Category: More Views

Collo Crisis: Truth about situation of Yuanes Okic vis-a-vis Johnson Olony

By Olany Amum, MAY/24/2015, SSN;

There are a lot of propaganda and lies going on these days regarding the situation of Yuanes Okic in relation to Johnson Olony. In order not to lose our sights on the truth that is intended to be hidden by some individuals with ulterior motives, the following facts need to be
made known to the public and for better sincerer judgement of the matters at hands based on straight records before Nyikang Wad Okwa and God the Almighty.

According to the agreed understanding for Chollo forces of Gen. Johnson Olony and of Gen. Aywok Ogad, their border was in Manyo County extending northwards and Fashoda County stretching southwards to Makal and Panyikang Counties.

This arrangement has been respected and the two separate forces managed to co-exist and coordinate their operations accordingly for the defence of the Chollo Kingdom before things totally fell apart between Johnson Olony and Salva Kiir on May 15, 2015 till now.

And even when the signs of felling apart became clear and Gen. Olony was pushed by Juba to the tight corner of rebellion due to injustice of Dinka solidaristic tribalism in favour of Padang alliance, Okic continued to urge Olony not to join the Nuer of SPLM/A-IO but to operate independently.

However, instead of continuing to cooperate and consult, Gen. Olony and his allies decided to resort to bullying and humiliating tactics by giving Okic an ultimatum to surrender or risk
being chased away from the Kingdom or killed.

They even employed cheap propaganda of tarnishing and assassinating Okic’s image by spreading lies that he has been bought and bribed by Juba to be a betrayer.

They even tried to carry on emotional sabotage within Aywok Ogad’s forces so that they can desert and join Olony and Nuer forces.

Not only these, but also more seriously, the joint operation of some Olony’s forces and Nuer proceeded, despite some gentlemen peace agreement with Abdallah Kur, to attack Okic’s garrisons in Ogon, Nyiliech! Adhwoy, Aweth and Kaka.

But still and in order to avoid more deaths and harms to Chollo people, Okic refused to fight back as he ordered his forces to withdraw and allow the ill-motivated attackers to occupy these places peacefully. Few of his soldiers were wounded.

And to the confirmation of the suspicion of the vague Olony’s Nuer alliance, more Nuer forces were seen deployed in big numbers to take over Kaka to replace Chollo forces.

For the Nuer and according to releases from their media, it is Olony who defected from the government side in order to join them under the over-all command of Dr. Riek Machar.

So far Olony didn’t refute this attribution directly apart from the poorly written press release No.1 that was circulated to the media by Mabior Garang in Narobi, Kenya on
behalf of Agwelek’s forces.

The heading of the second press release that enumerated the weapons captured in the government gunboat near Melut was even clearer on the direction that Olony’s forces are heading.

That is, they have declared themselves as a subset and part of the SPLM/A-IO, contradicting the first media release that they were operating independently.

Further worse, the Spokesperson of the Sudan People’s Liberating Army – Agwelek, Brig. General Nyagwal Ajak, announced over Radio Dabanga that they have defeated Okic’s militia forces in Kaka and many parts of Manyo County and are giving the scattered Chollo militia betrayers a hot pursuit.

But since Olony has cut all his contacts with Okic, the latter tried to contact Jockino Fidelo in the spirit of dialogue and understanding as he is said to have influence on the former.

Unfortunately, Jockino employed the same bullying attitude by telling Okic that it is too late for consultations because they have already gone to advanced stages with the Nuer of SPLM/A-IO and that nothing shall be helpful to Okic except unconditional surrender.

Other efforts of reconciliation are being tried by some Cholo Chiefs, Elders and other well wishing Chollo individuals but the bullying and arrogant attitude from Olony and some of his close advisors and supporters is still blocking any success.

Is there any understanding and compromise from Okic more than these when it is known that he has not been under command of Olony and Dr. Riek Machar?

Why should Chollo areas be liberated with blood from Nuer expansionists but later again handed back to them freely so that they can hijack the victories for their advantage as we have been reading and hearing from the SPLM/A-IO media these days?

Nevertheless, constructive efforts should still be pursued based on the following points and for a better way forward that will ensure that the Chollo will not come out as losers at the end of the current war:

1. There is no need for Chollo forces under command of Olony and Aywok to fight among themselves at this critical juncture. Instead, they should be persuaded to co-exist peacefully and with continuation of dialogue and coordination around the common Chollo interests
regardless of political or military affiliations.

2. Olony needs to come out clear to refute what the SPLA/M-IO is saying about him that he is a defector who has been made one of their top commanders. The involvement of the Nuer needs to be explained and clarified so that they don’t hijack Chollo victories or occupy Chollo lands through treachery of being unconditional allies, while in fact they want to revenge on Chollo by making the kingdom’s land a war theatre for the advantage of political scores of Dr. Riek Machar and with better leverage for Nuer chances to regain the power some of them have lost due to the tattering of Dinka-Nuer alliance post 2013 crisis.

3. Okic should maintain staying in his current garrison positions in Manyo County and should not collaborate with Dinka who may think of stabbing Olony in the back. He should be reminded that the attitude of Dinka is not very different from that of Nuer as the case of Markoni Okuc is still fresh in Chollo memories.

4. Olony and Okic should jointly declare the purpose of their war as that of the security of Chollo Kingdom and its historical territories vis-a-avis its right place in South Sudan, and that they are ready to negotiate with the legitimate government via external neutral mediator
to bring gains to Chollo Kingdom. They may name themselves officially as Chollo Kingdom Movement and appoint a political wing from Chollo learned intellectuals to strategize and represent them in a separate peace talks.

5. Chollo people inside South Sudan and abroad should mobilise humanitarian assistance and essential medicines to be dispatched to the Chollo forces controlled areas. They should also mobilise and encourage more Chollo to go on the ground and join the war of defence of the security and prosperity of the historic Chollo Kingdom.

Our Condolences to the lives of our lost heroes. May their souls rest in eternal peace.

Long Live Chollo Kingdom in South Sudan

The struggle continues.

Olang Amum
———————————————-
The writer is an expert on SPLM/A thieves, South Sudan greed, Regionalism, Tribalism, Clanism, Sectionalism, Empty pride, Villagezation of South Sudan by corrupted SPLM/A leaders and
Fragmentation of South Sudan by SPLM/A.

Pres. Kiir’s health deteriorating fast: Claims a former rebel who met Kiir personally

BY: Simon Kur, Juba, RoSS, MAY/18/2015, SSN;

South Sudan leader’s health is deteriorating at a high rate, said one of the former rebels who gave up the fight to overthrow President Salva Kiir. The unnamed source revealed to South Sudan Liberty News in an exclusive interview with him in an undisclosed location in Juba. The official who recently renounced achieving peace through the barrel of the gun claimed he met with President Kiir in his presidential office in Juba.

This meeting took place after they accepted the amnesty deal extended by the president to those who have not committed crimes.

This former rebel, who hails from Chollo majority clan, said President Salva Kiir may not be able to survive much longer time because he is visibly very sick, constantly looking very tired, and exhausted. He further went on to claim that Kiir is living on borrowed time, may not live to the end of the year.

Question: How is Kiir as far as his health is concerned?
Answer: when you look at the man himself, he looks very exhausted. He has fear of his own life. He looks shaky and traumatized.

Though the former rebel official who returned to Juba with the general amnesty extended by President Kiir could not pinpoint the kind of illness Kiir is suffering, he thinks it might be stressed related illness. This he said can be recalled when as you all might recall president Kiir collapsed during one of his trips to Khartoum on mission to meet his counterpart El Bashir in December 2014.

Other sources have also indicated that Kiir is suffering with undisclosed illness though his close aides declined to comment on his health.

Question: How does it feel like meeting President Salva Kiir face to face? And what do you say because there are people saying Mr. Kiir is not an intelligent man and often the decision to run the country is made by his chief of staff?

Answer: Well, Kiir is just a normal person like anyone of us. Just like any normal person, I can see he has emotions. I also see rudeness in him big time. During the time we spent in his office, I sensed rudeness and ruthlessness in him. I saw that one minute he can act normal and within the next minute he turns deadly.

I suppose this anxiety is due to the situation he finds himself in. Kiir admits during our meeting that he realized some of the mistakes he made and now he had wanted to correct those mistakes. He is open to accept any positive solutions to end the conflict in the country so that ordinary people will go on with their daily lives.

The official claimed in his answer that Kiir said that he cannot accept to see the country descending into further chaos. “I can no longer afford to see the suffering of my people and South Sudanese at large,” said Kiir.

At this juncture, South Sudan Liberty News cannot verify this statement claimed by former rebel official.

Question: There are people who claimed that President Salva Kiir is not the one running the daily administration of the country, but Dinka general elites are the one running the daily business of the country, what are your views?

Answer: You know this is what has dragged the country into civil war. There is a group which calls itself the “Dinka council of elders.” These are selfish and egoistic individuals who have not only misled the president but have damaged the image of South Sudan at the international level.

The so called the Dinka council of elders believed and have tasked itself with new Dinka imperialism culture. They are trying to build on nepotism, tribalism and this untold wrong concept and morally unacceptable ideology that they the Dinka are the masters.

The others are slaves is the common cancer that has inflicted hatred and has placed the Dinka ethnic group in an odd position with others and there can be no peace until a cure is found to heal this cancer.

Now, unless this is corrected now, South Sudan will not be at peace, because no single tribe can survive without the others. These council of Dinka elders believes that it is only the Dinka who have the absolute authority, and supreme power to live anywhere on other people’s ancestral land, this is very common practice by the Dinka and Nuer in Equatoria, and Upper Nile.

Also, these two initially warring tribes must change their concept of thinking that only they alone fought therefore they owned South Sudan and accept that South Sudan belongs to all of us.

Question: Why did you decide to come back to Juba and how are you going to fight the regime you once described as displaying nepotism, tribalism, dictatorial, genocidal and dominated by one tribe?
Answer: I and my colleagues decided to come back to Juba after we have seen discrimination by the Neur colleagues to our Shilluk men engaged in the front-lines. We learned this when we visited them in frontline after Pangak SPLA-IO conference in February 2015.

They told us how they were mistreated and killed in frontline by their comrades from Neur tribe. We were convinced and prompted by the devastation done in shilluk land by Neur and we tried to put the grievances of our people before Dr Riek Machar who is the chairman of SPLA-IO but he said there are things happening beyond him which he has no control of.

Here he was referring to what are happening in the frontline and in battle fields.

He added like the Dinka, the Neur have dominated rebellious, their common manifesto that they are fighting for the just cause and freedom, and fair liberation is used as a pretext by the Nuer to gain sympathy and empathy from other tribes to join them.

He blamed the leadership of SPLA-IO for not supplying Shilluk men with better weaponry to fight the regime in Juba, and also cited their return to Juba on promotion; everything is dominated by Nuer including promotion.

Based on that, we decided to come and fight for reform from within because we realized there are many solutions to address the current conflict.

Question: What would you do if the regime in Juba fails to implement the agreement you signed with the President Kiir, given that you are now here in Juba without army?

Answer: When we met the President we told him if he will kill us after our return to Juba. The president looked and laughed and he said, he did not massacre anybody he cannot even kill a chicken. We told him our coming back here in Juba is an open door for many to lay down their arms.

If the President and his government refuse to implement the agreement we have signed with him, this will close doors for many others to refrain from rebellion and armed conflict will continue.

And if he fails to honor his commitment to the parts, we have other means to fight for the right of Shilluk land, and our return to Juba has been negotiated by General Johnson Olony.

Let’s hope for the sake of peace President Kiir will live by his words, but if anything happened to us, we have our men ready even here in Juba to launch an attack, but it is our hope that we learn how to address our issues on the table as brothers of this nation as we all fought for our hard earned independence from Khartoum with our dear blood.

Question: What would happen to the forces under your direct authority?
Answer: We want to create an autonomous-like Great Pibor to address the grievances of our people. We are not fighting for anything but we want our presentation in the national government. We want the current governor Simon Kun to be removed and be replaced by Shilluk and the president has agreed.

The difficulty is we understand the current governor is giving 2% from the oil revenue from Upper Nile to maintain the president that is why the President cannot easily relieved him from duty.

We found it hard to believe that a serving president has to be bribed to do his work. If that is what the constitution requires of the sitting governor of Upper Nile to pay due fees of 2% from the revenue of the state to the president, then it is worth for a Shilluk governor to do that in Shilluk land not a Nuer governor.

“It is ok if we can have a Shiluk governor in the office not Dinka or Nuer governor to give the president the 2%” because Malakal is traditionally inhabited by Shilluk not Dinka or Nuer.

Please note that this interview has taken place before the recent claimed of victory by the united forces of Johnson Olony and SPLA-IO, over government forces in Malakal, therefore some of the information could have changed on the ground.

Simon Kur Peter

Peace, not Appeasement

By: Deng Vanang, MAY/09/2015, SSN;

Just, durable and sustainable peace is deeply rooted in openly and honestly discussing the root causes of the conflict. It is these root causes that distinguish between who is an aggressor and aggressed. With this finding, the aggressor is served with reasonable punishment and aggressed rewarded with verdict of innocence.

The aggressor is then asked to pay the aggressed the losses he incurred in order to restore him to safe position before the time of the inflicted harm, be it physically or materially.

With punishment, the aggressor is taught invaluable lesson that crime doesn’t pay and never to repeat the costly exercise in future. While this apportioned punishment cools the enraged heart of the aggressed that there is a lot to gain morally when standing on the side of justice that sets social trends for exemplary life of peace and stability.

From this point of view, it is not the appeasement in apportioning blame to all sides of the conflict by mediator just to be seen fair that matters but just peace that points out where wrong or right lies so as to craft practical solution that addresses the crisis at hand amicably.

As it is impractical for two sides of the conflict to be both right and wrong and equally not the retribution against the perceived wrong doer the best way forward but reasonable act of deterrence becoming the hallmark of justice system if premeditated crime shall be anything of the past.

Window shopping for peace that treats the aggressed and aggressor as equally wrong or right is not only impractical approach to unravel in more foreseeable future, but also a cruel method of covering the wrongs of one side with which to get away. It is a recipe for even more disaster than the one people seek to tackle now.

In families and societies immoral behaviors are taken as normal struggles of daily life, then there exists a continuous tendency of the same being committed over and over again with dire consequence of such set ups remaining in vicious cycle of stagnancy or retardation or even both.

Again, warring parties don’t choose the kind of peace each wants. The course peace takes is dictated by myriads of ingredients, such as root causes both principal and subsidiary, disastrous effects – long term and short term and most sustainable remedies to the conflict.
Yes the perceived wrong doer may own up while the wronged honestly accepts and forgives for a just peace mutually acceptable to all sides can be attained.

However, in the case both sides pull the ropes the mediator has the final word based on his fair assessment of what really caused the conflict.

The mediator in pursuit of just peace shouldn’t be blackmailed by consequences of his perceived just act no matter how dire they may be. In avoidance to take the course of justice for fear of the side his act will adversely affect, then justice that could resolve conflict is not served.

It is equally scaremongering and defense mechanism at best to the benefits of the wrong doer as cited by some opinion writers. To them, a stronger SPLA backed by its local defense forces could manage to marshal and destabilize the country if bad peace is imposed on the government in the country built on the foundation of tribal sentiments.

The said opinions are advanced without considering the fact that the same SPLA with the full backing of Uganda’s People Defense Force, UPDF, the allied Sudan’s rebel groups and locally trained multi-ethnic militants has been contained by a pre-dominantly single ethnic armed group in the name of SPLA-In-Opposition.

What if it is the UN’s backed military intervention, can SPLA and its allies survive in the face of such onslaught?

Whereas, the same advanced hypotheses wrongly defined South Sudan’s problem as that of tribes which hate themselves than the lack of equitable development as promoted by corrupt and tribal politicians who use resources to divide and rule tribes in order to maintain tight grips on positions of political supremacy and economic plunder.

Truth be told, before formation of SPLM/A back in 1983, not a single tribe mobilized itself and occupied the land of another or had been in constant feud with another save for isolated peaceful land encroachments and sporadic rustling incidents orchestrated by a few individual cattle entrepreneurs.

If United Nations peace keeping force takes charge and forms people – centered government that delivers social services in healthcare and education, roads and communication networks as well as creates favorable environment conducive for rule of law, freedom of speech, fair employment, and business and trade these politicians will just be deprived of recruitment ground to wage self-serving wars against one another.

Also citing cases of Somalia, Iraq and Libya so as to influence the third party’s intervention in a way wrongly favorable to certain side or else South Sudan will go the same way those countries have taken is an empty political rhetoric.

The deterioration of situation in these countries followed third party’s intervention that aimed at totally supplanting the favored opposition with hated establishment. It is a win -loss political approach.

In Somalia it was destroying Ahmed Farah Aideed with Ali Mahdi in the past and currently Al-shabaab with moderate Islamic groups. It is pitting Shiites against Saddam Hussein’s Sunnis in Iraq. In Libya, it is propelling long aggrieved people of Benghazi over and above Tripoli’s ruling clique.

That is all done at the expense of creating a whole new system in those countries comprised of members with no criminal records from all warring sides followed by rigorous process of national reconciliation and healing.

The same quarters similarly feel warring parties be given an ample time to make peace in order to avoid an imposed peace from outside that shall rather serve to aggravate the already worse situation in South Sudan.

The problem is not shortness of time given to parties to make their own peace but it is impossibility of these parties to reach a workable peace agreement even if given a century and the destruction the war shall cause the longer it takes while rumbling on.

Within a span of a year and half, the war caused the death of modest estimate of 50,000 people, displaced 2 million others and unknown number of those it maimed, then how destructive it will be if allowed to go on indefinitely in discretion of the warring parties?

When it is common knowledge worldwide the longer the conflict takes, the more it creates high human casualties and material destruction while arousing in the process terrible emotions too difficult for the parties to reach comprises for any future agreement.

Another impractical opinion doing the round among some members of academia is that South Sudan’s war should be ended by world powers’ consensus, probably in the United Nations Security Council. When it is known to all and sundry members of global UN, regional and sub-regional blocs in AU, Arab League, etc. hardly agree on a single course of action ever since the cold war’s era.

Given the current multi-polarity of the world, five permanent members of UN’s Security Council such as US, China, Russia, Britain and France are even more divided. With US as sole super power is getting more weakened to impose its will by over ambitious China and resurging Russia as formidable challengers.

Hence, required unanimity of decision with subsequent action remains a distant mirage. Although US with its Western allies in European Union, EU still wields some considerable leverage to bulldoze its way against certain set obstructions.

Though given a considerable period of time, South Sudanese leaders failed to come up with political will to address issues of bad governance for the last ten years that eventually caused December, 2013’s violence as well as their unbridled intransigence to reach a required compromise at peace talks.

With mediators’ failing suggestion of two principals that include those accused of political and economic crimes in yet to be released AU’s Commission of Inquiry reports be barred from purposed Transitional Government of National Unity, TGNU.

Or South Sudan to be governed under the UN’s trusteeship for a five – year term also falling flat on its face.

It is now safe to say that let the benevolent world in the next rounds of peace talks intervene in whichever way it thinks fit.

That is in the best interests of ordinary, economically deprived, ethnically divided and long suffering South Sudanese, being the real victims of this war so as to rid the country’s dented image of warmonger Generals, corrupt politicians, incompetent bureaucrats and pseudo intellectuals.

Deng Vanang is a Journalist and Author of “South Sudan the Making of a Nation, A Journey from Ethnic Polities to Self-rule, State and Democracy.”

dvanang@yahoo.com

Kiir, Machar lack ‘leadership’ to end South Sudan crisis – John Kerry says

By AGGREY MUTAMBO, Daily Nation, MAY/05/2015, SSN.

In Summary
**South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation at four, fell into chaos in December 2013 after rebels loyal to former vice president Machar engineered a failed coup against President Salva Kiir.
**On Monday, Mr Kerry was briefed on the progress of negotiations by his host, President Kenyatta.
**President Kenyatta has privately tried to end the conflict by making parties sign a deal for power sharing. In January, both signed on a document, which was later rejected by their supporters
;

Nairobi: Visiting US Secretary of State on Monday criticised warring South Sudanese leaders, accusing them of lacking “leadership” to end the violence.

At a news conference in Nairobi, Mr Kerry, who held talks with President Uhuru Kenyatta, said both President Salva Kiir and his nemesis Riek Machar are to blame for refusing to make compromises.

“We all know of that country’s great promise. We saw at first hand the dedication and resilience of its people, but let me be clear: That promise is now at a great risk of being squandered,” he said.

“The country’s leaders failed to act on behalf of their people and their nation.

“This is not happening except for the absence of the leadership necessary to bring it to a close,” he added, describing the violence which has so far killed more than 50,000 people and displaced another two million.

South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation at four, fell into chaos in December 2013 after rebels loyal to former vice president Machar engineered a failed coup against President Salva Kiir.

Soon, the war spread around the country.

Since then, talks led by regional bloc, the Intergovernmental Authority on development (Igad) and supported by the US, UK, Norway and the European Union have failed to reach an agreement.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING

On Monday evening, Mr Kerry announced an additional $5 million funding for “justice and reconciliation” programmes in South Sudan, which he argued would be used to improve the justice system and reprimand war merchants in Juba.

But an emotional Kerry, who has previously warned South Sudanese leaders of sanctions, said they had both abandoned their responsibilities.

“For more than a year, regional leaders, the US and others have been urging South Sudan leaders to live up to their commitment that can set their country up on the path of peace and prosperity.

“Unfortunately, South Sudan’s leaders, both those officially in government and those contesting those who are in office, have not yet chosen to make compromises needed for peace.

“And it’s that absence of compromise and absence of leadership that is leading to the challenge to the region.”

The parties have previously signed seven ceasefire agreements, but all of them were broken just days after the ink was put to paper in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa.

BRIEFED ON PROGRESS

On Monday, Mr Kerry was briefed on the progress of negotiations by his host, President Kenyatta.

“President Kenyatta also informed the Secretary on efforts by Igad leaders to end the conflict in South Sudan,” a statement from State House said.

“Secretary Kerry felt that there was need to find a lasting peace in South Sudan and urged President Kenyatta and regional leaders to increase efforts to bring the conflict to an end,” it added.

President Kenyatta has privately tried to end the conflict by making parties sign a deal for power sharing. In January, both signed on a document, which was later rejected by their supporters.

And when Igad presented a similar proposal in Addis at the end of January, the parties failed to agree.

Despite pressure from the international community, the two sides have yet to agree on a long-term solution.

“The choices south Sudan leaders will make, ultimately will determine whether the country continues the path of conflict or restores the hope which its citizens richly deserve.” END

Daughter, Natalina Malwal, in defense of dad, Bona Malwal’s hate speech

BY: Simon Kur Peter, JUBA, APR/29/2015, SSN;

As South Sudan is a nation born of earnest and generational aspiration of all south Sudanese to be a multi ethnical country with equal representation of her 64 tribes, tragically however, few individuals, the likes of Bona Malwal, incepted the “born to rule” ideology and hold the nation hostage right from its very independence on 9 July 2011, and precipitously drove it into descents of injustice, inequalities, reprisals, extortions, abuses of powers, land grabbing, extrajudicial arrests, gross violation of human rights, tortures and killings of ideological opponents and worst to include opinion writers and journalists.

The nation that we fought the “common enemy” nail and tooth for Equality sadly has becomes a den of lions where only the tribal elites but alas also the commoners with strong backings of relatives in high places are the only equipped to survive the storm of demonic forces that has possessed our new born nation, these, known as the Jieng Council of elders, the equivalent of NIF in the lands of the great Satan, we thought we left behind.

It’s making the old Sudan look pale in comparison and the reason for South Sudanese fighting and losing millions of her precious lives in the process to achieve sovereignty looks cheap, meaningless and in vein! Unless at the end of such sacrifices South Sudan becomes the land of freedom for even her minority tribes, worthy the bloods sacrificed!

I am not shocked or surprised to see the older daughter of Bona Malwal; Natalina Malwal, come out of her safe haven vigorously in defense and attempt to cover up the hate speech given by her father in Kansas city, Kansas USA on 23 March by wielding the threat of lawsuits.

Bona Malwal is known to South Sudanese even before the birth of this daughter who is now flexing her muscle and family fortune to defend her father. She would like to present a different Malwal to South Sudanese but she need to be reminded that most South Sudanese know her father better than she seems to have realized including very many patriotic Jiengs who are opposed to him when it comes to national issues!

As it was reported in Many Media Sources, Mr. Malwal, the father of the born to rule ideology, the very ideology at the heart of jieng unbrotherly and negative attitudes towards none Jieng South Sudanese is the source of the current destruction going on in our nation, making Bona, the father of this destruction that engulfed our Nation.

In his speech he advocated and instigated hate, designed to provoke the youth from Dinka ethnic group to rise up and wipe out the Nuer from their existence, given in the view of Bona Malwal.

Unless Nuer are extinct from their ancestral land and denied the right to ascend to power in the Republic of south Sudan, the country will not be safe as the Dinka and Nuer are traditional rivals over grazing lands and cattles.

It must be pointed out that South Sudan is not a grazing land for Jieng council of elders to carry these traditional fights over to include in the nation’s affairs!

It is sad to see a daughter fighting the press for exposing the evil her father has committed, and threaten to sue the press and a Journalist for reporting the fact that came out of her father’s Mouth!

She instead should rebuke her father rather than issuing threats to soldiers of freedom AKA the press. Is it any wonder then journalists are killed in South Sudan while the Jieng tribal elite enjoys the status of complete immunity and untouchability?

Ms. Natalina Malwal, you should know, in the 21st century nothing can be hidden under the sun, you think threatening of suing the professional journalists for doing their noble work will make them succumb to fear, thus giving the like of your father a free ride?

Please have the womanhood and courage to look your father into his eyes and tell him to stop advocating for one tribe to take advantage of the others and cleansed them from their ancestral God given lands.

South Sudan belong to all south Sudanese, there is no single strong tribe without the others as being erroneously trumpeted by the likes of your father, of course every south Sudanese about the age of 25 years and older know who your father was and is, along with all the southerners bribed with oil money by Khartoum government to assassinate late Garang, and the fight between your father and late Dr. Garang intensified and has escalated further until 2003.

Before I could go further let me give the world the chance to see the threats you issued against Justin Kwaje, I found it hard to make distinction between you and your father.

Your father’s speech poses a big threat not only to the Nuer but also to all South Sudanese to include the Jiengs! By him appealing to the Dinka graduates from the Diaspora to go home to claim positions in the anticipated decree-riddled shuffling of government to sustain and continue to give life to the malignant and genocidal regime of Kiir, A regime that spells death, clearly shows who he truly is, a tribal figure not a national one.

Now you have picked a fight against the press not knowing the freedom of media is one of the core pillars mentioned in the emblem of the SPLA.

Your words “Therefore, Mr. Kwaje, you have two days to do two things, either to produce evidence of this hate speech to support your claim mentioned in your article, or issue a public apology for these lies.

Otherwise I personally will sue you and the newspaper for defamation of character. I have the whole meeting in Kansas recorded and will produce it as proof. I am already in contact with my lawyer and they are waiting for my permission to go ahead.

Time for people creating lies and getting away with them is over. Mind you I don’t have to pay for a lawyer, because they are family. I will have them pursue you and this newspaper for ever, and will not stop until I see a public apology.”Natalina Malwal.

So Natalina Malwal, there will be no formal or informal apologies to you or your father. In the 21st century there are a lot of evidences that can be brought against you and your father, no one will be forced into submissions, and if the media houses were to apologize for telling the truth then the media has bowed to the tribal elite and became corrupt.

As such the people of south Sudan will be left to accept wrong to be right and falsehood to be truth and the nation become truly blind.

For the sake of South Sudan, we the media shall never apologize and shall remain free till the darkness that hangs over the nation is passed and the day break greets our beloved land, which is inevitable!

For the future of South Sudan and the memories of our valiant colleagues, the likes of Isaiah Abraham, We shall resist!

You stated “Furthermore, if he was a tribalist, he wouldn’t have married to two of his wives that are from Equatoria, from which he produced two of my siblings.”

Natalina, evidences and history tells us, in the last 25 years both powerful Dinka politicians and illiterate former guerrilla fighters have grabbed and forced many women from other tribes into coerced marriages.

This, if in fact investigated, will constitute crimes against women and those involved in doing this unlawful criminality will face prosecution for reintroducing sex slavery and multi-wives in the 21st century including perhaps your father, thus your father marrying two Equatorial wives is a matter of shame not glory.

In the Journey to independence, you seem to inflate your father’s role in the national struggles of South Sudanese. The employment of your father, Bona Malwal, by Al Beshir to the post of adviser was only to derail and sabotage the plan to achieve comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Al Beshir himself knew that Bona Malwal was the best chance he had to prey on and to divide the Dinka from achieving the aspiration of the people of south Sudan from breaking away from the Sudan.

Is this not one of the reasons why many southerners, not only Dinkas Bor, link the current sitting President and your father in the mysterious death of the founding father of SPLA?

It was until the Rumbek convention of the Liberation council when late Garang and Salva Kiir reconciled under the initiative of and thanks to Dr Riek Machar. Since then, Bona Malwal has gone silent, one of the reasons he quit politics was because he had no creditability left and lost the support and backing of the Dinka people.

In January 2005 he was featured as the leader of a new party, the South Sudan Democratic Forum. Why would Bona Malwal form SSDF just as the CPA was signed if he was a supporter of Garang and the Southern aspiration for independence and if his political ambition was not to derail and deny the people of south Sudan the long awaited dream of independent homeland?

Many remain suspicious that your father Bona had planned to sabotage the achievement of our long awaited aspiration to gain our independence since 1947!

In one way or the other President Beshir, immediately realized the danger posed by your father to the Southern aspirations thus Al Beshir immediately married the veteran politician and appointed him as his advisor to derail and influence the Dinka tribe to vote in favor of united Sudan.

Al Beshir miscalculated—- thankfully! Thinking, since the Dinka are majority, if they vote in favor of united Sudan, then the South Sudanese long dream for separate home land will permanently die and be buried.

The courtesy was mutual. Malwal, fluent in propaganda, defended Beshir’s sanctity in the face of the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant, and devotedly joined the top rank of the ‘National Association in Support of the Candidacy of the Citizen Omer Hassan Ahmed al-Beshir for the Presidency of the Republic’ at the side of Field Marshal Abd el-Rahman Suwar el-Dahab and other respectable elders of the North.

The same body was transformed into the ‘National Association in Support of Unity’ in the interlude between the April 2010 elections and the January 2011 referendum.

When asked few days before the session whether he will settle in South Sudan once secession is declared, Bona Malwal responded “If I receive an invitation from the South I will attend the 9 July celebrations otherwise my house is in Khartoum”.

By all means Bona Malwal saw and sees no future in south Sudan as he has many enemies from the South and at the same time he knew his political marriage with Al Beshir was on part time basis as Khartoum proposed marriage with south Sudan would no longer happened.

Thus Al Beshir sees no use to keep Bona Malwal on adviser’s duties that is why Mr. Malwal decided to disappear for the last ten year and declared his retirement from political arena only to emerge in Kansas City with hate messages against the Nuer and the remaining 62 tribes.

It remains a matter of curiosity how far the alliance between Kiir and Malwal will survive.
For poor Natalina Malwal, a daughter of veteran journalist who turned politician would never accept the fact that her father is not the darling of many; Natalina Malwal with no political background clearly displays what is called “blood is thicker than water”.

The poor daughter would rather threaten and defend what is not defensible and rewrite history that has already dried on a rock.

Your father’s legacy for worse has been established, rest assured no one can add to it nor subtract from it. This legacy was written over half a century by none other than your Father, Bona Malwal, himself!

Thanks to him, his ideology of “the born to rule”, the rest of South Sudanese hate us and will forever reject all those old guards now known as The Jiengs Council of elders, who harbor such antiquated and destructive ideologies.

Until the younger and well cultured and enlightened, true and patriotic Jiengs who numbers in thousands if not millions and thankfully who all agree with me and call all south Sudanese brothers, not subjects as your father would like to believe! Until then there shall be no peace, guaranteed! The sooner we all learn this, the better for ALL!

Simon Kur Peter
Chief reporter South Sudan Liberty News
email: simonkurpeter@gamil.com or info@southsudanliberty.com
Juba, RSS

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
Journalist/writer
Juacd@yahoo.ca

The Ever-changing Face of Dr. Lam Akol in the politics of South Sudan

BY: Taban Abel Aguek, State MP, RUMBEK, APR/18/2015, SSN;

In a press conference in Juba last week, the leader of South Sudan Opposition Party SPLM–DC, Dr Lam Akol, criticized the government of South Sudan on being against the West. The issue seems to weave around the involvement of TROIKA in the upcoming IGAD Plus talks in Addis Ababa. The Government has since made its position clear that TROIKA should only be involved in an observer role, and nothing else. And for that, the government spelled out its concerns which are convincing to the South Sudanese public.

I believe this position of the government on TROIKA’s role is what Dr Lam has perceived as being against the West. Those people who know Dr. Lam well are now left confused on seeing him swap his attitudes towards the West in 2015.

Dr. Lam, by the time he was National Minister for Foreign Affairs – was a hard critique of the West. Both Lam and Beshir had to depend on Russia and China to thwart the West’s effort for peace and civilians protection in Darfur in 2006.

Now that Dr Lam publicly condemns the government of South Sudan on being harsh to the same West that he used to scorn upon during our days of the ‘united Sudan’ is quite interesting. Perhaps, it does justify the long-held notion that in politics “there are no permanent enemies, but only permanent interests”.

That remains that. But what is trending now is the developing perception among the South Sudan’s public that Dr. Lam Akol might have developed the ‘strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Hyde’.

This was coined from the novel by a Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson, “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. And it is commonly associated with the rare mental condition often called “split personality”, referred to in psychiatry as dissociative identity disorder, where within the same body there exists more than one distinct personality.

Now this has been taken to describe a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to another.

In politics it becomes even much worse. If one cannot agree with himself, then how does he expect people to agree with him? I heard him speak over the Miraya FM the other day and there he made me think about how many faces he has changed over the period he has been in contact with our national issues.

As mentioned earlier, in the prime years of the CPA, when Dr Lam Akol was a powerful Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of National Unity, he was a hard critic of the West.

I remember one of the hotly contested issues between the West and Sudan was whether the UN should deploy its forces in Darfur or not. President Beshir opted to term the UN civilian protection in Darfur as an invasion of a ‘sovereign’ state of Sudan. And Dr. Lam worked for him and agreed with him even when he said that he would ‘rather lead the war against a foreign invasion than allowing them abuse the sovereignty of the Sudan’.

The person that was doing all the shuttle diplomacy was none other than Dr. Lam Akol on behalf of President Beshir. Both Dr Lam and President Beshir lost faith in the West; and therefore, they inclined to go to the East and got sanctuary in China and Russia. Yet, in doing that, he was going contrary to the position of his then nominating party, SPLM and the then semi autonomous government in Juba.

In one of his diplomatic trips abroad, Dr. Lam claimed having achieved ‘victory’ on behalf of the Beshir’s NCP when he came back with a green light for the formation of dysfunctional hybrid force “UNAMID” for Darfur. Judged by current events, the deployment of UNAMID became a victory to Khartoum and a bad loss to the people of Darfur.

Working for Sudan Tribune Daily Newspaper in Khartoum, which some circles claimed was sponsored by Dr. Lam himself; I had no any other avenue to lodge my pleas than to take to the internet. I wrote an article titled, “South Sudan: dumped in the mouths of some Khartoum SPLM Traitors” and it was posted in Sudan Tribune.

The SPLM traitor was Dr. Lam Akol and his associates that benefitted from CPA but allowed themselves to be used as walking sticks by the same old foe – the NCP.

I thought Dr Lam would stick to his old hard criticism against the West. Or else he needs to tell us what made him change his mind now to be a sympathizer of the same West he stood against during the days he was serving as a minister of Foreign Affairs in a united Sudan.

That Dr. Lam has changed face to be a supporter of the same West he fought fiercely against is to me a surprise. That is Dr. Lam’s Change of face number two.

One may wonder why this should be change of face number two. Get it here again fast tracked! Dr. Lam was the architect of the document known to most literate South Sudanese as “Why Garang must Go!”.

Together with Riek Machar they decided to launch a ‘bush coup’ against Dr. John Garang. They proudly announced a coup which did not only end in shambles but, like the current war, caused skirmishes and reduced gains of SPLM/A and South Sudan.

Dr Lam, few months after accepting to work under Riek, opted to form his own party in complete betrayal to Riek. He failed to work with Dr Garang, chose Dr Riek and divorced him again in a very short time.

That represented swapping of faces in very short time by him but we can call it Dr. Lam’s Change of face number one that we came to know.

Shortly after the failed coup in Juba on December 2013, Dr Lam Akol appeared to condemn the actions of Dr Riek Machar. He got the public support to lead the team of opposition parties at the Addis Ababa talks.

But a few days into the talks Dr Lam changed immediately from standing with South Sudanese public position to confusingly spreading his legs over on the IGAD proposals and bilaterally chose also to hold ‘secret’ meetings with Dr. Riek Machar.

Maybe those people who argue that he was lured into an idea that both President Kiir and Dr Riek will not be allowed to participate in the transitional government impacted his decision.

But still he could have been advised but he took the decision. That might have prompted him to lodge himself into possibility of replacing Kiir as the President of South Sudan.

From condemning the coup to supporting Riek, Dr Lam left many of South Sudanese confused. That is Change of face number three!

It was all announced that South Sudan wanted to hold elections in June this year. But backed up by the International Community and Civil Society Organizations, Dr Lam led a campaign against the conduct of elections. Dr Lam even went further by leading a coalition of political parties to court to challenge the decision.

South Sudan, under that pressure, rescinded the decision to hold elections. But the decision not to hold elections also carried legal implications. There is no way elections can be called off and put nothing in the vacuum. That would lead to constitutional crisis.

The best way to accommodate the peace talks without a constitutional vacuum is seeking the parliamentary extension of the term of the Government and parliament to give room for Addis Ababa negotiations with a legitimate ruling system.

That there was one Dr Lam Akol who asked for postponement of elections and the same Dr Lam who again opposed the suspension of elections represents an amusing change of mind in the swiftest of time. Change of face number four!

Dr Lam Akol ought to know – and I believe he knows – that the South Sudanese he is dealing with are not the same South Sudanese of the last decades. If Britain were to colonize South Sudan today, they would have found it very difficult. There is no way we can allow any move to go uncalculated and people are so vigilant nowadays.

It is a fact that Dr. Lam has been relevant with the South Sudanese politics since the inception of SPLM. It is a big credit to South Sudan and Democracy that there has always been an opposing voice.

According to me, that is healthy politics. But it must be noted that criticism must rightfully be placed. And one should not oppose just for the sake of being in opposition.

The Opposition and all the groups that led a campaign against the holding of elections should not look at the extension of government as means for Kiir to earn extra years in power. Rather, it should be viewed as a concession by the government.

President Beshir of Sudan has been constantly extending his rule through bogus elections. South Sudan has tried to avoid such a case. Kiir would have contested elections and likely win a five year term in office.

But the decision to delay elections was taken to give time for peace negotiations. By God’s grace, if the final peace deal is signed, then its terms may take complete precedence to what was done by parliament.

Someone needs to tell me how we can pass peace documents without a functioning Assembly? We need the assembly to enact into law the agreed terms of the peace agreement.

South Sudan is not against the West as alleged by Dr Lam. It’s him who holds records for being so ardently against the West. For him to change sides now is simply foxing.

Nevertheless, Dr. Lam Akol is a role model for so many young people. He is indeed a capable leader. But the society we are in is one of the most difficult ones. Every act is placed under a scrutiny. Therefore, one needs to calculate his actions and take decisions that garner the public support and then stay by them.

To change is not bad, but to keep changing is not healthy. It’s high time that Dr. Lam tries to make up his mind and tell us one thing. South Sudanese should not be told to move to the sun and when they are there, someone again says come to the moon.

Taban Abel Aguek works in Rumbek – South Sudan as a member of State Legislative Assembly. He can be reached at abelaguek79@gmail.com

South Sudan Economy: Exposed with nowhere to hide

BY: Garang Atem Ayiik, South Sudan, APR-13-2015,SSN;

Introduction
Since 15 December 2013, guns have been unleashed terminating and threatening lives of many. Unarmed enemy which is economic has been also unleashed, but the sound and impact has been hidden.

But economic indicators have now reared its bad head to the citizens, government, private sector or/and even armed opposition. Whether in town or in the bush, economic challenges are real bullets that majority will feel.

In urban centers, dollar is now selling about 160% above the official rate; exchange rate driven inflation rate has surged as South Sudan is an import nation; business has slowed down; firms are laying off staffs and no new jobs opening; government coffers are drying, forcing government to run around with a begging bowl or/and loan request forms.

In rural areas, pictures of women harvesting water lilies for food is already in circulation. UN agencies have announced imminent hunger as war has interrupted subsistence farming in rural areas.

It seems to me every economic actor is exposed, with nowhere to hide. This is like great depression of 1929, though South Sudan case is man-induced depression and can be resolved by man. If no actions are taken, the consequences might be very ugly.

South Sudan deteriorating economic environment has been magnified by undiversified economy that relies on oil, whose price has dived by half since late last year in the world market; second, inefficient public resources mobilization and allocation; and third, war that broke out in December 2013 that led to stoppage of production in Tharjath and Unity oilfields reducing production volume and revenue by nearly half.

In this article, I tried to identify key economic challenges; impact on various economic agents; and finally I tried to explore possible policy options base for the government.

Economic actors, challenges and possible options
In discussing challenges facing South Sudan economy, the question was no longer about how did South Sudan get itself into an economic pit but what challenges South Sudan economic actors are likely to face in navigating this economic down turn; and what policy options and lessons can South Sudan learn from these challenges.

I think there are three possible policy options from an economic perspective that the government can pursue in living within current economic realities.

One, find ways to compensate lost revenue due to shutdown of production in Unity and Tharjath, and due to dive in oil prices in the world market. Second, pursue cost reduction strategies; and finally institutionalize reforms to minimize leakages and wastage in the public sector.

Increasing revenue is the most preferable option. There are many approaches that government can adopt in pursuing this option. Firstly, the government can explore local revenue mobilization options. This entails possible increase in taxes – personal and corporate taxes, this is an attractive option as South Sudan tax rates are below East Africa Countries’ rates and hence easily justifiable to increase tax rates, fees, customs, tariffs and other government’s revenue streams.

However, this option become untenable on three accounts: namely, non-oil revenue contribution to government coffers is insignificant and any effort to increase revenue is not a game change with regards to revenue increase; second, firms and individuals are already facing grave economic challenges resulting from exchange rate driven inflation.

To increase taxes is to add salt to firms and households injuries’; and finally, with a lot of inefficiencies in public revenues collection, overall, this might not lead to huge financial impact to government but maybe few rogue public officers. But again will increase misery to the masses.

The other easy option is to take loan from private sector mostly from oil companies and banks as soft target. But again, the oil companies are hit hard by diving oil prices, and shutdown of Unity and Tharjath oilfields.

The government has not honored payments of loans it took from banks in local market in previous years. Maybe, now the government is not in good books of the banks. From these accounts it is difficult to get local loans from oil companies and banks and hence this is not an option.

In pursuing revenue increase, government can continue with its public debt push in international markets. This option is likely to complicate future economic management. It is like selling oil underground very cheaply.

Considering despair, rigor around their acquisitions and cost of servicing them. But only viable in short but true mortgaging of the future.

It is important to note that East Africa Community has ceiling on public debt as percentage of GDP. With ongoing acquisition of loans, government got to monitor it as this might affect South Sudan’s admission into the community. EAC might not continue to turn a blind eye to underlying risks in admitting South Sudan to the community.

Another possible source of increasing revenues are from NGOs, development partners and friendly nations but it seems their assistance are pegged on attaining peace, again this sounds like black-mailing South Sudan but again what better option does South Sudan has?

With withering revenues, government needs to create a working relation with NGO and development partners with an eye on supporting the misery of masses in the camps, IDPs and rural areas.

There is no time for chest-thumping and imaginary unsustainable African man-hood, economic challenges will be dehorning, and South Sudan better know this early.

In very desperate time, government can print money. This is the highest level of economic management bankruptcy. Because printing money means putting a lot of money in circulation that is not supported by any assets.

With an already exchange rate induced-inflation, if government prints money, inflation rate will surge to a level beyond imagination, it is not a path a responsible government can contemplate.

The second policy option is to reduce cost. This can be achieved by tirelessly and faithfully pursuing peace options. Even before war, government had always allocated huge budget to security sector and this increased with rebellion in December 2013.

If peace is achieved, the security budget can come down, but this is not absolute due to expected increase of army from rebel numbers. But the sure thing is that government can put back oil in pipelines in shutdown oilfields hence increasing its revenues if peace is signed.

Other ways government can reduce its cost is implementing austerity measures. This must consider priority and necessity. This is an area where government can save money by reducing ministries, allowances for constitutional office holders, other expenses like business trips and even at high level executive can take pay cut.

Though this makes sense economically, it might not be politically correct and only the courageous can choose this path.

Again, if peace is achieved, those agencies, countries and individuals that peg their assistance on peace will be willing to help South Sudan.

It is important to stress that government as the care-taker of the people and regulator of private sector has constitutional mandate for a thriving and cohesive nation. This is why government actions must and should differ with those of the rebels in pursuing peace.

Finally, the last option for the government is to reform its institutions to reduce wastage and leakages. Taking into consideration the fact that these institutions are taking long to improve, it is a wishful thinking to believe these institutions can be reformed within short time to help in public revenue generation and management to curb already threatening economic collapse.

The President in his recent Speech on SPLM public rally, called for improvement in local revenues generation. Though the President didn’t mentioned any specific reforms, he further cautioned the public that fixing the economy will not happen overnight.

Probably a confirmation of long walk in reforming public sector and the reason why this is not the easy fix option for the current crisis.

From the foregoing analysis, first, revenue increase is not attainable, except when peace is signed, and oil is put back in the pipelines in Unity and Tharjath; second, cost reduction can only happen when peace is signed but this is not absolute as rebels are expected to come with huge army but again, there are gains that can offset this cost.

Signing peace restores oil production and goodwill of development partners and international community, a benefit that might offset with additional cost from expected huge rebel army; and, finally institution reforms to stamp out wastages and leakages, is not attainable with current public service cadres but again, even if it was achievable, it will not assist in addressing this crisis in the short run.

As care-taker of the people and regulator of private sector, government got to support firms and households from life-threatening inflation, pound depreciation and hunger. It seems to me with its current revenues envelop, the government is helpless and that is why peace is the only viable option to insulate from imminent economic collapse.

Many analysts and advisors look at devaluation of the pound as an option to merge black market with official rate but this is big nonsense as this will not address key issue of supply which is always less than demand at official rate.

Dollars access at official rate is not enough, many businessmen have now increased their prices to reflect black market prices. What option does the government have, nothing more than peace.

Firms are in declining economy, their expected rational behavior is to cut back on investment, and lay off staffs all these reduces money in the pockets of individual and government. This accelerates contraction in the economy and increases misery to public.

As it stands now, South Sudan is facing dangerous economic outlook. It is high time South Sudanese academic, civil society, media and professional citizens take responsibility by highlighting the dangerous a head, encourage both sides to the conflict to compromise for the sake of the people and the nation.

The Vulnerability is not only internal, already Sudan is taking advantage in Abyei and bombing South Sudan territories, Kenya is eyeing Ilemi triangle. Uganda is thinking on encroaching on parts of Central Equatoria and Sudan is doing something similar with South Sudan’s undefined borders.

Exposure is not only in economic but in so many aspects which is going to affect South Sudan negatively. No wonder they say unity is strength.

Conclusion and recommendations
The government has tough choices to make, resolving challenges ahead requires unusual wisdom and courage. Government with mandate to take care of the people and private sector, got to think beyond constitutionality but about human concern. Both government and rebel must put the interests of their subjects above their interest.

With all the wisdom and witty human brain, South Sudan options are not many. Only limited to peace or a military win within a blink of an eye but again with world holding Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) before the eyes of warring parties and crime against humanity behind CoH, war is not without exposure too.

So we know the road, peace, military win or economic collapse. The citizens can watch as both parties take decisions.

Garang Atem Ayiik is an independent economic commentator and can be reached garangatemayiik@gmail.com.

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 riangzuor@yahoo.com

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 simonyel55@yahoo.com or 0955246235.