Category: More Views

South Sudan: The Country needs responsible opinion writers at this stage and NOT the “Isaiah Abraham” type!

BY: Justin Ambago Ramba, UK, DEC/01/2012, SSN;

The absence of a free press in the new republic of South Sudan can’t be over-stressed while the incumbent totalitarian SPLM-led government continues to silence all its critics by openly beating them up in the streets and locking them incommunicado in the countless ghost houses run by state security agents.

The end result of living and writing under such environments where basic human rights and the freedom to express an opinion is simply not there, many weak-hearted opinion writers have chosen to write under some false names. A case in question here, is this prolific opinion writer none other but the so-called “Isaiah Abraham!”

What is this “Isaiah Abraham” who claims to write from Juba, the capital of South Sudan when he can go at length to bluntly point out some of the governments shortcomings? But obviously of course he only does it in well selected cases and in a style that confuses every reader? However there are times when “Isaiah Abraham” has said more than his share as compared to others who were arrested, tortured and even had their papers shut down for issues far more trivial.

So who is this “Isaiah Abraham” who is free to say anything about the SPLM-led government and even at times direct personal attacks at President Salva Kiir Mayardit himself and remain untouched by the security agents who are known for their zero tolerance for these kinds of issues?

One thing is for certain and that “Isaiah Abraham” is an agent of ‘political distraction’ and many theories have already been suggested and put forward to give a face to this “King of Distraction.” With the best possibilities, he the so-called Isaiah Abraham is a hired-pen recruited by the same corrupt regime to distract the peoples’ attention at certain particular times. Many might have noticed this as well!

But in another equally competing case scenario, Mr. “Isaiah Abraham” is nothing but a “media clown” and a one that suffers from acute dementia for as he writes, he too often than not forgets to link up his issues and ideas. Can anyone tell me that they had read any of this writer’s articles and never got struck by the too many inconsistencies that poked them right in the eye?!

Hence as responsible citizens, the so-called intellectual community of South Sudan and those concerned about the welfare of this young nation, you all have the moral duty to stand firm in the face of this weird writer.

Having said this, it’s indeed my deeply held personal belief that the freedom of expression should be granted to ALL for it is part and package of their human rights. In other words I am not in any way trying to silence “Isaiah Abraham,” but I would rather suggest that he commands some degree of courage and comes out to his readers with his true name and identity.

Whatever he is and wherever he comes from, this writer (“Isaiah Abraham”) needs to respect our collective minds by remembering this simple fact that his written opinions are being read by people who enjoy some degree of reasoning capacity. Let us face it since I haven’t doubted for even a single second that an average person who reads and follows up political opinions in the media is obviously a matured and a learned person! And they deserve every writers respect. Don’t you agree?!!

There are many issues of controversy in “Isaiah Abraham’s” opinion article that appeared under the title of ‘Sudan should allow the flow of South Sudan’s Oil,’ dated November 19th 2012, (http://www.southsudannation.com/sudan-should-allow-south-sud…)

In this article the author seemed to have intentionally chosen to confuse his readers in almost every line that he wrote. He also seemed to be having trouble struggling with how to appear balanced in the eyes of the authorities in the higher offices of the country given the ‘beat first then investigate later’ culture currently prevailing in the new country.

Whatever the reasons behind “Isaiah’s” weird attitude in that particular article and no doubt it also showed up in many of his previous writings, it’s not working well for him because by saying the positive and the negative at the same time in the futile attempt to appease those in power across the two Sudans’ political divide, everything in his articles was unfortunately watered down, if not totally compromised. Could it be that the writer is suffering from some kind of a deeply rooted hypocrisy or is it a manifestation of opportunism?

By trying to naively praise president al Bashir of the Sudan and flatter him by singling him out as a hero who facilitated the independence of South Sudan, that to me doesn’t in any way a patriotic gesture. To say the least if anything it only suggests the kind of behavior that constitutes the popular African adage of ‘colonial hangover.’

Before we go any further, please let me put this crucial question across: What does South Sudan stands to benefit from these kinds of writings full of flattery as it has always been the case with “Isaiah Abraham” when he compulsively misinforms and mis-educates our children to an extent that he wants them to believe that this very al Bashir who killed our people in their millions is also at the same time our Redeemer?

Is it not this same Al Bashir who solely joined the Sudan Armed Forces and graduated from the Sudan Military College with a Diploma as a qualified killer? He then went on to wage war in which well over three million South Sudanese and other indigenous African people from the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile Region and the Western Province of Darfur lost their lives, a crime to which he is still to answer in the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

My dear reader, I think it’s worth reading this quotation from the writing of this undoubtedly confused “Isaiah Abraham” and I quote:

“President Omar Al Bashir would be received in Juba with pomp and dances if ever the well-publicized and politicized visit will take place.” Isaiah wrote. (SSN 22 November 2012)

“President Al Bashir is respected here and shall continue to enjoy being respected because of his Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) with our hero Dr. John Garang de Mabior. No Northern politician has that gut like that of Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir.” He went on to add!

As matured citizens of this new country, we already know that no future will be easy with our northern neighbors without me going into any specifications. It is our history and as we jointly made it, we too jointly own it.

What he (Isaiah Abraham) refers to as ‘the threat to South Sudan’s Oil exportation by Khartoum’ being real, is indeed true. But the real question is: Is it a new development that “Isaiah Abraham” has just come to understand now and only now? Or is Khartoum’s continued undermining of the South Sudan’s Independent sovereignty by any means a new phenomenon that has never become clear to him (Isaiah Abraham) up to now?

By Mr. “Isaiah’s” own confession the leadership in South Sudan is weak. Here I quote him again:

“Dr. Lam must not deceive himself that our people will surrender to the North again. It is only here that we have a weak leader who is led, we couldn’t have given away Panthou, Hofra Al Nahas, Kafi Kingi, Warawar/Mile 14 and Abyei.” This what Isaiah wrote in his article? (SSN 22/November 2012)

This confusing, confused and partial columnist, although a prolific writer seems to behave as if he alone owns the sole right to opine in the whole of the republic of South Sudan. One wonders as to whether this writer as inconsistent as he is, does actually write independently or is he a pen in the market?

For how does “Isaiah” consider himself the rightful person to point out the weakness in the leadership in South Sudan as it clearly appears in the above quoted lines of his, while at the same time he smears all others as being traitors and thus non patriotic, whenever they choose to exercise the same rights? If this is what he and his type used to do during the bush-war days, then they better sober up for times have indeed changed.

The other argument here is how on earth this Mr. No direction wants to rally the people of South Sudan behind the very leadership that he has categorically designated as weak? In “Isaiah’s” own words the weakness in South Sudan’s leadership is so huge that it led to the loss of territories, the latest being the Mile 14 Area. But as if to confirm his hypocrisy and flattery, we can still read about Isaiah’s loyalty to the same system.

Where does this leave us, my dear readers? Does “Isaiah” take the people of South Sudan as his herd of goats that he can direct at wish? What our confused friend has seemingly dedicated his life to promote can only operate and be understood in the context of some secretly brewing political dispensation which his behaviors and writings are about to betray

To fully understand the above, we will need to jointly revisit these lines that I quote from the writer’s article:

“We must rally as people of South Sudan behind our president and stop traitors from undoing our gains. We will not bow down to Khartoum’s moves. It is better we die with dignity than return to the wilderness under Khartoum. We are better off without food on our tables.” Isaiah Abraham wrote!

Exactly if this what Mr. “Isaiah Abraham” wants the leadership in South Sudan to do, then all he has to do is to join the citizens of Northern Bahr Ghazal in their ‘No Recognition’ of the 27th September so-called Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement over the inclusion of the Mile 14 Area in the suggested ‘Demilitarized Zone’ and stop lecturing us that South Sudanese are ready to dance and sing for Omer al Bashir should this wanted criminal put his feet in Juba.

In his own obsession “Mr. Abraham” went on to claim that Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin of the SPLM-DC is behind the non-implementation of the Cooperation Agreement between Juba & Khartoum. In short he wants to rally public opinion to support his own laid and hatched theory that the main reason behind Khartoum’s unwillingness to allow the flow of the South Sudan Oil through its territory squarely rests with Dr. Lam Akol’s political aspirations and ambitions. What an oversimplification of issues solely driven by tribal politics?!!

This is exactly where he (Isaiah) got it terribly wrong and it only explains how he (Isaiah) and his types have become so paranoid of the so-called Dr. Lam’s assumed intentions to overthrow the incumbent government of South Sudan. Is it something that can happen that lightly and overnight?

If we are to put “Isaiah’s” proposition to test using his own logic as presented in his article then Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin should in fact be happy to see the Oil from the republic of South Sudan get exported through Port Sudan and not block it. For by the same logic a savvy politician of Dr. Lam’s caliber cannot be expected to bite the very hand that feeds him, assuming that he is indeed an NCP ally for that matter!!

Let me say this to you, my dear readers about Dr. Lam’s position on the Oil exportation issue; however before I do that I would like first to inform you about my own position on the issue, then we can make informed comparisons.

My position on the exportation of South Sudan’s Oil has since been made public through my many writings. I strongly believe that the true Independence of South Sudan can only come about through economic disengagement between Juba and Khartoum. I also maintain that for as long as Juba continues to depend on Khartoum, and how minimal that dependency maybe, then South Sudan is not yet Uhuru! I will continue to stand by my belief and continue to propagate for it, for it is indeed a noble stand!

Coming to Dr. Lam’s stand and I quote from the man’s mouth: “South Sudan’s Oil stands a better chance if it is to be exported through Port Sudan as the cost of doing that will by-far remain cheaper than if new pipelines are to be constructed either through Ethiopia to Djibouti or through Kenya to the Indian Ocean. This position is not any different from the ones reverted to by the ruling SPLM Oyee leaders in Juba. And now it even includes Mr. “Isaiah Abraham” who is more than willing to spend a whole day dancing and singing for Omer al Bashir in return for exporting South Sudan’s Oil through Khartoum.

On the other hand the realities on the ground have convinced the Western governments and those who call themselves the friends of South Sudan that the new country is on the verge of economic collapse if Oil export is not resuming immediately. Where many of them cannot even differentiate between the SPLM as a political party and South Sudan as a country, the drama becomes even too bigger to withstand.

The bottom line now is that the SPLM-led government in Juba due to its failure to raise the necessary funds is not capable of achieving the dream of constructing any alternate pipeline for exporting the country’s Oil through the proposed route of Kenya or Djibouti.

To save the already dire situation in both the Sudans, the US administration and the international community suggested that Juba and Khartoum should patch up their differences and amongst many other things should immediately resume the export of South Sudan’s Oil through the territory of Sudan.

In short, that was how the Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement [CCA] between SPLM and NCP came into being.

However, at this particular point in time the NCP-led government in Khartoum has other urgent priorities and that’s to crack down on the growing home brewed dissent within its ranks. Oil transit and normalization with the republic of south Sudan though import but is no longer the ideal panacea to stabilize the al Bashir’s wing of the NCP to hold fast on power as it could have done some few months ago.

Things don’t even stop there for today as it stands (the current political uncertainties and the imminent security threats from old buddies to the very existence of al Bashir in power, the 27th September 2012 Cooperation Agreement between SPLM and the NCP is even now seen by al Bashir’s loyalists as a ploy likely to aggravate the already volatile situation on the ground than help ease it.

The whole world is aware and especially so the US administration that Juba has better relations with the rebels of the Sudan Revolutionary Front (the new alliance formed from the SPLM-North and the different Darfuri rebel factions) than it has with Khartoum, just like Khartoum has better relations with the Hamas regime in Gaza than it has with Juba.

The two countries are now interlocked in what can be described as an ideological tug of war by design. Khartoum which clearly is not in any hurry to implement the CCA with Juba will continue to drag its foot on the agreement. It knows too well that Juba will NEVER sell-out its comrades in the Nuba Mountains or the Blue Nile Region, but this is one good thing that it [Khartoum] intends to use at will in order to disrupt any attempts to normalize with South Sudan.

Realistically speaking this latest Addis Ababa CCA was a still-born truce, and even the attempts by the AU or the UNSC or even the US administration to resuscitate it is definitely a waste of resources. It’s only a naive minded like “Isaiah Abraham” who will continue to raise people’s hopes that there will be an easy breakthrough any soon.

As things with the Sudan under the NCP Islamists and currently joined by ultra-nationalist like the ‘First State Uncle’ al Maybe Mustafa, of the Just Peace Party JPP), the relationship between Khartoum and Juba maybe not even improve within the lifetime of these current regimes across the two Sudans’ political divide.

Soon the two neighbors may enter a state of no-war-no-peace and then things may from there get frozen pulling the two countries into a propaganda war and subversive activities across the existing ill-defined borders for maybe some decades to come or even forever. It’s for this very reason that our pathetic leaders should be brought to understand that they better prepare themselves for a long economic drought and readjust accordingly by opening up to democracy and more freedoms.

But most importantly it must be remembered that throughout the human history failed economies are notoriously known for shortening the life spans of governments worldwide and neither Juba nor Khartoum will be exempted.

So instead of apologists like Mr. “Isaiah Abraham” wasting their writings in sub-standard spins, they will do much good to themselves and the country by propagating for a democratic system that can see a peaceful transfer of power as determined and thus necessitated by the evolving realities of the day.

Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. Secretary General of the United South Sudan Party (USSP). He can be reached at: justinramba@aol.co.uk or justinramba@doctors.net.uk

Open Letter To Pres. Kiir: Is this current South Sudan the Country we fought for since 1955?

BY: Bol Garang de Bol, CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA, NOV. 27/2012, SSN;

Your Excellency, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, General Salva Kiir Mayardit, as you may be aware, although our request, advice, opinions seem to be ignored by you and your Ministers, we will not abandon our responsibilities as citizens of South Sudan to let our voices be heard. I write to you or about you not to attacking your policies or interventions either in the present or in the past.

However, on this occasion, I am writing to you to let you know that many South Sudanese including myself still believed that there was still South Sudan, our country, which we had once fought for, our freedom, democracy. But where is it now?

The aim of this article is to ask you to use your powers and position to tackle the issue of ethnic cleansing through parliament and in your cabinet. There are two distinct issues in connection with political turmoil in South Sudan that has claimed at least an estimated 120,000 lives since 2005 and displaced more than 250,000 people.

The failure of government to address corruption and violence that has transmuted into ethnic cleansing across the country are the biggest issues facing South Sudan. The second issue has alarmed the entire international community because the world views it as the way Rwanda genocide began.

Your Excellency, President Salva, over the last seven years, I have always dreamt that one day, a single God or a group of gods will come and solve South Sudan’s problems. In the process of waiting for these gods, I have realized and even learnt that the New Nation’s
biggest problem is the dangerous mind-set of our people, yours and mine inclusive which needs no superman to solve because I/we and you can do it.

Ending the political violence and ethnic cleansing must be accorded the top priority for two reasons or more. First, a stolen verdict can be fixed in a year or two but it will take decades or a generation to fix a country destroyed by ethnic violence. If, I may recall that the collapse of South Sudan began in 2005 immediately after the death of Dr. John Garang de Mabior. The country used to be part of old Sudan has not recovered socially, economically and politically and it needs an estimated number of years to be rebuilt. It is so easy to destroy but formidable task to rebuild.

Second, ignoring ethnic violence is the major threat to nation security in our country and contributed to the failures of our country. The failure of government to delivery services to the people proved that the Republic of South Sudan is not the country we had fought for.

Mr. President, General Salva Kiir, during the 22 years of SPLA struggle, you, late Dr. John Garang, William Nyuon Bany, Dr. Riek Machar, Dr. Lam Akol, Commander, Arok Thon Arok, James Wani Igga, Kuol Manyang Juuk and many more always talked about an important country deserve to be liberated. Shall we wait for that country? Or you mean, the current South Sudan under your leadership is the country we had fought for?

If this newly independence South Sudan is the country we had fought for, the past years since our country signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) are characterized by a pile of disappointing experiences such as failures, let downs, state/rebel sponsored murders, torture, rape, forced-sodomy, social neglect and other awful experiences which many South Sudanese have had to endure, have caused a great deal of anger, hate, revenge-motives and the dangerous social divisions which exist in our societies.

These negative experiences have and continue to re-affirm old suspicions, doubts in the future, deepen mistrust, shatter hope and have now started producing even greater despair and this is not the country we had fought for or we proud to be citizens.

You and many politicians point at social capitalisation as the only way to redeem this country out of the dark abyss in which it is. And I agree that social factors most especially those which are negatively associated with health, cause disorganisation and disruption, perceived helplessness and lack of support, low educational attainment, and poverty.

In the same reasoning, I also posit that you cannot achieve these development goals when the majority of the people in our communities are angry, revengeful, hateful, and are waiting to carry-out their unfinished business.

In my opinion, I would argue that whilst there is a need for massive development projects which we all think that will develop our country, there is a need for all sections of the society to develop a new relationship which can take account of our importance to each other and which will also inculcate a reciprocal nature of our connection that will help to avoid a repeat of the painful past experiences which our people have endured.

Since June 12 1947, at the time of Juba Conference, South Sudan has not had the opportunity to address their past, neither have they ever addressed the pains it causes them. Our people have never healed because they have never been given the opportunity to heal. All they get is the threats of revenge, genocide, and hate by different aggrieved parties.

How can a society with hidden dirty feelings forge a united future without any remorseful spirit being coached between and amongst them?

President Jaafar Nimeiri used a wrong approach since he took over in a military coup in 1969 by only focusing on security and development and forgetting to help the nation to heal. President Nimeiri never gave the Sudanese the opportunity to bury the hatchet and to start a new emotional chapter since the signing of Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972.

The same mistake done by President Nimeiri is facing President Kiir Mayardit. By so doing, the current development in South Sudan may turn into dust.

Mr. President Salva, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that South Sudan needs an amnesty law which will help those who have perpetrated injustice to fellow South Sudanese to apologies and be forgiven unconditionally. This will help South Sudan to draw the line with their past, open a new chapter in their history and start re-building the nation all over again. I am fully aware of the expired amnesty law but this law only catered for recent events yet, the grievances of our people predate this period.

President Mayardit, to me and other advocates of social justice, it is very challenging, to sort out and work through the barriers which exist between the perpetrators of injustice, their victims, and the social political environment that inhibit progress. This has increasingly made it difficult for us to turn the painful experiences of our people into opportunities for growth and change.

However, I do have hope that this can happen because it occurred in South Africa and Kenya during Mau Mau War.

The positive experiences which this amnesty law shall bring will engender hope and trust, to the people of South Sudan. It will also convey a comforting sense of being understood and accepted to the changed-perpetrators of injustice. Mr. President, this desire is also true for people of South Sudan who keep asking questions about their experiences and getting no answers from the perpetrators of injustice.

At the same time, the perpetrators of injustice are very insecure and in one way of the other, their insecurity even drives them to carry out more injustice out of fear that people are out there waiting to kill them.

I do have a strong belief that healing will be brought about by the kind of forgiveness which will be protected by the amnesty law. By making such a huge political intervention, we will be able to address other issues such as health and social inequalities.

At the same time, we have to be mindful that if we do not support healing through forgiveness, we shall be fueling the continuous cycle of political and military abuse of our people’s human rights.

It will of paramount importance for our country and for all men and women of good will if my request meets your consideration. As such, the outright denial of bail for certain offences would constitute a fundamental breach of human rights which accord equal protection of the law to all.

Lastly, your Excellency, to add rioting to the list of the category of offences that should not be granted bail, assumes that all persons who may choose to peacefully demonstrate and voice opinion on matters affecting them are criminals. This will have the net effect of deterring South Sudan from exercising their fundamental human right to freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully.

The Executive arm of government, in simple term, your Ministers must respect and uphold the rule of law and that all organs of the Government are independent and free from interference.

The Government has to ensure that all criminal cases are dully investigated, prosecuted and that individual criminal responsibility is apportioned impartially without undue regard to an accused person’s political inclination. This will go a long way in eliminating impunity and will deter the wanton abuse of human rights by State and non-State actors.

Bol Garang de Bol is a South Sudanese living in Canberra, Australia. He can be reached at nicetobeme05@yahoo.com

Dr. Ambago Ramba: Mile 14 is different from Abyei

BY: DENG MANGOK AYUEL, AWEIL, NBGS, NOV. 14/2012, SSN;

One may wonder why Dr. Justin Ambago did politically compare Abyei issue with Mile 14 which was recently signed on 27 September, 2012 by the negotiating team to the surprise of Dinka Malual who own the land. In your article (SSNA, 3 November), as I quoted, “It only suffices here to say that any attempt by Khartoum to appease the Messeiriya warlords by blocking the Abyei Referendum, in the face of what is an unanimous decision by the AUPSC will definitely expose the regime to the wrath of the international community”.

On the other hand Juba may face a similar fate should it attempt to stroll an extra mile trying to appease General Paul Malong Awan, Governor of Northern Bahr Ghazal State as he and his people stand opposed to the inclusion of Mile 14 Area in the demilitarized zone.

However, Abyei has been a contested area and had stipulated in the CPA, 2005 to go for referendum but Khartoum didn’t respect the agreement before South Sudan became a country, 2011. Lately, Abyei shall have its referendum in 2013, inshalla!

Besides, Abyei is an area with huge population as inhabitants than mile 14 within the areas of Northern Bahr el Ghazal in Aweil North County, Gokmachar. The Ngok Dinka Area is currently political troublesome and a social limbo to settle in peaceful hand when coming to Sudanese ways of handling political issues.

Who is appeasing who on mile 14?

Well, mile 14 is geographically not a grazing land to Dinka or any Arab tribe but home to Dinka clans. Clearly, mile 14 is not the name of the area but miles proposed to be demilitarized zone within the parts of villages were people are partially residing. These miles in the south of Kiir River fall within the villages of Warguet in the East and Majook Diing Wol in the West.

I think you were not trying to say that mile 14 was proposed to be given to Sudan for replacement of Abyei when coming to the term “appeasement “as you put it. Besides, the boundary between Rezigaat and Dinka Malual was imposed by British colonial governors of Darfur and Bahr el Ghazal in 1924, but Dinka Malual didn’t accept the agreement that go beyond Kiir River.

After talks between Rezigaat and Dinka Malual’s chiefs, the Rezigaat and Beggara of South Darfur accepted that Kiir River and beyond, from Koot Ayeek, far north of Kiir River are Dinka Malual’s land. The Rezigaat has been continuously coming to our land with their animals in search of water or grazing, through understanding or agreement with local authority; they have had shown that this land, Kiir River and extended areas belong to Dinka Malual.

Who are Ngok Dinka and Abyei Area?

The issue of Abyei is big but deserves proper analysis when compared to mile 14. Yeah, Abyei is the land of Ngok Dinka of Bahr el Ghazal region. It has been the most disputed area in the history of our generation. The dispute over the Abyei Area has been the most volatile aspect of Sudan’s 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and risk unraveling that increasingly shaky deal.

The CPA, 2005 granted the disputed territory, which has a significant percentage of Sudan’s oil reserves, a special administrative status under the presidency. Considered a historical bridge between Sudan and South Sudan, the Abyei Area has had previously been considered part of the larger Abyei District within state of South Kordofan because it was transferred. Under the terms of the Abyei Protocol in the CPA, 2005, the Abyei Area was declared, on an interim basis, to be simultaneously part of the states of South Kordofan and Northern Bahr el Ghazal.

In contrast to the border of the former district, the Abyei Protocol defined the Abyei Area as “the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905. Whenever I talk of Abyei as a South Sudanese, I don’t like to bring Messiryia to the attention of my readers in my writings.

Messiryia tribe doesn’t have land in South Sudan. Messiryia tribes are neighboring pastoralist population whose large traditional home area lies to the north of Abyei with Muglad as its principal town. They have had been residing in Abyei for decades but pastoralists from Kordofan, no wonder if the land of Ngok Dinka goes back to South Sudan through referendum in 2013, then individual Messiryia tribe members may decide to go to Sudan or stay in Abyei as nobody is expelling them.

Where Messiryia tribes come from in Sudan?

The Messiryia tribes are known also under the name of Messeiriya Arabs as a branch of the Baggara Arab tribes. They are originally from Kordofan. The main divisions of Messeiriya in Kordofan are Messiryia Zurug and Messiryia Humr. However, in Sudan today, still they are called Messeiriya Humr and Messiryia Zurug and they acknowledge their common history and ancestry.

Hence, I would like to assure Dr. Ambago that mile 14 and extended miles belong to Dinka Malual; there is no logical reason as to why you call it an “appeasement” if the government attempts to stroll extra miles of Dinka Malual and eloquently stated that Dinka Malual is opposing the move.

And who gave this land to Sudan? It was signed by negotiators. Some of Dinka Malual’s elders and intellectuals were consulted after a mess. I call it a mess because the land owner was excluded during negotiation. That is why you regarded us as opposition.

The political situation between Sudan and South Sudan deserves literal dialogue and mediation than appeasement since NCP leadership with its leader who had been indicted by ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity is like a wounded lion. Khartoum is politically sick and the international community and AUPSC shall be its medical doctors. At least, South Sudanese are free from Khartoum’s political headache.

Deng Mangok Ayuel is the citizen of Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, Aweil. He can be reached at mangokson@gmail.com

South Sudan: One year of turbulent survival, what next for a successful State?

BY: Beny Gideon Mabor, JUBA, NOV. 12/2012, SSN;
The Republic of South Sudan got independence on July 9, 2011 exactly one year and three months ago, but however, what next after independence? The Republic of South Sudan has a lot of similarities with the powerful Jewish State of Israel right from oppression to resources and the Jewish common identity worldwide. How Israel got independence compared to South Sudan?

Now,, how did Israel establish their state from scratch with such lowest population, an enemy of the whole Arab world and a lot of challenges of nation building?

Thus, what can the Republic of South Sudan learn from Jewish State of Israel? A country that is one year old with a turbulent survival, what next is the agenda of nation building in the Republic of South Sudan? I am afraid that these questions will not meet correct answers but we pray for the best from the relevant actors.

The Republic does not mean physical symbols such as National Flag, National Anthem or any organ but a country must lay down tasks for nation building which the government officials and the general public fully implement to be a successful state. These tasks are spelt out in the Constitution and subsidiary legislation to include inter alia, strict accountability, transparency, rule of law, delivery of fundamental services to the people, protection of lives and properties, infrastructural development and protection of territorial integrity and the list is long.

These tasks will not be achieved in South Sudan unless there developed an enabling strategic development plan or task by qualified people deployed to the respective institutions at all levels and then followed a political will to implement them.

In the Republic of South Sudan, quite uniquely, it has proven difficult to implement accountability amongst other elements of good governance to hold into account for somebody in power with malpractice. A case in point is 75 high profile individuals alleged to be behind painful loss of 4 billion US dollars. The 75 accused persons and other categories accused of corruption related offences are seen to have certain blanket immunity, a protection that is nowhere to be found in our laws. Yet, they enjoy comfort of such accusation despite a public outcry to weed them out in the government and be held accountable because they lost credibility before the law and the general public.

Why accountability does matter a lot? It is simply because accountability is the very fountain of democratic government worldwide. For example the world newest nation in accordance with the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 stipulates that South Sudan is established and governed on the basis of a decentralized democratic system and is an all-embracing homeland for its people. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-racial entity where such diversities
peacefully co-exist.

In order to swallow such bitter trust, the political stability of South Sudan will rest on the direction of SPLM ruling party through its internal democratic reform. The SPLM-led government, however, must allow political space for other political parties, civil society organizations and media to operate without intimidation.

A tangible achievement of freedom of speech is so far scored by the SPLM-led Government but a lot needs to be done more specially on the legal framework and peaceful environment for a multi-party politics.

The legal framework should include that the SPLM-led government cancel the executive and legislative participation of other political parties in the government, except parliamentarians elected. This is to enable other political parties play an oversight function of opposition politics.

There is no any basis upon which other political parties are included in the government when there is no coalition agreement. The only manner in which other political parties assume power is for the government of the day to give them the said political space in order to campaign for elections with their parties ideologies and manifestos unlike that of the ruling party.

However, my good intention is to avoid conflict of interest because a party cannot criticize a government with whom you are a part and have collective responsibility and at the same time an opposition. Thanks to other political parties who were either not consulted for inclusion or rejected an inclusion.

With this piece of analysis on our current issues, the critical questions come: What is the expectation of the general public with
regard to the management of resources that shall now be accruing from the cooperation agreement with Sudan and indeed the oil proceeds?

First, the new resources need complete new face of the government under President Mayardit with renewed promise from the top leadership down to the lower administration to ensure equitable allocation of resources in the next 42 months of the cooperation agreement and beyond.

The general public needs no return to previous history in the management of national affairs but demanding the political leadership and other relevant stakeholders a real business of nation building.

The second most prioritized agenda is peace and security of people and resources. The government must look into some key elements in
understanding security situation analysis specially the ability to quickly read a conflict or insecurity early warning in our communities and to apprehend such escalation by immediate application of operational and structural prevention. This proactive approach is in line with Article 36 (3) of the Transitional Constitution which says The security and welfare of the people of South Sudan shall be the primary duty of all levels of government.

The third priority is the diversification of non-oil revenues. In the past, Sudan was said to be breadbasket of the world. In fact, it is South Sudan which is the real breadbasket of the world and therefore the government must now focus on developing agriculture and other natural resources to meet the concept of sustainable development for present and future generations.

Last but not least is the economic austerity measure. The austerity measures cannot be applied to a growing economy leave alone subsistence economy like South Sudan whose economic status is basically meant for survival. In a stringent financial term, austerity measures are only applicable in a developed economy. Therefore the adoption of austerity measures in South Sudan was misplaced and there is high need to reverse it.

How can government impose austerity measures when our nascent state regardless of rich agricultural land and natural resources never produces even local products or the people have seemingly refused to work?

We have achieved independence and handed it over to foreigners, a subject to be addressed separately. We are totally consuming imported goods and services.

With the austerity measures now in place, the government and the public could not benefit anything because no reserves were saved to be protected or significantly used for the said austerity period. But rather both suffered with daunting economic challenges that the
diplomatic missions intervened and advised political leaders in both countries to sign a cooperation agreement.

In South Sudan unlike neighboring Sudan, life is so expensive as a result of high prices for such imported goods and services and we have no option than to adhere to the economical principle of opportunity cost at the expense of other important services.

With these few words, I am of the opinion that South Sudan does not have such huge workforce in the public sector that the government may impose some public service arrangements such as downsizing. We really need more teachers, more doctors, engineers and development oriented strategists at all sectors of a promising developing state, provided that such recruitments are done on the merit of qualification and national interest to save the Republic of South Sudan.

Beny Gideon Mabor is an independent commentator on politics and governance. He can be reach thro: benygmabor@gmail.com or call
+211-955812788

Beny Gideon Mabor,
Tel:+211955812788/+211928879891

South Sudan: To Either Abide With Human Rights and Cooperate with the UNMISS or Quit the UN Family All Together!

BY: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, UK, NOV. 10/2012, SSN;

Following the expulsion of the UNMISS Human Rights Investigator, Sandra Beidas (a British National), from South Sudan, this new country seems to have opened yet another chapter in a wider confrontation with the international community.

This development surprisingly comes at a time when the very Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation who declared Ms. Beidas a persona non grata is desperately appealing for international assistance in settling the Abyei question in the face of the difficulties to the yet to be consolidated Addis Ababa Cooperation Agreement recently inked between the Republic of South Sudan and the unpredictable regime in Khartoum.

However the ultimate reasons behind this move by South Sudan’s government which gave this UN Official no more than a period of 48 hours to leave the country have not yet been officially disclosed.

In the absence the government’s official version of the story, the vacuum in information has led to the widespread general speculation that the South Sudan’s ruling party the SPLM as well as its military wing, the SPLA have both been angered by a UN report that was pilled and published in August 2012. Now as things stand this speculation is gradually turning out to be right.

In that report the UN came out criticizing the South Sudan army (SPLA) and accused it of incidents of torture, rape, killings and abducting civilians during the civilian disarmament campaign in South Sudan’s Jonglei State.

Earlier on, this very report which raised a lot of controversy had already been rejected by the Governor of Jonglei State. The Chairperson of the South Sudan’s Human Rights Commission and The SPLA spokesperson,were quick in joining the Governor in condemning the UN Report that they all described as a bunch of lies and a 100% nonsense.

The current situation on the ground

The issues of who decides policies in the new republic of South Sudan have since long surfaced as a central concern for both its citizens and its government of the day. Equally concerned with the matter are the countless institutions that represent the international community, the foreign governments and all the other stakeholders who operate in the country.

It’s no longer a secret that although on the face value all political and socioeconomic players in the country prefer to be seen as operating under the instructions of the de jure political leadership of President Salva Kiir Mayardit, yet the realities at the terminals where policies are eventually translated into actions, things tend to suggest the contrary as multiple de facto deal sealers continue to dominate the scene.

The new country’s army, the SPLA has already had two bitter military confrontations with its traditional rival, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF). The first was over Abyei, where a SPLA soldier was alleged to have started the shooting at a time when the SAF were at the point of withdrawal from the area as requested by both the UNSC and the AU. What followed thereafter was a full blown battle and it resulted in the total destruction of Abyei town, and the neighbouring villages with displacement of the inhabitants.

The second battle between SPLA the SAF was the Panthou/Heglig war and again it was obvious that this was equally decided by a field commander in response to recurrent SAF attacks on SPLA positions. Unfortunately while the government of south Sudan was far from prepared for this war in as far as the political and diplomatic ground works are concerned, knee jerk decision taken by this field commander almost dragged the region into yet another unplanned all-out war.

Where we stand now as a country it can no longer be denied that this last military showdown with the North is actually behind the legacy that we are living today as it drew in a lot of international condemnation, more so from friends before the enemies.

Back in Juba the SPLM led and dominated government was too slow to explain nor defend its position in as far as the accusations by the international community where Juba was considered not only the aggressor, but also condemned for occupying a foreign territory, as it failed to convince both the US administration, the African Union (AU) and the UN Security Council (UNSC) about its claim on Panthou/Heglig.

With a weak foreign policy and the absence of a competent and robust diplomatic representation in New York, South Sudan was easily muzzled into accepting the UNSC’s position that considered the presence of the SPLA troops in Panthou/Heglig illegal. And before we knew anything, the once victorious SPLA was ordered to pull out and hand the land they so fiercely fought for back to the enemies in Khartoum.

Another incidence where the SPLM led administration in Juba is seen to be weak when it comes to dealing with the SPLA ( the Military) is in fact how the financial books at the Bilpham military Head Quarters continuously escapes the auditing process that has long started in the country.

The Auditor General Hon. Steven Wundu is yet to present to the South Sudan National Parliament the full findings on the finances of the President’s Office, the Ministry of Presidential Affairs and that of the Ministry of Defense.

Till such a report is presented by the Auditor General, our country’s transparency policy will remain at its best a mockery. There are general feelings that any financial auditing of the above centers of power are likely to reveal corruptions that will no doubt dwarf the missing $4 billion being used by the President as his favorite weapon against some of his former and current officials.

The fall out with the UN:

Besides the United Nations (UN) involvement with the Humanitarian Assistance to South Sudan during the long years of the protracted liberation war and well beyond the cease fire between the two enemies to the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA), this International League of Nations continues to assist South Sudan as it emerges from the rubble of war to become a new nation with full membership in the League.

Today as we hear about the widespread news of how the SPLM led government in Juba has fallen out with some officials of the United Nation Mission in South Sudan (the UNMISS) it may however be a good thing to refresh our collective memories about how the country ended up with these Blue Helmets on the ground in the first place and how it all developed to Chapter VII thereafter.

Things all started during the early phases of the marathon peace talks between SPLM and the Islamic regime in Khartoum that took place in Kenya between 2002 and 2005.

It was in fact the SPLM/A delegation to the Peace Talks who insisted on the deployment of a UN Peacekeeping Force in the country, while the Khartoum government had consistently opposed the idea.

How much did this UN Peacekeeping Force contribute to the actual realization and preservation of Peace in the period between 2005 and 2011 is left for the Sudanese across the political divide to assess.

Following the outcome of the referendum on self-determination in which South Sudanese overwhelmingly chose independence from Sudan, it was again the SPLM led government in Juba that insisted on retaining the UN Peacekeeping Forces on its territory while Khartoum opted to send them out, and this was how UNMISS came to exist in the post-independence South Sudan.

The general resentment being lately expressed by some segments of the South Sudan government against the UNMISS are in fact to some extend based on narrow party, tribal or personal interests.

It is the leadership in Juba that has failed the people of South Sudan by employing incompetent loyalist and tribesmen in the government apparatus.

Unfortunately when things go bad, something often expected of a substandard personnel, this very SPLM led government and its apologists are quick to sing their monotonous and over used song of “we are just starting from scratch or We have just come from the bush etc… etc.”

Unfortunately although the above excuses are being used in order to escape criticism, what the ruling SPLM party fails to see is that in so doing they have also painted a bad picture of not only the government but also of the country.

Under this type of impression South Sudanese are either collectively seen by outsiders as incompetent people or often loosely referred to as lazy and largely a people suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of the two decade war. It is this impression that encourages foreigners to feel justified when they meddle into the country’s affairs. After all it has been directly taken from the mouth of either the president of the country himself or his close aides.

The repercussion of expelling the UN Human Rights Officer:

What took place right from the time of when the CPA was being negotiated and throughout its implementation the SPLM/A dominated delegations that represented the people of South Sudan have demonstrated that when it comes to international politics, they are indeed far naive than their counterparts on the other side if not for the continuous assistance from the international community..

It is they the SPLM) who handed the sovereignty of the state to the international community. It’s understandable that they did it in order to keep Khartoum away from reneging on the agreement and equally to guarantee a credible monitoring for its implementation. The introduction of the UN Chapter VII into the South Sudan & Sudan/UN politics if anything it is a strong proof that the UNSC is keen to see that Peace, Order, the Rule of Law and full respect of Human Rights return and prevail in South Sudan first then the region a large.

But now that Juba is increasingly becoming uncomfortable with the UNMISS which it fought to have in the first place, then it’s likely that it will lose many of its friends who are not only permanent members of the UNSC, but they also played crucial roles in the realization of the independence of the new country.

The UNMISS boss herself a former government minister in her native country of Norway has been known for her strong ties with the ruling SPLM since the days of the liberation war and throughout the marathon negotiations that led to the signing of the CPA.

Today as things stand in Juba, it will not be an over statement to say that the very SPLM/A that benefitted from her support in the past, is now at the verge of openly label her as persona non grata if she doesn’t stop talking about SPLM and SPLA’s poor Human Rights records and the widespread corruption that has lately engulfed the new country in its entirety.

The US government on the other hand has already come up to openly condemn the expulsion of the UNMISS Officer. The Acting Spokes son at the US State Department, has made it abundantly clear that his government fully supports the UNMISS and its efforts to strengthen government institutions, provide humanitarian relief, and to monitor, mitigate and prevent conflict throughout South Sudan.

The Senior US Official went on to stress that and I quote:

“Human rights monitoring, investigation and reporting are core elements of the UNMISS mandate. It is important that the Mission’s Human Rights Officers are allowed to carry out this work without fear of reprisal or expulsion,” Toner said.

“Fostering deeper respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights will strengthen South Sudan’s democratic civil and national identity, as well as encourage further progress in that regard.” He added.

Reading the US government’s position on this issue and considering the fact that it has always been Ms. Susan Rice, the US Permanent Representative to the United Nation who time and time again stood with South Sudan in its disputes with the republic of the Sudan, one can see that this new country is likely to frustrate its intimate friends.

The issue of Human Rights will remain central in the South Sudan politics be it locally or internationally. Furthermore, whether this plays to the taste of those who formulate policies for this embattled SPLM led regime or not, one is certain that the country needs the UN more than the UN needs the country and especially so at this crucial moment when every thing is in tatters.

The SPLM led government in Juba may think itself smart when it is given the free hand to isolate the actions of UNMISS staff whom they disagree with and then proceed to deal with them as individuals often away from the mother organization, the United Nations in New York.

However let’s not forget to appreciate that these individuals on their own are just as effective as any of us. Nonetheless the UN must stand by its members of staff if it is to succeed in its mission specially so in volatile regions like South Sudan.

Allowing host governments to treat UN staff members as if they were just mere individuals in spite of the fact that these UN Reports do in fact represent the organization’s view doesn’t really go well and no specific individual staff should be crucified for it as if they are just ordinary attention seekers or people who represent no one but themselves.

For how long will this go on? Not too long the former UN Human Rights officer Benedict Sannoh was ruthlessly beaten up by the South Sudan police personnel in Juba, the new country’s seat of government, and now they have expelled yet another UN Human Rights Investigator. At the local level Members of the Civic Society, Journalists, Opposition Politicians and Human Rights Activities are routinely being harassed, beaten and continue to suffer arbitrary arrests by security personnel.

The world needs to act and fast. Otherwise for how long will the donor community continue to pour in its hard earned taxpayer’s money from the western countries into this system of governance that has failed to come into grips with the basic principles of Human Rights?

In conclusion there must be a way out of this new country’s Human Rights Crisis whether SPLM wants it or not. No country or any society for that matter should be allowed to terrorize its citizens by denying them what is easily taken for granted in most parts of the civilized world.

UNMISS is there to stay in South Sudan specially so when the current leadership needs to be re-cultivated into the universally accepted human values of democracy, freedom of speech, and Human Rights in its broadest term.

This can only be achieved by more resilient Human Rights activists on the ground, dedicated and motivated investigators and die hard propagators. I don’t mind if UNMISS is to cease all other activities in South Sudan and concentrated only on Human Rights, for that is the only way to build a peaceful and inclusive society on the rubble of the five decade war that has practically destroyed all the fabrics of humanity and civilization in this part of the world.

The other alternative available for the proud and arrogant SPLM leadership is of course to remain defiant and possibility quit the UN family of nations all together if they have the guts for that. Let us now see who will blink first, the SPLM led government of South Sudan or the UNMISS as backed by the UNSC and the international community at large!!!

Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. Secretary General of the United South Sudan Party (USSP). He can reached at: justinramba@aol.co.uk or justinramba@doctors.net.uk

People of South Sudan craving for good leadership in South Sudan

BY: SINDANI IRENEOUS SEBIT, NAIROBI, KENYA, NOV. 2/2012, SSN;
*I can hear them saying, I can hear them murmuring but their voice fail to become loud because of fear, intimidation, harassment, banishment, torture or imprisonment but they talk in their corners.*

South Sudan became independent on the 9th July 2012 following a long protracted war that claimed nearly 2 million lives. The declaration of the independence was welcome by all and was thought to usher in a long anticipated period of peace, tranquility, democracy, socio-economic development, transparency and accountability in addition to respect for individual rights.

However, the people of South Sudan are yet to begin reaping these products of independence. Instead what has emerged in the infant but resourceful country is unfortunate state of misrule, disunity, socio-economic stagnation and political upheavals. This is attributed to none other than the SPLM party that took the ruins of power following the rigged elections before the independence.

It is dreadful that in a young country like South Sudan, where the struggle for freedom took 23 years and claimed nearly 2 million lives, democracy and human rights, natural values and dignity have been stifled; corruption has become the order of the day creating few millionaires in Juba while the majority of the South Sudanese are wallowing in adjunct poverty.

Failure of the ruling SPLM party to lay good foundation for the progressive future of this young nation has left the people of South Sudan craving for good leadership; a leadership that can champion the future development of a united democratic South Sudan. It does not really matter where this salvation leadership comes from; be it SPLM itself, the opposition, the generals in the army, the civil society or the people themselves, it would be a welcome change.

The leadership the people are craving for is that which can bring unity and justice to the country and the people. The basic aim is to initiate reconciliation and harmony among the various tribes in South Sudan and to usher in democratic rule based on rule of law, transparency and accountability.

The people crave for leadership that can wrestle back South Sudan from the few elite and bourgeoisie in Juba who have used corruption, tribalism, nepotism and personal greed to exploit the vast resources of the country to enrich themselves while the socio-economic development of the country has stagnated.

The leadership that can give to the people of South Sudan the rights and voice to claim what is truthfully and rightly theirs and express themselves on issues affecting them and their society so that a country founded on democratic principles of unity, justice, equity, equality, transparency and accountability is firmly established and fostered.

It is my crystal ball strong perception that the overall motive of creating a leadership in a country lies on the belief that leadership should strive to foster socio-economic development of the people leading to material change in the lives of the people. This means the leadership must put in place and nurture policies that can raise the standards of the people of South Sudan instead of few individuals enjoying the resources.

As a result the people should then enjoy better living working conditions, better health and nutrition levels, good educational standards, reasonable income, more jobs and greater life expectancy. More so leadership should aim at expanding the range of economic and social services in South Sudan for the benefit of the poor and the entire population.

Due to the ineptitude of the government in South Sudan to realize these leadership qualities and attributes, the people have all inherent rights to crave for leadership that can focus on reduction and eventual elimination of poverty by equitably distributing the resources in South Sudan to meet the needs of all. A leadership that strives to provide health care for all, improve literacy levels in South Sudan and can spare no effort to make South Sudan a solidly united nation where insecurity becomes a thing of the past, freedom of ideas and expression is not suppressed.

Where strong self sustaining devolved government exists to serve the people, where the health system is strengthened to avoid the current health tourism practiced by the elite in Juba, where educational system is overhauled to ensure educational standards are improved and schools are properly managed to produce the much needed human resource of the future, where road, river and air infrastructure are built to facilitate fast movement of people and goods that can foster rapid economic development.

Where government is elected by the people, is for the people and managed by the people and where the parliament is not only independent but also works, judiciary is free from the executive manipulation and its independence is under the principles of checks and balances and indeed the separation of powers among the three arms of government is not perceived to exists but really exists and exercised.

This leadership that can usher in a peoples government that trusts the people, responds positively and promptly to their needs and cannot discriminate citizens according to tribe, race, gender, religion, age or political orientation; a leadership that lays emphasis on South Sudan nationalism, South Sudanese dignity, and their rights. These include the rights of the farmers, workers, the poor and the unemployed.

A leadership that can also focus on affirmative action to ensure equality and equity; a leadership that can work steadfastly to accelerate socio-economic growth that can be sustained and ensure that human resource development is sustained.

The people crave for leadership which is committed to guarantee freedom of expression, movement and right to live anywhere within the Republic and to own property legally; a leadership that can protect every South Sudanese and foreign national living within the borders of South Sudan.

Above all, the people crave for a leadership that can be inclusive, consultative, honest, transparent, accountable, progressive, open and accommodating.

The question is therefore, for how long can the people continue craving for this kind of leadership without realizing that they themselves can bring the leadership that they want? The time to stop craving is now and not tomorrow.

I think the coming elections should present the best opportune time for the people to bring a change in the country as you did during the referendum in South Sudan. Indeed your own destiny and that of the country is in your hands when you exercise your democratic right to choose the new leadership come the next elections.
(The views expressed above are solely those of the author and not of the website)

Sindani Ireneaus Sebit
Vosskaro2005@yahoo.com
Nairobi; Kenya

To Nuer Youth Executive: Why not join hands with other young people in the country?

BY: Tearz Ayuen, JUBA, OCT. 27/2012, SSN;
DEAR NUER YOUTH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: I read your press release in which you are calling for immediate release of your chairman, Peter Tut Hoth and SPLA Major General Simon Gatwec Dual, who got detained by the alleged Dinka security agents recently. In the press release, you also urge every Nuer in the government to resign from Salva Kiirs government. That is interesting!

You even *de-nuered* the SPLA Chief of General Staff, James Hoth Mai, for having not supported your cause. He must be thinking himself to death now, trying to figure out which tribe to relocate to. And whether there is any tribe willing to welcome him? Oh poor Mai!

Anyway,
What is Nuer Youth Executive?
Is it a political party?
Or is it a civil society organization?
What are its goals?
When was it formed?
Does the government recognize it?
What does it intend to achieve in the next 2 years, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years?
Where is it headquartered? – Its physical address?
Who funds your projects?

There is something I do not understand here. Your chairman was detained by the government, the very government a Nuer son is the second most powerful man. Besides, hundreds of Nuer sons are holding strategic positions in the government. So, what makes you think that the Dinka, the whole tribe of about 4 million people, is behind the arrest of Tut?

If the Dinka government was picking on Nuer youth at random, why did the military intelligence not pick Lam Tungwar or Manasseh Mathiang or any other Nuer youth? Why Peter Tut?

I am not sure if you are aware that there is a government, a democratically elected government that is running the affairs of South Sudan, with the help of a constitution. They call it South Sudan Transitional Constitution. It contains rules and regulations that guide the activities of the government and the citizens.

As a youth group of today, you cannot call for a release of an individual the government is holding over some sort of a crime. It is illegal. If you do, others will regard you as a tribal head. And you do not respect the constitution. But you can pressure the government to speed up the judicial process: trial, hearing. And that is if you are a registered institution.

Yes, threatening the authorities to release criminals is a guerrilla-war-era way of tackling issues of public concern, and is a bad idea at these critical times. Keep in mind that I am not saying Tut is guilty of whatever the government has accused him of, but I am just encouraging you to go it the proper channel.

Again, I am not saying you are an illegitimate group but I am afraid, I doubt your legitimacy. If you are a registered body of whatever kind and the government knows you, why do you tribalize the arrest of Tut to an extent of asking members of Nuer community to leave the government?

Here is a secret. You are not the only youth group that does not like the way the government is managing the affairs of South Sudan. The youth have a common enemy – the ruling SPLM party which is made up of our aunts and uncles. Do you not think it is about time every young South Sudanese ceases being a kuku, Murle or Anyuak?

Millions of youth are yearning for a change. Why can you not join hands for a bigger, stronger and smarter body that could act as a mouthpiece for all the young people in the country?

You have a beautiful name though… Nuer Youth Executive Council!
Yours sincerely,
Your brother from another tribe called South Sudan. Tearz Ayuen, a journalist based in Juba. Thanks.

North America’s Nuer Youth call for popular uprising

Press release
Nuer Community in Canada and USA
Date: 23/10/12, SSN;
After deliberating for three days, the intellectuals of Nuer community in Canada and USA composed of Youth, women and elders, came to the conclusion that the regime in Juba does not any longer represent the interests of the people of South Sudan because it has been busy implementing policies which target non-Dinka communities. The policies of extermination the regime in Juba employed started with the massacre of Shilluks in 2010 in Upper Nile State where the entire Shilluk Kingdom was burned to ashes. Up to now, Shilluk women are subject to rape and young men are arbitrarily detained without regard to law and due process. The mistreatment of Shilluks is documented by the US State Department in Country Report and nobody can question the ordeal our Shilluk brothers and sisters are going through in the hands of the rogue SPLA army commanded by war criminals.

The human rights abuses against innocent Murle people is well documented by UNMISS and Human Rights Watch. According to our sources, more than two thousands Murle women have been raped since the SPLA started disarmament in Jonglei state in May, 2012. The SPLA commander, Lt. Gen. Kuol Diem Kuol, is on record in defending mistreatment of Murle because he was given specific orders by Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit to use tactics which do not conform to international norms in the process of disarmament.

The raping of Murle women and the mistreatment of entire Murle community came about because Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir is on record saying that Murle people have infertility problem and the only way to increase their population by treating infertility is for SPLA army to rape their women. The SPLA army, which was sent to Murleland for disarmament, was given clear mandate, that is, raping Murle women was part of the treatment of infertility. Those who want to watch Gen. Kiir position on Murles infertility should go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhsQb8UR7AQ.

On October 14, 2012, Jonglei state MP from Murle community, Judi Jonglei Boyuris, rejected what he called the South Sudan armys (SPLA) treatment of members of the Murle ethnic group *as enemies* (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article44211). There is no question that the SPLA army in Murleland committed crimes against humanity in violation of the statute of International Criminal Court (ICC).

What remains is whether the international community would indict Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against an identifiable group like Murle. The SPLA leadership sent forces to Mureland with an intention of punishing them as MP Judi Jonglei Boyuris said. Unfortunately, the international community has let down Murle and up to now, Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir has not yet been indicted of committing war crimes.

On March, 30, 2012, the Nuer community in USA and Canada condemned the indiscriminate killings of ten Bari civilians in Komeru suburb of Juba between March, 4th and 5th. After conducting an investigation of the causes of the killings, the Nuer community concluded that the Bari civilians were deliberately targeted by members of the SPLA army because of their ethnicity. The investigation discovered that the land grabbers who defied demolition order of the State of Central Equatoria were acting under the orders of some SPLA generals who built houses in the same area that was supposed to be demolished.

The SPLA army land grabbers ordered the Dinka soldiers to shoot any member of Bari community to thwart the demolition order. The rationale for killing innocent Bari civilians was to contaminate the political environment in order to make it difficult for Central Equatoria State to carry out the demolition order.

RESOLUTION ON SUPPORTING THE NUER YOUTH IN JUBA
The leadership of the Nuer community in Canada and USA pledged its allegiance to Nuer Youth in South Sudan and agreed on the followings:

1. The executive leadership came to conclusion that the government of Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit has a policy to eliminate Nuer figures. The assassination of Lt. Gen. Gatluak Gai on July, 23rd, 2011, after signing peace on July, 19, is one indication that the Dinka leadership in Juba wants to eliminate Nuer figures one by one.

2. The policy of eliminating Nuer figures is something which dated back to 1980s when the SPLM/A under the leadership of late Col. John Garang assassinated Col. Samuel Gai Tut who was the leader of Anyanya II. His successor, Col. William Chuol Deng Luoth, was also assassinated by the SPLM/A. Moreover, after 1991 Nasir Declaration, more than seven hundred Nuer officers of the SPLA/M were murdered in cold-blood in Greater Equatoria and Bahr El Ghazal by the orders of the SPLM/A leadership. One of the architects of the policy of eliminating Nuer officers after Riek Machars coup of 1991 was the current sitting President of South Sudan.

3. The policies of assassinating Nuer figures continued up to present day. In March, 2011, the government of South Sudan agreed to make peace with forces of Maj. Gen. James Gai Yoach and told them to assemble at Mayom County. After luring them to a designated area in the name of peace, the forces of Maj. Gen. James Gai Yoach were attacked. Similar tactics were employed on April, 25th, 2011 when the SPLA forces attacked Maj. Gen. Gabriel Tang at Kaldak village after signing peace with him.

4. The policy of exterminating the Nuer was also manifested in the way the SPLM/A committed serious human rights abuses against the Nuer civil population since the inception of the Movement in 1983. The Nuer were the first Southern civil population that was ethnically cleansed and massacred by the SPLA forces in 1985. The first bullets of the SPLM/A Movement were fired at Eastern Nuer of Gajaak clan where over 26 villages were burned down to ashes, while the hundreds of innocent women, children and elderly peoples were murdered between 1985 and 1987. The policy of massacring Nuer population was also implemented in Fangak and Bul Nuer areas in the same period.

5. After the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the same policy of exterminating the Nuer was also implemented. Prior to the signing of the CPA, Dinka leaders of the SPLM/A secretly met in Yei and passed what is now known as *Thirty Nine Laws against the Nuer.* Among those laws was the plan to assassinate Nuer figures and exterminating civilians. In 2006, the SPLA army embarked on putting those policies into action in Nuerland under the pretext of disarming the civilians. Hundreds of villages were burned where girls and elderly women were raped. Extermination of Nuer civil population was also manifested in Kaldak village and Mayom County this year.

6. The policy of marginalizing the Nuer and other ethnic groups of the South is something that is done in broad daylight. Despite the fact that the Vice-president is a Nuer, marginalization and mistreatment of Nuer and other Southerners continued unabated. In most occasions, Dr. Riek Machar is not consulted by the President of South Sudan, Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir, because he is being used as a symbol to mask Dinka policies of dominating South Sudan by treating other ethnic groups as second class citizens.

7. Most institutions of the government of South Sudan are being dominated by Dinka tribe despite the fact that Dinka are only 25% of South Sudan population. Recently, President Salva Kiir appointed his own clansmen from his home town as Chief Justice of South Sudan Supreme Court and Chairman of the Bank of South Sudan. In 2009, the same Salva Kiir decided that oil refinery of the South will be built in his home state of Warrap instead in Unity State where oil comes from in order to take jobs to his state.

8. The Nuer Youth in Juba shall mobilize the Nuer in the world, particularly those in South Sudan, to defend their tribe from extermination and release Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec Dual, Maj. Gen. Gabriel Tang, Maj. Gen. Mabor Dhol and Brig. Gen. Gatwec Joak. The Nuer Youth shall mobilize the Nuer in the villages to free themselves from Kiir regime.

9. The Nuer community in North America endorsed the dismissal of Lt. Gen. James Hoth Mai from Nuer community in the world. The Nuer community in North America also calls on Nuer leadership in Juba to jettison Thomas Tut Doap, John Luk, Riek Machar, Chuol Rambang and John Kong Nyuon from Nuer community as soon as possible.

10. The Nuer community has come to realization that Thomas Tut Doap, who is a Deputy Director General of Pensions and Social Insurance in Juba, was paid by Kiir regime to mobilize some elders who are only concerned for jobs to turn against the Nuer Youth mobilization against the regime. This man has been feeding on the blood of Nuer since 1983 and is known to have killed Nuer in the SPLM/A in 1980s.

CALL FOR POPULAR UPRISING IN SOUTH SUDAN
1. The Nuer community calls upon other tribes of the South to unite with the Nuer Youth to reverse Dinka domination in South Sudan which has replaced old Sudan Arabism and Islamism. There is no solution for ongoing human rights abuses in South Sudan except through popular uprising. The Youth in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya liberated their countries by going to streets to overthrow corrupt regimes which were feeding on the blood of young people. Therefore, the Nuer community calls upon Murle Youth, Equatoria youth, Shilluk youth and Dinka youth to unite with Nuer youth to topple the regime of dictator Salva Kiir Mayardit from power.

2. After the total destruction of the regime of Dictator Salva Kiir, the South Sudan youth shall establish a democratic government which will observe freedom of speech, expression, rule of law, justice and equality of all ethnic groups. Corruption and land grabbing in South Sudan will end only when the regime of Dictator Salva Kiir is overthrown.

Signed by,
Mr. Bidit Liech,
Head of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
Tel. (780) 607 0742

Elizabeth Nyachuol Tut,
Deputy Head of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA

Mr. Gatluk Chuol Reat,
Secretary of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
Tel. (226) 600 2703
Email l.chuol@yahoo.com

Lul Gatkuoth Nguth
Tel. 55877100405
Member of the committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the authors and not of the website)

Implementation of Addis Ababa Deals: The Litmus Test for Juba Committees

BY: Dr. James Okuk, PhD, JUBA, OCT. 18/2012, SSN;
Now that the Addis Ababa deals have been ratified by the August Houses of the Republics of the Sudan and of South Sudan, the ball has been kicked back to the Presidencies in the respective countries and their executive teams. By these mutual parliamentary ratifications, the Addis Ababa Agreements have been accorded with the necessary legal backing and bindings.

But the litmus test now is on the nature and competence of the committees that shall be tasked with stipulation of the technicalities needed for implementations of these agreements in the coming weeks if not years. The nature of the civil service and competence of its personnel in Juba has a lot to be desired. Reforms in the GoSS composition and right positioning of civil servants have been resisted even from the highest authorities in the country as they live on the false premise that South Sudan was not liberated with professional qualifications but guns and loyalty to the SPLM/A. Hon. Awud Deng became victim of the needed reforms in the GoSS Civil Service and was pushed to the wall to call it quits and leave the status quo.

Now, the success of Joint Ministerial Committees as far as Juba is concerned remains in critical balance compared to that of Khartoum. Many deadwoods and incompetent civil servants in the GoSS who are supposed to do the professional work in Committees for Addis Ababa deals will just be warming up chairs, complaining about their sitting allowances and other payments more than the quality of work.

Many of them cannot read and write well or comprehend issues critically apart from show-offs with standard neckties and Italian suits. How will such shoddy civil servants help in the work of committees (which need thinking and paper works) when they need help themselves?

Before going further, let me quote some articles in the Nine Deals that oblige Juba and Khartoum to form technical joint committees that shall expose the devils and release the cats that are hidden in the details of the implementation process.

In the Mother Agreement on Oil and Related Economic Matters it is written that A Petroleum Monitoring Committee shall be established within twenty (21) days of the signing of this Agreement. The Petroleum Monitoring Committee shall oversee the implementation of this Agreement, produce regular reports to the parties including possible recommendations on the improvement of the co-operation in the petroleum sector, ensure the development of any additional required agreements between the Parties and serve as a forum for seeking resolution to concerns and disputes in respect of this Agreement. (Article 10.1).

In the Agreement on Security Arrangements it is written that The Parties shall immediately operationalize the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mission (JBVMM) and the Safe Demilitarized Border Zone… The Parties shall immediately activate the Ad-Hoc Committee to receive and investigate complaints and allegations made by one party against the other… The Ad-Hoc Committee shall be formally activated by Co-chairs of the JPSM as a JPSM sub-committee with a standing secretariat. (Articles, 2 and 4).

In the Agreement on Trade and Trade Related Issues it is written that Within thirty (30) days of the ratification of this Agreement, the Parties shall establish a Joint Ministerial Committee on Trade Relations. (Article 3(1)).

In the Framework Agreement on the Status of Nationals of the Other State and Related Matters it is written that The two States shall establish a standing Joint High Level Committee (the Committee), which shall oversea the adoption and implementation of joint measures relating to the status and treatment of the nationals of each State in the territories of the other State. (Article 1.1).

In the Agreement on a Framework for Cooperation on Central Banking Issues it is written that Within thirty (30) days of the ratification of this Agreement, the Parties shall establish a Joint Banks Committee. (Article 1.1).

In the Agreement on Certain Economic Matters it is written that Any other matters relating to the implementation of this Agreement on assets and liabilities shall be addressed jointly between the two States, through the joint implementation mechanisms established in the Cooperation Agreement, and in accordance with the principles set forth in this Agreement. (Article 4.3.7).

In the Framework Agreement to Facilitate Payment of Post Service Benefits it is written that Within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Agreement, the Parties shall establish a Joint Ministerial Committee on Pensions. (Article 3.1).

In the Agreement on Border Issues it is written that Within two weeks of the ratification of this Agreement, the two States shall establish a Joint Demarcation Committee to manage and supervise the demarcation and the maintenance of the boundary and beacons. (Article 8(1)).

In the Cooperation Agreement it is written that The Parties shall establish and sustain viable mechanisms and frameworks for cooperation and for managing their bilateral relations, including through regular Summit Meetings of their Heads of State, as well as through cooperation at Ministerial and Technical levels. (Article 5.1).

Reading through all the Nine Agreements (at least critically in letter), it could be seen that most of the hard work required has been left to the committees that shall be established between the two countries. It is only the deal on oil that has been tackled comprehensively, yet it is still subjected to committees for its implementation.

As it is said by some people that cheating the ignorant is not a crime, it remains to be the focus which country would compose un-cheatable committees that will garner maximum interest from the deals. To this regard, I am really afraid of the SPLM Juba Committees due to their usual lack of nuances in institutionalization, knowledge-ability and popular consultations. The SPLM Juba is still novice in running the state affairs, and is often repulsive and fearful of South Sudan technocrats who could help with the intellective game of technicalities on critical issues.

The perpetually recycled failed SPLM comrades have never been serious or committed in doing the right things in many tasks assigned to them, except flattery loyalty to the President. They do not bother to learn from similar comparative cases worldwide. They are blindly and usually confident in relying on foreign consultants, who in most cases are not well-informed about the realistic situation of South Sudan and the Sudan.

Khartoum seems to be ready for such specialized committees because it has a history of established institutions and instruments of managing the state affairs. It has many archives of references and experienced technocrats for such kind of job. That is why the NCP Khartoum came out victorious in Addis Ababa over the weak SPLM Juba, and are still celebrating the gains they are hoping to get from deals that have been finalized.

I hope the SPLM leadership is going to get it this time that there are no miracles in politics, governance and good economic management but hard work and correct positioning of the well-trained national experts. There are no free lunches in bilateral agreements too. A mission without right and tough missionaries is a futile effort that can end up in mess. South Sudan has had enough of mess-ups and miss-ups under the SPLM rule that need no more additions but subtractions.

Will President Salva Kiir and his SPLM government top leaders acknowledge the internal strengths of their own nationals this time rather than depending on foreign consultants every time on matters that could be tackled by the very South Sudanese regardless of political affiliations? Why not learn how to develop confidence in our own expertise and intelligence and avoid preferences for outsiders?

A part from being an opposition leader to the SPLM and Kiirs administration, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin is a technical expert in petroleum chemistry. He could be the right person to supervise South Sudan committee on the implementation of the oil deal with Khartoum. I recommend that President Kiir reaches out to him as soon as possible in order to ask him to help in this critical area so that South Sudan could avoid being cheated by Khartoum again in the coming tough work of committees. Minister John Luke Jok is also an expert in oil business. He could work well with Dr. Lam Akol in this area.

Right now, South Sudan needs more economic solutions than highly propagandized political confusions. It is high time to leave behind the unhelpful and useless accusations of who wants to overthrow who politically or militarily. The challenges of implementing the Addis Ababa Agreements require embracing of spirit of joint nationalistic work for building the Republic of South Sudan regardless of parties lines.

I would like to recommend to President Salva Kiir and the rest of SPLM to start reaching out to those South Sudanese they fear and shy to acknowledge in their capabilities of helping the new nation-in-the-making to an advantageous level than the usual accommodated gaps. This is not easy but it is the surest way to success.

Thus, let Ustaz Peter Abdelrahaman Sule be released from political detention together with other opposition figures and elements in South Sudan. Let President Kiir assign them some national duties so that they could contribute to the common good of the nascent Republic of South Sudan. Prisons and exiles do not and cannot benefit a new country like South Sudan. Instead, it is the freedom and nationalism that can save South Sudan from collapsing into a failed state.

President Kiir is our President, Dr. Riek Machar is our Vice President, Dr. Lam Akol and Peter A.Sule are our Opposition leaders, and Pagan Amum is the Secretary-General of the ruling SPLM Party and etc. Why are they finding it hard to co-exist side by side and working for the common good of the new country despite their different political orientations and affiliations? Leadership is not everything in life.

If the SPLM ruling party can commit itself to co-exist peacefully with the NCP Jellaba ruling party in the Sudan why should it be difficult for it to reach out and do the same with the very Non-SPLM nationals of South Sudan? Lets become realistic and self-acknowledging to ourselves more than to the foreigners.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author and not the website)

———————————————————————————————–

Dr. James Okuk is a lecturer in Juba University reachable at okukjimy@hotmail.com

If you reject this agreement then give us an alternative

BY: Dr. Anthony Lupai Simon, JUBA, OCT. 13/2012, SSN; About two weeks ago the Republic of South Sudan and Sudan committed themselves to a deal that was signed in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa as the presidents, Salva Kiir and Omer El Bashir respectively, were pressured by the international community on that deal following the escalation of violence that erupted at their disputed borders after the independence of South Sudan.

Sudan sabotaged the referendum for the people of Abyei and sent in his military to control many areas in the south as well as going ahead confiscating south oil in its port harbour of Bashair near Port Sudan.

Again Sudan has refused to abide by the border that stands as drawn by the British and leaving it in 1st January 1956.

Those provocative moves compounded up by Ariel bombardments as clear acts of intimidation by Khartoum to the people of south Sudan produced some reactions that were about to bring the two sides to an all out war. But thanks to the people of south Sudan for keeping themselves low against Khartoum for the sake of peace.

South Sudan heeded to the international pleas and ceased their fire in spite of Khartoums aggressive moves and negative accusations.

And in all the disputes that erupted each side pretended to be more right than the other and the two could not come to a compromise in spite of the clear road map laid down by the CPA, this forced the international to intervene. And that intervention was by putting forward a Resolution No. 2046 and a threat of sanctions on both sides if they fail to reach an agreement within a specified period of time. And under that tension Khartoum and Juba signed an agreement on Thursday the 27th of September 2012.

People from the two Sudans glued to the televisions attending the ceremony as it was broadcast live. While people in the Sudanese capital Khartoum applauded to the deal, it was, however, received with mixed reactions in Juba. Simply because people in the new land were more concerned about solutions to the causes of the disputes such as the border demarcation, Abyei case and the contested regions that they saw as not properly been tackled in the deal, while others see that the resumption of the oil to flow in the market and provisions of the four freedoms to the people of the two countries are steps in the right directions.

All the same, nobody knows which side is more correct but more importantly, what is seen as the guiding star to all is the interest of the people of south Sudan which all have agreed that should have a permanent lasting solution but not a temporary one.

And as the voices of the sceptics to the agreement grow louder and louder, they were quickly silenced up by some authorities that if you reject this Agreement then give us an alternative. A statement which points that the only way out is through that signed agreement.

But way out from what? For calming Khartoum and making it responsive? Pleasing the international community that we are serious? Or recovering of our economy and giving us a brake and have time to think on how to restart?

Otherwise, seriously, Khartoum should have been forced in front of the international community to agree on the road map or face sanctions alone. I do not think there is any sensible full body that would punish the south if it complies with the international norms.

Negotiation is a give-and-take from all parties. One side cannot act superficially and another one giving all the time what it has.

A good number of analysts that had been following up the Juba-Khartoum talks in Addis Ababa concluded that Khartoum had been too rigid and gave out very little compared to Juba. That unshaken position of Khartoum made many people in Juba unhappy with the deal forcing some of them to ask many questions.

Such as, were we pressed by some conditions other than those of solving the core causes of the disputes between us and Sudan for which we went to the negotiation? If the answer is yes, then we should not have deceived our population that we were going to Addis Ababa to solve the outstanding post referendum issues but instead to tell our citizens that we need to escape the embargo and equip ourselves with emergency money now.

But if the answer is no, then there is no point of asking the citizens to give an alternative solution when everybody knows the intention of the negotiation. The freedom rights on the deal that have become songs on many lips are just symptomatic treatment which would not even be needed if the disease between the two countries was treated.

Did we go to negotiate because of citizens issues or because of some major unresolved border disputes which resulted to those restrictions?

Again people with mixed reactions in Juba were worried about the paradoxical compensation money in the deal. The twenty one year war in the country made Khartoum to destroy all that we had in the south and denied us the national development programs, what compensation has it given for that? Instead the victim goes ahead to compensate the criminal in what is known as the TFA, what a paradox?

Is it justifiable for somebody to ask for an alternative when we all know that the Russian-built Antonov planes were sent by Khartoum and caused those destructions in the south and when it is supposed to be forced now to rebuild these rabbles?

We cannot be deceived that Khartoum should be applauded because it has given us the south. It is our land given to us by the Creator which Khartoum unlawfully controlled for those gone by years, and simply fell back to the real owners control. We do not need to thank them for that but instead we should lobby the international community to force them for some retributions.

Yes, we are part of the international community including Khartoum and all are required to adhere to the international demands.

Some people in Juba were not happy with the deal because most of the things Khartoum had rejected were deferred in the negotiation making it buy time while south Sudanese items were given some modification and accepted as part of the deal. Special examples are the inclusion of mile 14 in the buffer zone which came as a surprise to the people of south Sudan in the same manner that they came to see that Panthou (Heglig) was discussed as a part of Abyei instead of Unity state in The Hague-based International Court.

Again the other modifications are the presence of terminologies as the claimed areas in the current deal which did not exist before but was just a making of Khartoum to dilute the legitimate positions south Sudan has over those areas. Who is claiming these areas? I think it is the south because Khartoum is in all the areas in the south it wants and south Sudan mentioning them made Khartoum quickly convince the AUHLIP to label them not as disputed but as claimed areas.

The pressure on Khartoum is lighter when only the south is claiming for areas because we shall be like barking dogs and they our camels not caring about our noises.

The sceptics that are asking to give alternatives were just wondering as to why bring the buffer zone deep into the south in areas like mile 14, etc, without involving any inch of land in Sudan. They were expecting the international body to force Khartoum to keep the zone right where the 1st January 1956 line is so that Khartoum should not be lured to believe that the buffer zone is the assumed border.

We have already seen that as Khartoum moves southwards some international communities are made to believe that the areas behind it are Sudanese territories. Like now Russia that has no any knowledge about the south is blindly standing behind Khartoum to force the South to compensate some money for the destruction in Panthou which resulted from the April 2012 attacks. It was just a move designed by Khartoum with the intention of scaring the south away from thinking that Heglig is its land.

I hope it is not one of the areas modified by Khartoum as one being claimed by the south. The same is going to follow after the creation of the buffer zone, as such it must not be erected in the south but right at the presumed border as border disputes are not always solved within a short time.

Yes, there are so many alternatives on the ground relating to the deal including that of changing the negotiating team if their negotiating capability was overstretched by Khartoum as they were unable to convince the international community to come in line with our demands in the way Khartoum swayed them.

Dr. Anthony Lupai Simon, Juba.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author and not of the website).