves as their sole possession.

According to them, legitimacy and sovereignty give them all the rights including the right to amend the existing transitional constitution to indefinitely cling on to that dictatorial power.

It goes without informing the people of South Sudan, the region, Africa and the world that the same rule of guns attitude that Kiir and his cronies used to obstruct the democratic process and commit mass homicide, has not been deterred.

They took it to the peace table in Ethiopia, not only once, but several times during the course of the IGAD mediated peace talks. That attitude was well represented on the table by Kiir’s cheeky team of negotiators.

We the opposition and the IGAD envoys have been through the thick and thin of that since January 2014. We had always been there to take the pain of Nhial Deng’s eloquent blusters, Makuei Lueth’s sarcastic outbursts and Kok Ruei’s thunderous tantrums!

The truth must be told that Kiir’s delegation had never gone to Addis-Ababa in genuine search for peace. Counting on military victory in the field, they had only two things to offer on the table: permanent ceasefire and re-integration of opposition forces into their tribal army ( Mathiang Anyor) within three months.

Any thing else is deferred to what they called National Dialogue in Juba.

They also challenged the opposition to represent only those areas under their military control. The Mediation and all the stakeholders present heard that loud and clear as a negotiation of the victors versus the vanquished. The rest are contemptuous gestures against the opposition parties (whether armed or not), civil society organizations and the clergy.

It is a militaristic attitude that tends to push all to protracted armed struggle. Otherwise, one can conclude with ease that Kiir and the company have lost the political debate. The only song they can sing with rhyming lyrics is the Legitimacy.

What they are deliberately ignoring though is the cold truth that the clock is ticking toward the end of their bogus legitimacy. It is time for Kiir and the sycophantic group surrounding to understand that the etiological meaning of the Greek word “tyranny” means illegitimate rule!

In Dr. Richard Mula’s recent articulation at the talks in Addis-Ababa, “Kiir’s legitimacy has been eroded by his own despotic behavior that has plunged the country into this mess.”

Secretary Kerry of United States also put it correctly that “Legitimacy is not a presumed right of Kiir’s government”. True, it is the people who confer legitimacy and it is never a divine entitlement.

It follows that the same people who conferred it can revoke it at any given time. The conventional practice teaches that it is not the election that sustains legitimacy but how the elected political leader in question governs the country.

In any case, this destructive war of shame must be ended sooner than later. But this needs courageous leadership from both sides. Dr. Luka Biong of Juba University has said it all in his recent article that, “the Chairman of the SPLM and the President of the Republic has a moral and national responsibility to provide leadership toward national consensus to resolve this crisis”.

Other parties and stakeholders including civil society and the clergy have the same responsibility to bring peace but the reality on the ground in South Sudan is that Salva Kiir wields the most omnipotent power to bring it by a stroke of a pen.

Kiir in his diatribe blamed Dr. Riek Machar for everything but the world should have known by now that Dr. Riek Machar has lost it all since July 2013. To add insult to the wound, members of his community were callously butchered in Juba. The survivors of that genocide are now subjected to protracted suffering in UN camps throughout the country. He had to escape for his own life in what turned out to be a fabricated coup.

Putting the credit where it is due, he has courageously managed to turn all that humiliation and mass anger into a national resistance movement calling for institutional reforms, peace with justice, democracy, reconciliation and national healing.

He does not have any thing else to offer, but he is ready to do every thing including swallowing his pride to work with Salva Kiir again to stop the bloodletting. He has been in Ethiopia now for the last one year to achieve just that.

Hence, the ball is on Salva Kiir’s court. The word though is that the time for presidential amnesties, re-integration, cosmetic deals and political accommodations is over.

The prevailing crisis in South Sudan needs comprehensive political and security arrangements to get our people out of this slippery pool of blood.

Kiir ‘stage-managed’ coup against himself to paint me in bad light, claims Machar

By FRED OLUOCH, Interview with Dr. Riek Machar of SPLM/A-IO in Addis Ababa (DAILY NATION), Saturday, March 14, SSN;

QUESTION: Why is it so difficult for you and President Salva Kiir to agree on a peaceful settlement after 14 months of talks?

MACHAR: It is not about the two of us but the issues that have been affecting the country since Independence. For instance, we have basically raised the issues of reforms and restructuring in government to meet our diversity.

To that end, we are advocating federalism. We have also suggested arrangements that would assure the people of South Sudan of their security. But the government is opposed to these proposals.

QUESTION: Igad has postponed the South Sudan talks indefinitely. What is your take?

MACHAR: I understand that they are recommending a new mechanism to include other regions of Africa. We welcome it because some of the Igad countries have direct interests in South Sudan. For example, Uganda interfered physically in South Sudan, deploying troops to fight us. So it is best to include other regional blocs because they may look at things differently, which could bring peace.

QUESTION: President Kiir has categorically stated that he is not ready to work with you as the First Vice-President.

MACHAR: I did not ask to be his vice president, nor do I wish to be one. Our position is that Salva Kiir’s government committed genocide in Juba. What happened in Juba after December 15, 2013, was ethnic cleansing and we don’t want this to be repeated. So Kiir should just resign and give way to another person.

QUESTION: You have also been accused by human-rights organisations of having massacred civilians, especially in Bentiu?

MACHAR: This was on April 15, 2014. The government was being supported by four groups of Sudanese rebels, one of them being JEM (Justice and Equality Movement). When we dislodged them from Bentiu, a lot of them died but also a lot of them ran to the mosque. There was a battle in the mosque and a good number of people died.

However, we also investigated through our own machinery and it is not true that all of those who died in the mosque were civilians. The majority of them were armed soldiers, even though some civilians died.

QUESTION: Then, are you in favour of the Obasanjo commission report that lists those who committed atrocities?

MACHAR: We have requested the AU to make this report public because it is important for the whole world to know what happened. If there are issues where anybody would be asked to account, then it should be a transparent process. I am disappointed that the AU Peace and Security Council did not discuss this report during the January Summit.

QUESTION: The leaked version of that report calls for the exclusion of both you and President Kiir from the transitional government. Why are they trying to balance the blame?

MACHAR: I am the victim here. Why would I not be allowed to participate in the transitional government while I was forced into the current situation? The person who planned the genocide should shoulder the responsibility.

QUESTION: The president says you had planned a coup but when it failed you turned it into an insurgency.

MACHAR: I planned no coup. He arrested and tried some of my colleagues who participated in the December 6, 2013 press conference calling for reforms within the SPLM. But they were acquitted by the court and the charges that they planned a coup, including me in absentia, were dropped. In fact, he stage-managed a coup against himself.

QUESTION: At that press conference, you called for internal party reforms because SPLM had lost its vision. Could you explain that?

MACHAR: It is true the party has lost its original vision and that is why we believe in the reform of SPLM to go back to its original vision and that is why we signed the Arusha Accord of January 21, which addressed the causes of the conflict within the SPLM.

In the vision, we wanted to create a united South Sudan as a democratic and prosperous country. But what Salva Kiir is running is a disunited country riddled with insecurity, corruption and exclusivity.

QUESTION: Do you have the moral standing to talk about corruption, when you were the vice-president when corruption took root?

Well, you can be a vice-president and yet things can be done without your knowledge. Look at the Dura Saga in which the government paid nearly $1 million for cereals that were never delivered.

At one time, the president issued a “List of Shame” naming 75 personalities involved in corruption but when parliament challenged him to take these people to court, he threatened to dissolve it.

QUESTION: You are portrayed by the government as a serial rebel, having done it in 1991 and now in 2013.

MACHAR: [Laughs loudly]. 1991 was a split in the movement over differences in ideas on what to fight for. I called for the right of self-determination, while others like Dr John Garang wanted a reformed, united Sudan.

In the end, my idea of self-determination became the overriding objective of the struggle. You can now see we are independent and it is I who have won the ideological debate.

In 2013, I was forced into the current situation and that is why we are demanding the restructuring of the state by applying the new system of governance, which is federalism, to address our diversity.

This is not rebellion.

QUESTION: Still, some people accuse you of betraying Dr John Garang in 1991.

MACHAR: Dr Garang and I were contemporaries. My objective was self-determination, which has now been realised. How then did I betray the struggle if Dr Garang later signed the CPA that contained the provisions of self-determination?

QUESTION: But you entered into a deal with President Omar al-Bashir, whom the Southerners were fighting. Was that not betrayal?

MACHAR: On the contrary, my move was to further the concept of self-determination. For the first time, Khartoum put self-determination in the Constitution in 1998 as a result of our Khartoum Peace Agreement.

I had the courage to negotiate with Khartoum and force them to accept self-determination.

But when they could not implement it in four years, I went back to the bush and re-joined Dr Garang. In the end, the CPA benefited from the Khartoum agreement which ensured that self-determination will be exercised by the people of South Sudan.

QUESTION: The same CPA had provided a six-year interim period for Khartoum to make unity attractive. Suppose they did, what would have happened to your vision?

MACHAR: Had the people of South Sudan chosen unity, my vision would have died. But my vision did not die because those who wanted unity with Khartoum were given six years to advocate for it. But it failed when we went to a referendum with two options of secession and unity, and the secessionists won. I am therefore exonerated!

QUESTION: Some of your critics describe you as a man with undying ambition and that you will stop at nothing to get the presidency.

Well, my main ambition is to build a state that can be a proud member of the community of nations. I led the drive for self-determination, creating a federal, democratic and yet united state at the national level. If this is what you call undying ambition, so let be it because according to me, I have a vision to create such a state.

QUESTION: Critics say that you should not complain because during the interim period when President Kiir was the first vice-president of the larger Sudan, you were actually the man in charge of the Southern sections and could have made changes.

MACHAR: That is the biggest lie I have been hearing. Initially, I thought it was just propaganda from his sycophants, but when I heard it from the president himself in the last Igad session, I confronted him and told him not to rewrite history.

He was in the South most of the time and in fact it was I who was shuttling between Khartoum and Juba as the one charged with the implementation of the CPA. I used to spend three or four days in Khartoum but I always made sure that I attended the Council of Ministers meetings on Friday. In short, he was never in Khartoum, after he left in 2006. He is now selling this view because he does not want to accept the responsibility of what has gone wrong in South Sudan.

QUESTION: President Kiir said that Khartoum is supplying you with weapons and offering moral support.

MACHAR: Where is his proof? I get my arms from him. On the contrary, he is the one who buys arms and ammunition from Khartoum and we capture them on the ground whenever we overrun their stations.

QUESTION: Are you saying you don’t have external weapons suppliers?

MACHAR: I wish I did. If I get, I will definitely go for it but it is very difficult to get arms from abroad and therefore we have to look internally. As you know, it is a war situation and everybody needs arms.

QUESTION: What, according to you, is ailing South Sudan?

MACHAR: It is simply an issue of bad governance. The institutions of governance and accountability are weak. We all tried to strengthen these institutions but it all boils down to leadership. If the ruling party SPLM is working at cross-purposes with government, then things will definitely go wrong.

QUESTION: Should you be given a chance to rule the country, what would you do differently?

MACHAR: First of all, South Sudan will be a federal, democratic state with multi-party democracy. We will fight corruption and strengthen institutions of governance, at national, state and county level.

We will introduce new blood into governance at every level; the party will be rejuvenated. So we will be a forward-looking state capable of competing with our neigbours and also taking advantage of the talents and experiences available among our neighbours to build the country in the shortest possible time. END

Wrong solution can give wrong results

By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, UGANDA, MAR/11/2015, SSN;

It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the prospect of achieving peace to end the current conflict in South Sudan is dwindling. This is not because warring parties do not want peace to come to South Sudan but because there is a lot of external influence and interferences from different groups that have personal interests in South Sudan.

The examples of the groups that want to achieve their own interests as their conducts show are the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD. The USA, the UNMISS and IGAD want to see that their interests in peace talks are met, and if not met, the peace will never be achieved in South Sudan, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of South Sudanese will keep on dying or suffering under cruel war.

I have made an accusation against the above bodies although I do not have any personal evidence to show that the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have interests in South Sudan but their behavior in regard to peace talks and war in general have proved them beyond any shadow of doubts that they have interests in seeing the government of South Sudan overthrown, and hence, substituting with their puppet government of Riek Machar or any other person who will serve their interests that they want to achieve through the current war.

As I have made an assertion, there is a need to prove it. The truth is that the USA and the UNMISS have been active in the field supporting rebels while the IGAD has been active in seeing that peace talks is signed in favour of rebels. This is the fact as it is known by the majority of South Sudanese.

For instance, the UNMISS has done two things during this war that made it to stand out and clearly show that it is supporting rebels.

The first dangerous thing the UNMISS did was when it was about to deliver assortments of guns and ammunitions to rebels, fortunately, South Sudanese’s God was working hard since those guns and ammunitions were detected in Rumbek and stopped before falling in the hands of rebels.

That incident alone shows that the UNMISS did badly and barbarically because it did violate the rule of law that governs international community and civilization.

The rule of law of the independence of nations, national sovereignty and respect of territorial integrity are the basis of the modern international law and sources of civilization but were violated by the UNMISS as shown by that single incidence.

Another thing the UNMISS did that showed it that it was supporting rebels against the government was what happened recently when it transported the government officials to rebel areas where they were about to be murdered in cold blood thanks to the concerted efforts by the government and threat to the UNMISS base in Bor by mighty Jonglei youth.

The incidence I am talking about here is that of Chol Aruai and his colleagues who were transported and handed over to rebels by the UNMISS earlier this year.

Besides the destructive role of the UNMISS in South Sudanese conflict as explained in the above paragraphs, the USA has been accused of supporting rebels against the government and majority of South Sudanese are aware of such facts as many rebel members here in Kampala have been boasting that they are being supported by the USA and that they are likely to win the war against the government.

Finally, the IGAD has been active in peace talk’s process as it tries to influence the result of peace talks in favour of rebels. In fact it can be summed up that the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD are using rebels as their proxies to achieve what they planned when the coup that was initially attempted failed miserably.

Of course, many people who have limited understanding of the intricacies involved in the current raging South Sudanese war as it is marred with divergent personal interests may dispute this statement especially when I mentioned the term “attempted coup” and the USA, the UNMISS and IGAD interests in South Sudan.

However, as a matter of fact, all these three parties are supporting rebels but have been keeping incognito to avoid being viewed as parties to the conflicts and attract more enemies criticisms and also to avoid being accused of bias since they pretend to be “neutral” in attempting to negotiate peace for South Sudanese.

Nevertheless after the collapse of peace talks, they have now come out openly and at full-scale ready to execute their plan of destroying South Sudan if they fail to overthrow the legitimate government of South Sudan.

I have used the term legitimacy objectively in this context as it is based on the concept of national laws of South Sudan and international law in general and whoever claims that the current government of South Sudan is illegitimate has misplaced, misconceived concept and he or she is laboring under the deficit of international law concept of legitimate government.

What makes the government legitimate under the international law is a matter of facts and law. According to the international law, a legitimate government is defined by the fact that it is by the general acknowledgement as being in control of a nation and deserving formal recognition from other nations, which is symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries. This is exactly what the government of South Sudan is, and therefore, it is a legitimate government.

Coming back to the point as I have already made, after the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have failed to overthrow the government of South Sudan militarily through their proxy Riek Machar, they are now out to destroy South Sudan in totality by trying to reduce her full independence to the status of trusteeship. It is despicable plan that should never be condoned if proved to be true by time.

Such a plan to reduce the independence status of South Sudan to trusteeship has been discovered in the recent leaked report from the African Union (AU), which revealed it in its one of the recommendations that South Sudan should be put under the AU administration.

Of course, this a leak report and its content is not yet fully disclosed, which is against the fair hearing if it is just condemned out-rightly.

However, has it has been observed through the old adage that there is no smoke without a fire, there is a likelihood that what that leak report carried may be the true content of the document.

If that is going to be true, then, I must point out that the USA, the UNMISS and the IGAD have misfired in trying to bring peace in South Sudan. This is because wrong solution can give wrong results.

Instead of bringing peace through the people of South Sudan, the USA, the AU, the IGAD and the UNMISS are creating other problems as they are digging a hole to fill a hole. The country or the state cannot be destroyed as a means of achieving lasting peace.

No South Sudanese can accept to lose their citizenship simply because there is a peace to be achieved.

Where will one enjoy such peace? It’s tantamount to slavery and indirect colonialism since South Sudanese will again in the near future have to struggle to achieve their independence.

The way I feel strongly against such a plan is the same way other majority of South Sudanese feels about it and it will automatically cause a serious war against AU or any other body that will take charge of South Sudan.

The question the recommendation given by the AU invoked in our minds are many, and particularly, the main question is: How many countries have been engaged in the war like that of South Sudan or even worse than that but they have never been recommended to put under either the AU or the UN or European Union or SEATO or ASEAN or SAARC?

For example, Somalia was a failed state until 2012, Rwanda witnessed a deadly genocide, Bosnia saw a lot of massacres against Muslims, Central African Republic saw a deadly conflict between Muslims and Christians in which the hatred had reached the deadly level of which human beings ate other human beings, DR. Congo was in conflict for so many years, Libya and Syria has been in conflict since 2011 but none of these countries has ever been recommended to put under the international or the regional bodies.

However when it comes to South Sudan, it is treated as an exception. What is so special about South Sudan? I believe there must be something wrong with South Sudan as viewed by the AU and the USA.

Therefore, it is imperative to remind the regional bodies like the AU and IGAD and the international body like the UN that South Sudan is an independent country inhabited by the independent people and independent government under the international law.

It is somehow disappointing to see IGAD behaving as if it is a dictatorial government and as if it does not know what it is doing.

The way the IGAD is trying to bring peace in South Sudan is wrong and I will see how it will be successful as the time will tell. Nonetheless, the fact is that wrong solution can give wrong results.

The IGAD does not have an excuse of deciding to take the direction it has planned to take. If it is the violation of human rights that took place or ethnic cleansing that occurred as some people termed is the cause of destroying South Sudan, then, the approach of destroying the whole country in order to bring justice to the victims is not the correct one.

In fact, the majority of South Sudanese are not happy with South Sudanese leaders for killing their own citizens but they are not even happier with the AU for recommending to destroy South Sudan and they are ready to face the AU if need be.

In summary, all South Sudanese should be ready to fight against the AU if it comes in to take over South Sudan. The last word is that South Sudan should only be taken over our dead bodies.

The Author is a South Sudanese in Uganda and he can be reached via:
Email:; +256783579256

Dr. Riek! …Now that “Convincing” is failing, try “Confusing”

BY: KON Joseph LEEK, South Sudanese commentator, MAR/06/2015, SSN;

A certain US president once said that, “if you cannot convince them, then confuse them.” …. What’s the strategy Riek has resorted to doing now?”

‘Salva Kiir lost his case in Arusha, he should just resign… He took the country to war because of that, now he comes and admits he is wrong, so why would he remain in power?’ radical Riek Machar told his apostles in Nairobi a day after the Arusha reunification.

Riek’s issue is a case of a vulture rejoicing over carcasses and corpses…. a sensible person would not insist on what he has failed to do since Dec, 2013. Who is delaying and denying you to remove him [Kiir] from power? It has now become a typical solo song that you sing and still responded to by the same you.

It is vividly clear that you are fighting a lone game, a game you will not win because you are playing against yourself, and you are not yet aware of that.

If Riek is talking of Kiir’s removal, it is clear that he means violent means, and South Sudanese are tired of that, we are now in peaceful resolution and he is again visioning to frustrate it.

What I belief he is doing is just a “bluffing” but not reality to the rebel generals who are not satisfied with the reunification’s agreement in ARUSHA.

The reunification only favors him since it was only focused on SPLM and the rest were not part. The Tanzania’s Chama Cha Mapinduzi [CCM] believes that the crises in South Sudan were generated from the SPLM power struggles but was all cracked by the dismissal of Riek Machar from the government with some of his subordinates [the chain he had constructed was broken – hence, provoking him to take up arms against the gov’t].

This is why they [CCM] decided to reunite the SPLM and again show them guidelines of how a party can be managed. This saw Riek, a rebel leader is reinstated back to his place as Deputy SPLM chairman.

The rest [Gatwich Dual, Gatdet Yak and others] became furious that if they were the ones who helped Riek to resist fighting the government since 2013 by mobilizing the youth to cover-up the governments guns’ nozzles, then who is Riek alone to be part of the “distribution” of which they were left out?

They insisted to choose between fighting the government to the end, until Kiir runs away from the seat or they rebel against Riek. Riek wouldn’t like anyone to fight the government to the end because to him, it is all politics and politics is not always straight. It zigzags and curves with a lot of U-turns through “belonging and bleeding” of the inferiors – Gatwei, Gatdet and other rebel generals are still not aware of that.

He [RIEK] too wouldn’t feel comfortable seeing anyone rebelling against him because they are the people he is using to get his interest and if they turn against him [RIEK], he would then be nobody. He can simply opted to committing suicide. So, he better use his mighty power of thinking to stay with them until his mission is accomplished – then drop them later

For Riek to convince these people is to CONFUSE them that, the agreements signed are all naïve, useless and a sham and would not ever come back to Kiir’s government unless Kiir is removed. He say these as a trick to the people he is militarily using as another political way for his “military fame.”

He is afraid to hurt them in any case because upon doing so, he would be declined militarily and his political strength would sink straight away.

He is doing this for now, and when time comes later, he would hasten run to JUBA leaving angry generals in the bush – like he always does.

In DUK County now, many GAWAAR and LOU-NUER youth are coming to graze their cattle around the swamps denouncing RIEK’s war.

Gatwech Dual, who is the chief of staff of Riek’s forces is being excommunicated and isolated by LOU chiefs because they [chiefs] believe that RIEK whose state [UNITY STATE] is relatively stable and has a lesser number of youth who participated during the crises [2013-early 2014] is looking forward to sweeping the LOU-NUER youths into the front-line against the government.

The chiefs see this as another RIEK strategy to prolong the war because, ‘if the former clan-chief of chieng-BUR [Gatwech Dual] is not appeased with a big post,’ Riek thought, “no one else can manage to mobilize the LOU youth because he [GATWECH] is one of the most respected and feared military generals in the area.’

And any war in which LOU have not accepted and participated in cannot be accepted and participated by the other Nuer on the grounds that they are the more aggressive and fearless NUER any military bright – NUER politician would want to use as in 1991. They were used through WURNYANG GATKEK LUOM [a spiritual leader from LAK Nuer – killed by the white army in 2006 during disarmament], and so is it in 2013 by the same person [Riek] through DAK KUETH DENG MAYEN [A Dinka from DUK, though migrated to GOGOOR/PIERI-WUROR county].

For the case of GATDET YAK, he is another desperate general who is losing ground in BUL [his clan in MAYOM county, BENTIU], he is known as a several-times-side-switching general, who is addicted to rebellion and defection, and any soul from his area is afraid to follow him because he starts this today and the other tomorrow like a violent lunatic, hence making you [follower] confused either to remain where he brought you or go back with him. ONLY a lunatic follows a fellow lunatic!

Riek is someone whom they [military generals] see as another loose politician who uses death as a tool of fame and position. He rebels with the members he influences to defect with him and again makes a U-turn leaving his subordinates on the other side like he did in 2001 when he came back with his wife and may be his secretary.

All the others came thereafter on their own – and he is still a role-model to many! He informs his subordinates and comes back without informing them again whenever he is rejoining – he often rejoins alone!

Those generals are the right people who have a full control of the army; RIEK is just an opportunist who is only exploiting their illiteracy and ignorance. If they decide to join the government today or if they are the ones to sign any peaceful agreement or cease fire with the government, you would see Riek hanging himself if he hates not being a president too much or automatically banishing/exiling himself from the country on his own.

Riek is in confusion of the word to entice the people, beginning with himself – that he can do it, then his wife – that he is a bold husband who cannot, and does not fail, then to his friends in the bush – that he is an animal of a man that gets what he wants and uses whatsoever means to make them confident.

Instead of being a politician who uses massive blood to get power, please try peaceful means this time around to challenge KIIR if you think he is the problem… for elections are zooming.

The writer is a commentator on contemporary South Sudan
He can be reached on & 0955091449