Category: Most Popular

Pres. Kiir, First Vice Taban Deng & Jieng Council of Elders: The Evil Trinity

Dr. Peter J. Kopling, MD, Juba, AUG/30/2016, SSN;

The deceit coming out of Juba is beyond belief. Flurries of abominable statements made from Juba have been enough to fool even the supposedly seasoned and world-renowned politicians the likes of John Kerry, the secretary of state of the United States of America, but not South Sudanese who know first hand the situation here on the ground.

It is important to outline certain timelines for those uninformed about the crude South Sudanese politics or rather lack thereof or ethnic one. It is essential to remember Juba did not want to sign the peace deal expressing serious reservations, indeed IGAD-Plus had to chase after Kiir and he signed it while profusely sweating here at the nation’s Capital rather than in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

But now Kiir and his gang claim they are happily and speedily implementing the peace deal, is someone fooling someone here? What aspects are they implementing and which of the reservations in the deal are they throwing away?

Were the implementations not meant to be a compromise as it was named, a midway between what Kiir and his tribal cohorts want and that of the Opposition, or by extension, most South Sudanese?

Kiir dislikes the peace deal such that he quickly cooked up the 28 tribal states in order to derail the peace deal and now he is implementing it, if so what?

Was the implementation suppose not to also address these 28 states he curved out for his tribesmen while the opposition wanted federal states under the 10 as stated in the agreement? How about the raiding of other peoples ancestral lands that will be returned to their rightful owners if democracy were to succeed?

What of power sharing as well as accountability to the crimes committed against south Sudanese majorly by Kiir’s Militia?

So where is Taban Gai’s stand on any of these core issues for the absolute majority of South Sudanese and how will he satisfy the genuine opposition who demand for things contrary to what Kiir wants?

Which of these core issues will remain firmly under Kiir and his JCE in this illicit marriage between Taban Gai and Kiir rather than a truly proven opposition to Jieng agenda set against south Sudanese?

Is it any surprise then they hate Dr. Riek Machar with all their souls and might and literally to death? If they can never forgive Dr. Riek for 1991, why will we forgive them for 2013 and 2016? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Now it must be pointed out that from the money of the people that was squandered by Kiir’s government, the JCE have enough resources to pass to their children from one generation to another, plus the opportunity to solidify grip on South Sudan’s Power base but also territories, all within reach at least as they see it.

The very vision articulated by Dr. Riek Machar threatens these things thus their abhorrence for him, how about Taban Gai, does he have what it takes to stand and oppose the JCE who gave him his position for which he betrayed his own people and the people of South Sudan, just for money and position?

This is what is at stake for the Dinka under JCE. What is however at stake for the rest of South Sudanese is the lost of lives, freedom, power and ancestral lands, cultures and languages, as the Jiengs are bent to ethnically displace and cleanse the rest of South Sudanese and resettle their kin as they have already done all over south Sudan.

This being the case, then there is no possible peace in south Sudan under Kiir-Taban-JCE, Evil Trinity.

It also need to be recognized that the JCE are highly educated bunch old devils that have no need to work for a living, thus from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed and even between sleep, all they do is cook and invent tricks to fool south Sudanese and the world of how to maintain their grip to power.

They only know how get rid true opposition heroes, the like of Justice Sule, Dr. Wani Tombe both dead, Governor Bakosoro, Clement Wani Konga, both politically disabled by none other than Kiir, leave alone what he did to Dr. Lam Akol, and but of course also the relentless and insatiable thursts to kill one they preached and convinced themselves in believing and propagate among themselves and their kins as the arch enemy of the JCE and the Dinka, Dr Riek Machar, has anyone ask themselves why?

Who is being fooled here to believe the problem in South Sudan is Dr. Machar?

If their Problem with Machar is because of 1991, Which they claimed led to their perceived delayed success of South Sudan’s independence, how about now the Massacre of south Sudanese by Kiir which exceeded anything that has happened in the soil of South Sudan under any other person, the Arabs inclusive?

Has Kiir not superseded Machar in any killings of any kind anywhere? We haven’t heard of Machar attempt against Kiir but Kiir against Machar now second time but numerous times in this last ordeal extending from J1 to the bushes.

Additional deceit they came out with is the talking point with straight faces that Riek Machar is violent and must renounce violence…. Very laughable if it was not that they actually got John Kerry and the gullible white people to buy into it.

These successes in deceits are partially possible because they have recruited white Intellectual mercenaries influencing Washington DC, these are Americans who have taken blood money at the expense of lives that are lost here daily in South Sudan.

Now let us recall, this recent Violence that erupted in Juba, without going into the obvious cleansing of Nuer from Juba by none other than the very Kiir who now is calling Machar violent. Machar had his home bulldozed with 18 bodyguards killed in 2013, while this time his tent was flattened by helicopter gunship and he had to run for his life yet again with numerous of his body guards killed but also his associates and the man arrived in Khartoum on injured, who is violent?

Suspecting nothing and still believing in brotherhood, Machar reported to Kiir’s house alas was a booby trap, Malong’s men ambushed the president’s very own house and started a gun fight right at Kiir’s own house and they wiped out half of Machar’s body guards. Who is Violent here?

The news is out now that it was the Americans that called Kiir and demanded the safe passage of Machar out of J1 thus Kiir personally had to assure that Machar got out of that trap alive because of the American pressure. Now who is violent here?

Indeed if the Killing of George and his Nuer Colleague, the fighting on Gudele road as well as the trap set for Machar at J1 were all unplanned, what then was the reason from pursuing Machar at J2 and the ensuing 5 day of unabated and constant attempts to kill him with his body guards having to fight back in self defense to the last man?

It is now reported that Kiir spent 1.8 Billion dollars in this recent attempt to Kill Machar. It is a misnomer to call this latest violence Kiir instigated in Juba a war, it was not a war, How could it be a war when the other side has just 1300 soldiers against 50,000 SPLA-Kiir that never left the city as was demanded by the peace deal for this very purpose? It was an assassination attempt against Riek Machar whose men fought back starving the attempt.

What do we make of Machar’s tent being totally destroyed, forcing him to head into the Bush? While in the Bush until his escape into DRC, was he not followed, battled all along and are the dead bodies from both side not witness to Machar ordeals all the way to the border with DRC where some of his very trusted official got gun down by the helicopter gunship, were all these Machar’s aggressions?

So my fellow compatriots, while the JCE succeeded to deceive the white people the likes of John Kerry, I am confident you are not fooled. It is very clear to us south Sudanese who is violent between Machar and Kiir.

I am from the greater Equatoria, Kiir has terrorized and killed my close relatives and those who survived many are now displaced in refugees camps some leaving in bushes dying either from Kiir’s guns or from diseases. These are not running from Machar but Kiir.

Machar has not killed a single person from my family or region but Kiir did and continues to do on daily basis and thanks to him, death has touched every family in all corners of South Sudan, from Balanda country to Azandes lands, from the lands of Murus, fajulus, Kakwa, Bari, Ma’di, Acholi, Latuko, Pari, Shilluk, and not even to mention the Nuer Land.

Now even after Machar is out of the country while Kiir-Taban and JCE Evil trinity claim to be implementing their phony peace, ask the women and children of South Sudan, they will tell you there is no peace and they still fear Kiir’s guns.

About Machar to stop practicing politics, where are we, in the ‘Luak?’ Is there no Constitution in this country? Is South Sudan a Dinka Village? Who on earth can tell another to not practice his constitutional and human right? Where do this people get their education, in Zimbabwe?

By all standards, Kiir and JCE have led our country over a decade with nothing to show, which tell us they have no political aptitude, the illiterate Kiir and his tribal JCE.

How about the latest JCE campaign that the regional IGAD leaders must not allow their territories to be for Machar to stage Violence, really? Could Kiir and JCE say this with straight face? How about practicing what you preach?

How about stopping violence, which is ongoing as we speak here in Juba? Arresting and killing those opposed to you. How about stopping the ongoing Killing in Upper Nile, in the Balanda nation, Western Equatoria, In Yei and the Ma’di Corridor on daily basis. How could they appeal for other state leaders not to allow their territories for violence while they pursue violence all over the territory that are under their hands?

The territory Kiir must worry about is South Sudan which he has turned into hell and he must stop using our national territory for harboring JCE and the Killer Malong.

In conclusion I would like to address Secretary John Kerry, Peace shall never come in South Sudan from the hands of Kiir-Taban Gai and JCE Evil trinity. You had the opportunity to end this by simply calling Kiir out but you failed but worse enabled them and we south Sudanese have taken notes.

Some one has advised you that the Dinkas are Majority and fierce fighters; if you dislodge them South Sudan will be unstable forever and become a Somalia. John Kerry, I said you have been ill informed and advised by the intellectual and PR Mercenaries.

Secretary Kerry, the Dinkas are less than 3 million, of the 10 Millions South Sudanese, we the others are absolute Majority (Oh you are told we can not come together, I say wait and see). It is also worth noting, once the top evil JCE crumbles, the Dinkas are not homogeneous, they will follow a nationalist who will join hands with the absolute Majority to move this county forward. But you lost the opportunity.

There shall be no peace until the Evil Trinity is dismantled, for they are violent, tribal with deadly intent against all others South Sudanese not just Dr. Riek Machar, that is what they want you to believe..

You shall watch this play out from your retirement comes January, hope you realize, you have added to and left a very dark chapter in the South Sudanese journey into nationhood. You might have recorded many successes in life but South Sudan is not one of them. Did it matter to you in the first place?

You have endorsed the Evil trinity and given it life in exchange for the lives of more South Sudanese, don’t they matter, Secretary John Kerry?

Dr. Peter J. Kopling, MD
Juba,RoSS.

Igad accepts Riek Machar’s ouster as South Sudan vice president

By KEVIN J. KELLEY, New York, TheEastAfrican, AUG/27/2016, SSN;

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad) said on Friday that it is up to the South Sudanese government to decide whether Dr Riek Machar should be reinstated as the country’s first vice president.

That decision would be “naturally accommodated by Igad,” Sharon Kuku, a spokeswoman for the eight-nation grouping of East African states, said in an email message.

Ms Kuku noted that Taban Deng Gai, appointed by President Salva Kiir as Dr Machar’s replacement, had pledged at Igad’s August 5 summit to abide by the South Sudan government’s decision on the first vice presidency.

“Igad did not stop Gen Deng from attending the summit nor speaking for the South Sudan government,” Ms Kuku pointed out.

Friday’s comment by Igad follows the group’s call on August 5 for Machar to be reinstalled as first vice president.

His removal was not consistent with the terms of last year’s peace agreement between South Sudan’s warring parties, Igad said three weeks ago.

In the interim, however, the United States had expressed its acceptance of Machar’s replacement by Mr Deng.

US POSITION

Secretary of State John Kerry said in Nairobi on August 22 that “it’s quite clear that legally, under the agreement, there is allowance for the replacement, in a transition of personnel, and that has been effected with the appointment of a new vice president.”

The US position was reaffirmed on Thursday by State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau.

“The peace agreement contains procedures and requirements that govern transitions and changes within the transitional government,” Ms Trudeau said at a press briefing in Washington.

“Specifically, the agreement provides the top leadership of the armed opposition the power to nominate a new first vice president if that position is vacant.”

A faction of the armed opposition declared last month that it had chosen Mr Deng to replace Machar, who was then in hiding inside South Sudan following bloody clashes in Juba.

South Sudan President Salva Kiir subsequently named Mr Deng as first vice president.

Dr Machar’s followers charged that the moves violated last year’s peace agreement and vowed to oppose Mr Deng’s appointment.

State Department spokeswoman Trudeau on Thursday repeated US calls for an end to armed conflict in South Sudan.

“We do expect the transitional government and all parties, including all leaders of the opposition in South Sudan, to take every step possible to avoid fighting and to reach a peaceful resolution of their differences,” she said.

“The way forward is not through violence or military action but through implementation of the agreement and through peaceful resolution of differences.”
————————————–

South Sudan’s future uncertain as Machar plans pull back from peace deal

By: FRED OLUOCH, THEEASTAFRICAN, AUG/25/2016, SSN

SUMMARY: Dr Machar’s allies say he planned a review of the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) involvement in the transition government once he recovered from injuries sustained last month.
Sources close to him —who arrived in Khartoum on Tuesday afternoon from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for treatment — told The EastAfrican that the rebel leader was consulting Igad before making his decision known.
;

Former first vice president of South Sudan, Dr Riek Machar has thrown prospects of stability in the country into further uncertainty after his allies said they were rethinking their role under the August 2015 peace agreement.

The allies said Dr Machar planned a review of the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) involvement in the transition government once he recovered from injuries sustained last month.

Sources close to Dr Machar — who arrived in Khartoum on Tuesday afternoon from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for treatment — told The EastAfrican that the rebel leader was consulting Igad before making his decision known.

SPLM-IO representative in Kenya, Lam Jok, said that recent attacks by President Salva Kiir’s forces demanded a fresh approach to the implementation of the August 2015 peace agreement.

“Since July 8, our mission was to secure the life of our leader but now that he is safe, we are diplomatically and politically engaging Igad on the way forward because President Kiir has killed the agreement by attacking our official cantonment areas and changing the leadership structure contrary to the agreement,” said Mr Jok.

He continued, “What we know is that the current status quo is not acceptable because the president and the new first vice-president, Taban Deng Gai, have defied the agreement which the region worked very hard to realise.”

The presence of Dr Machar in Khartoum is likely to raise concerns in Juba, especially after the new first vice-president, Mr Gai, held discussions with the Sudan leadership over outstanding issues between the two countries including security, border demarcation and oil exportation.

READ: South Sudan new VP holds talks in first Khartoum visit

But in a statement to the Sudan News Agency (Suna), Sudan’s Minister of Information Ahmed Belal Osman said Khartoum has simply received Dr Machar for medical treatment since he arrived in a critical condition and needed immediate care.

”The health condition of Dr Riek Machar is now stable and he will stay in the country under full medical supervision until he leaves the country for a destination of his choice to complete his medical treatment” the statement read in a part. Mr Osman said that Khartoum has notified the government of South Sudan about Dr Machar’s arrival.

Mr Jok confirmed that Dr Machar needed specialised treatment because of swollen legs after walking for 200km under aerial bombardment at an advanced age.

The recent Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad) summit had declared the replacement of Dr Machar as illegal and against the agreement and approved the deployment of 4,000 regional protection force in Juba.

READ: Envoy tells off Igad after Kerry’s remarks on Juba leadership changes
With Khartoum likely to face pressure from Juba to let go of Dr Machar, there are ongoing consultations on his next destination since earlier preference for Addis Ababa could compromise the neutrality of Ethiopia that is supposed to provide the bulk of the regional protection force. Kenya and Rwanda are also expected to provide troops to act as a buffer in Juba.

Time for Dr. Riek Machar to restrategise

BY: ELHAG PAUL, AUG/11/2016, SSN;

Dr. Riek Machar, having been forced out violently from the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGONU), has no options left except to resist. But his resistance must be focused on new ground if he is to rally support from the whole country. To build such a support Dr Machar would need to thoroughly review his entire political experience to learn about his own personal strength and weaknesses.

To be effective it helps to be aware of this fact. Dr Machar’s leadership has consistently generated divisions in organisations led by him within a very short period usually starting from about a year.

The time has come for Dr Machar to take a hard look at his leadership capability. He needs to address his weaknesses if he intends to eventually succeed in his political aspirations.

It is not good for him to continue leading fractious organisations and committing trivial mistakes that cost tens of thousands of lives. The cost is just not worth it. Therefore, it would be helpful if Dr Machar could receive professional support in leadership.

Most political leaders around the world usually receive such support to improve their effectiveness and personal image. Investment in this area would not be a waste but a source of success.

Now a personal image is only a part of the whole. The other part is the political identity. This encompasses things like beliefs, values, ideology and so on which are very important. These are things that allow a leader to attract follower-ship and support from the masses.

The SPLM/A from its inception would not have garnered the support of people throughout the whole Sudan if it did not articulate the values and ideologies of equality, anti-discrimination, multi-culture, multi-faith and so forth which enabled the unionist, Dr John Garang, to bask in as the would-be Messiah of the Sudan.

With hindsight this would-have-been expected Messiah has been proven to be a false one.

It was unfortunate that the beautiful ideals Dr Garang sold to the Sudanese people were hollow. He did not in person live it. He did not follow the wise saying, ‘preach what you practice and practice what you preach.’

The product of his leadership of the SPLM/A as we see it now is the proven evidence of his double standards and hypocrisy. The fruits of Dr Garang’s leadership are the entrenched tribalism, poisonous discrimination, kleptocracy and murderous SPLM/A regime in Juba.

Though Dr Garang’s approach made the SPLM/A a national movement fighting for the whole Sudan, the unionist ideology was not bought in south Sudan. Other powerful ideologies of secession and tribalism festered underneath to undermine the official objective of SPLM/A of creating a “New Sudan” due to strength in beliefs of identity.

In the end, the secessionists in south Sudan won while on the other hand the new country got hijacked by a tribal group, the Jieng Council of Elders, who had been working underground since 1970s.

So Dr Garang the highly praised thinker, suave political operator and an aspirational unifier ended up a total failure. He neither realised his united “New Sudan” nor achieved an equal, multi-cultural, multi-tribal, multi-faith independent South Sudan, a country he vowed not to see happening.

Yet in the face of this glaring evidence the tribal regime wants to promote Dr Garang as the founder of South Sudan. The question is: how could a failed unionist and militarist politician who constructed a vicious tribal movement be a founding father of a country he did not want to exist?

Nobody can argue against the fact that SPLM/A has been a disaster for South Sudan. It has reduced South Sudanese to be seen as savages – the laughing stalk of the world. The comment made by the chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, former President Festus Mogae, sums the tragedy of South Sudan in few words: “South Sudan is run by guns and not reason.” Nobody can be motivated to dispute this fact except the beneficiaries of the regime in Juba.

Given the fact that the SPLM/A has been proven beyond doubt to be a criminal organisation led by idiotic blood thirsty people it is time that the resistance distances itself from this irreparably damaged brand (SPLM/A).

What this means is that there is urgency for the resistance to jettison the name SPLM-IO and rebrand itself to clearly identify itself with the right values and ideology on which the people of South Sudan can converge and coalesce to realise a total change.

Without such a foundational change, the brand SPLM/A as usual ensnares political actors who disagree with it to constantly at best to return into the fold or at worst to end up being killed. This is something time and again that keeps happening. The members of SPLM-IO got themselves ensnared and Dr Machar was lucky to escape with his life, but many of his fighters and innocent civilians ended up paying the ultimate price.

The new resistance created by the recent violence of the Juba regime (2nd July to 11th July 2016) should break with this culture of hogging the brand SPLM/A to free itself from being institutionally trapped to promote violence and Jieng tribalism indirectly.

Brand SPLM/A is tarnished beyond repair. Its attributes consist of some of the worst values and ideologies practised by horrible political organisations like that of Nazi Germany. The Nazis believed in identity politics (White supremacy) and their method to achieve their objective was through practising extreme violence against others.

Similarly, in South Sudan the Jieng Council of Elders believe that the Jieng are ‘born to rule’ which translates itself to the Jieng as being people of superior race. Unsurprising they have chosen the same method practised by the Nazi to achieve their objective in South Sudan. The recent examples are: the ethnic cleansing of December 2013 and the painful events of July 2016.

So the values and ideologies associated with brand SPLM/A are outright incompatible with democratic ideals. Since Dr Machar has consistently said he wants to see democracy implemented in South Sudan, the onus is on him to distance himself and his organisation from the monstrosity called SPLM/A.

Setting foot on this track would be the first step towards freedom from the shackles of a hopeless criminal organisation that has taken away everything from the South Sudanese people.

The resistance should remind the regime of Aleksandr Solzyhnetsin’s wise advice to rulers. This great thinker and author warns rulers that they only have power over people so long as they do not take everything away from them. But when they the rulers have robbed a man of everything, he is no longer in their power – he is free again.

The regime in Juba has robbed the people of South Sudan of everything, you name it: life, land, livelihood itself, peace, honour, resources and so on. What is there left for the people? Nothing! Materially the overwhelming majority of South Sudanese have nothing. Emotionally and inwardly the regime has dehumanised them, but there is something important that replaces these losses and it is the regaining of true freedom. This freedom will be the Achilles Heels of the SPLM/A regime.

What has been discussed so far concerns Dr Machar’s personality and the issue of values and ideologies. He has since graduating from Bradford University with PhD associated himself with the values of SPLM/A that have now worldwide made him to be labelled as a failure.

With President Salva Kiir’s carefully staged violence intended to wipe out Dr Machar and his group, it is important that he seizes this opportunity and moment to exhibit beyond doubt his democratic credentials.

In short, ARCISS, the agreement Dr Machar signed which brought him to Juba meant something for him. He tried to stick to its terms and his activities in Juba showed beyond doubt that Dr Machar truly did not want war any more. His speeches in churches and rallies around Juba were marked with calls for reconciliation, forgiveness and unity.

What more could he have done? What more could the people asked of him? That the people of South Sudan in that short period chose Dr Machar over President Kiir can not be disputed. The numerous endless warm visits by chiefs and elders of most of the tribes of South Sudan to his house at Korok hill evidence the wish of the South Sudanese people.

It is possible that the strong endorsement of the majority tribes of South Sudan of Dr Machar might have rattled President Kiir and the regime forcing them to plan his assassination.

The warming of the people of South Sudan to Dr Machar is not necessarily because of any attractive policies. For anybody who carefully follows South Sudan politics, the probable reason can be found in the behaviour of the Jieng people.

The regime has allowed the Jieng people to antagonise all the tribes in the country and without any outlet the resistance of Dr Machar became a light at the end of the tunnel. It is the hope for something better. Even with all Dr Machar’s weaknesses he is seen by the people as the better option. This I suppose is the headache of President Kiir and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE).

With the huge support of the people of South Sudan, Dr Machar now has the opportunity to restrategise and consolidate his power base both politically and militarily. He should build a broad alliance of all the tribes of South Sudan by holding a national conference to decide what the South Sudanese wish to do to save the country followed by a credible election of a new resistance leadership.

Such an act will put to rest some of the skeletons in his cupboard and will also bestow upon the new leadership body legitimacy to act in the interest of the South Sudanese people.

In ‘Confronting the Policy of Land Grab in South Sudan’ it is pointed out that a lesson can be learnt from how the world dealt with Nazi Germany. A comparison of the SPLM-IG was done with the Nazi and the similarity fits well (http://www.southsudannewsagency.com/index.php/2016/05/15/confronting-policy-land-grab-south-sudan/).

The new resistance leadership will need to look at such cases in order to draw the right policy to deal with the regime in Juba. Otherwise, South Sudan faces the prospect of real disintegration.

Remember, President Slobodan Milosevic of former Yugoslavia in 1990s pursued identity politics enforced by the gun which led to the disintegration of his once great country into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo, leaving Serbia to stand alone.

President Kiir’s regime like Milosevic’s also practices identity politics which has thrown the country into serious problems. The new resistance leadership is advised to examine the case of the alliance in the Second World War against Nazi Germany to make a wise decision to rescue the country, otherwise the alternatives are ugly.

President Kiir intentionally triggered the current crisis by gallantly violating the peace agreement. His plan to assassinate Dr Machar should sound the death knell for his regime.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com
@elhagpaul (Twitter)

Taban Gai agrees to step down for Riek Machar as Kiir accepts regional troops deployment

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, AUG/06/2016, (Various sources);

Newly-appointed South Sudan First Vice President Taban Deng Gai, who led South Sudan government delegation to the summit known as Igad-Plus in Addis Ababa, emerged to say that he was ready to step down from his position and give it to Riek Machar once he returns to Juba.

Igad is the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development and the IGAD-Plus summit included representatives of the United Nations, African Union, and the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission that monitors the progress in implementation of the peace agreement in Africa’s youngest nation.

The executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development Mahboub Maalim said the Heads of State of member states have directed the chiefs of staff to go to Juba and discuss the modalities of deployment of the protection force with the government of South Sudan.

According to Al Jazeera, the number of troops and the countries where they will come from will be decided with the agreement of the Kiir’s government in Juba, something that might prove unacceptable to Dr. Riek Machar’s faction, the SPLA/M-IO.

SUMMARY: *Country asked to start cantonment of armed forces to separate the forces.
*Mr Kenyatta pressed the South Sudan leaders to take responsibility for the latest upheavals in their country.

“The government of South Sudan has accepted with no condition the deployment of protection force,” he said.

President Uhuru Kenyatta joined other regional leaders at the summit hosted by Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.

EMBRACE PEACE DEAL

Mr Kenyatta pressed the South Sudan leaders to take responsibility for the latest upheavals in their country and work to find a sustainable solution.

Goi Jooyul Yol, SPLM/IO representative to AU, who led representatives of Riek Machar to the meeting, said his team is pleased with the new arrangement although modalities of deployment are yet to be discussed.

He said a joint meeting of chiefs of staff of all member states will be held to discuss logistics of deploying more regional troops to South Sudan.

President Kenyatta, a key player in the South Sudan peace process and the Igad rapporteur on the subject, had urged South Sudan leaders to embrace the peace deal they signed last August to prevent the recurrence of conflict.

President Kenyatta called on the parties to the conflict to live up to the expectations of their people, the region, and the international community by keeping their commitments under the Agreement.

“I assure them of our unwavering support as long as they stay this course and are seen to be doing so,” the President said.

He pointed out that failure to adhere to this Agreement would have catastrophic implications not only to South Sudan but also to the region.

“Certainly, we cannot stand by and let this happen,” President Kenyatta said.

The Head of State emphasised that the leadership of South Sudan has to make a decision to remove the people of South Sudan from the abyss of uncertainty to peace, stability and socio-economic development.

“The South Sudanese look upon you and us for leadership and direction and we must not let them down,” President Kenyatta told the South Sudan leaders.

The President also sought some quick wins.

He expressed the need to, first, address the recent violence in Juba and elsewhere in South Sudan to end the recurrence of the breakdown of law and order.

He pointedly asked for accountability from the South Sudan leaders.

“This would serve to restore a measure of confidence and trust between the parties,” President Kenyatta said.

Second, the transitional government of national unity must urgently establish the security architecture envisaged in the peace agreement, President Kenyatta said.

He said the security plan must also provide unhindered access to the monitoring and verification teams under the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangement Monitoring Mechanism.

CANTONMENT OF ARMED FORCES

The President said the South Sudan government must also embark on the immediate cantonment of armed forces throughout the country, to separate the forces in accordance with the Permanent Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements.

“The re-integration of the Defence Forces must begin in earnest,” the Head of State said.

He said the peace deal must be safeguarded at all cost and asked the South Sudanese leadership to embark on dialogue and reconciliation.

“The people of South Sudan must come first, second and third. They deserve and must be assured of peace, stability and economic development,” President Kenyatta added.

The president stressed that a unified and coherent regional and international front must be maintained to bring collective leverage to bear for the full implementation of the Peace Agreement and anchor lasting peace to South Sudan.

The meeting was chaired by the current chairperson of the Igad Assembly of Heads of State and Government who is also the Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.

Other IGAD member state leaders who attended the meeting include, Presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of Somalia and Ismaïl Omar Guelleh of Djibouti.

Lam Akol resigns from Kiir’s South Sudan govt, says Peace Deal is Over

AUG/01/2016, RadioTamazuj & other sources, SSN;

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin, Minister of Agriculture and Food Security in the South Sudanese cabinet, has resigned his position saying that “there is no more peace agreement to implement in Juba.”

Lam was one of two members of the non-armed opposition parties to be appointed to ministerial positions in the Transitional Government of National Unity under the terms of the peace deal signed last August.

The ‘unity’ government is showing more signs of fractures with the departure of SPLM-IO Chairman Riek Machar from Juba with several other officials and now Lam Akol’s resignation.

The National Alliance chairman in his resignation statement blamed President Salva Kiir for dealing a “final blow” to the peace deal by his actions since the first week of July “culminating in the military attack on the First Vice President, dislodging him from Juba and invoking his absence to fill his position with a person of his choice in the name of SPLM-IO.”

“One cannot with a clear conscience serve under such a regime,” the minister wrote.

Lam cited other violations of the peace deal including the creation of 28 states, delays in forming the transitional assembly, obstructions of ceasefire monitors, and “ethnic-oriented killings in Rajaa, Wau and other ares in Equatoria, [and] refusing to lift the state of emergency.”

The outgoing agriculture minister condemned and mocked the president’s decision to replace Machar with his top lieutenant Taban Deng as first vice president, calling Taban Deng a ‘poodle.’

Lam pointed to the violence last month in Juba as marking the end of the security arrangements of the peace deal. “History teaches us that whenever the security arrangements of any peace agreement collapse the whole agreement collapses,” he said.

The minister has also resigned his position within the non-armed opposition National Alliance and the Democratic Change party, saying that there is “no free political space in Juba.”

Lam Akol, who never endorsed the use of violence during the 2014-2015 period of the civil war, now hints at the possibility of joining the armed opposition, though in his statement he did not specifically say he would do so. He disclosed, “We are consulting with like-minded compatriots so as to build a broad national front to lead our relentless effort to save our country… The people of South Sudan will not sand more of a callous, totalitarian and ethnio-centric regime that seems to thrive on the suffering of its own people.”

Sources confirmed to Radio Tamazuj prior to Lam’s departure that opposition groups are organizing to form a new coalition to battle the Kiir government after the breakup of the SPLM/SPLM-IO government, though the details of these efforts are yet to be reported.

In Juba, meanwhile, Kornilo Kon, the head of the National Alliancein Juba, confirmed to Radio Tamazuj that his former boss Dr. Lam Akol submitted his resignation on Monday to the party members after consultation.

He said that the party members have accepted his resignation and appointed immediately a new leader. Meanwhile, they plan tomorrow to nominate someone from their ranks to replace Lam in the cabinet as agriculture minister.

In the latest developments, forces loyal to embattled South Sudan first vice-president Riek Machar on Sunday warned they would attack Juba if a third force is not deployed in South Sudan.

“We are waiting for orders from the commander-in-chief to give orders and we move on Juba,” said James Gadet, Machar’s spokesman.

He said fighting was going on in the northwest of Juba and also claimed that the opposition (SPLA-IO) had captured a military bases in Katigir.

Gadet also said government forces loyal to President Salva Kiir had carried out aerial bombardments of their bases in Lanya County but the ground attacks had been repulsed.

He also added that in the past one week, their forces had captured 21 military trucks from government soldiers.

Meanwhile, guarantors of the South Sudanese peace deal, which include East African nations, China and Western powers, met in Khartoum on Sunday to discuss the situation of the transitional government after the July violence and the removal of Machar.

Festus Mogae, Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission Chairman, urged the guarantors to “do everything… to prevent a relapse into full-scale war and salvage the Agreement.”

But Lam Akol called the guarantors “impotent” to ensure that Kiir respected the agreement, “a situation that emboldened him more to dishonour the agreement.”

“The agreement was the only hope to save our country from the abyss. Yet, Kiir has opted to leap into the dark. This is the worst nightmare for the people of South Sudan,” said the former minister.

The Root causes of Political Violence in South Sudan – What’re the Solutions?

BY: DR. LAKO Jada KWAJOK, JUL/31/2016, SSN;

From the outset, I must admit that this article was initiated by a desire to address some misconceptions that came up in Professor Mahmood Mamdani’s article, “Who’s to blame for the political violence in South Sudan? What’s the way forward? I also wanted to elaborate on my suggestion regarding United Nations trusteeship as the best solution for the crisis in South Sudan.

Professor Mamdani expressed many views some are controversial and some are similar to my personal views. To understand why a politically and ethnically engendered violence engulfed South Sudan 2 years after independence, we must go back to how the SPLM/SPLA came into being.

Some years back, retired Major General James Loro, the former President of the Transitional High Executive Council (THEC) was asked over SSTV about how the SPLM/SPLA started. The answer he gave was not the one the TV host hoped to hear. In fact, the audience wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity to know what the General disclosed if the show wasn’t live.

So what did the good General say? Being an honest man he stated that it started as a mutiny by Battalion 105 on a background of embezzlement of funds and salaries belonging to soldiers.

The accused officers upon being ordered to report to Juba immediately for investigation decided to stage a mutiny capitalising on the widespread dissent in the Jieng community against the re-division of South Sudan into three regions.

They joined forces with the Anyanya 2 movement that was active as a low-grade insurgency in the area since the Akobo uprising in 1975.

Loro’s statement is credible as he was a former commander of Battalion 105 which means he might have known the facts from his former subordinates. Moreover, he was the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Southern Division in Juba at the time of the mutiny.

Following that statement, the General never featured again on SSTV. Late Dr. John Garang was on leave and happened to be in the area. Using his leadership charisma, education, and political talents, he managed to hijack the mutineer’s movement and transformed it into what is now known as SPLM/SPLA.

However, he was up against stiff resistance from the Anyanya 2 group which ultimately succumbed after he succeeded in soliciting support for his group from Ethiopia. Garang was ruthless in his quest to consolidate power. Prominent leaders like Samuel Gai Tut, Akuot Atem, Joseph Oduho and Martin Majier were eliminated in an undignified manner.

The culture of violence is deeply-rooted within the SPLM/SPLA. In fact, it was born with it. When you hear the SPLA war songs like “Shaala Abowk Adi Talaga,” meaning (Even your father, put a bullet in him) – would there be any wonder regarding the numerous atrocities committed by the SPLA against the civil population?

Even if someone’s father were a traitor, it would be quite extreme and shocking for one to execute his dad. Those kinds of songs and even worse were taught to young recruits and child soldiers over 30 years ago. Some of those recruits are now the commanders and the high-ranking officers in the SPLA army units.

The above makes it too easy to understand why many citizens rate SPLA as the number one threat to their lives before disease, environmental catastrophes, and famine.

There is a further dimension to the violence that tends to be overlooked. It was reported at the beginning of the conflict that President Kiir addressed recruits exclusively drawn from his ethnic Dinka tribe saying in Dinka language, “The power I have, belongs to you and if some people (meaning Machar’s group) want to take it away from me, would you allow that to happen?”

Some of the rhetoric used was quite damaging to national unity. The recruits were told that the country is theirs and the rest are aliens. Equatorians are Ugandans, and the Nuer came over from Ethiopia. Just imagine what would be the outcome of such rhetoric continuously fed to illiterate people who hail from communities where cattle rustling is commonplace.

As we know, cattle rustling more often than not involves looting, rape and wanton killings. The new reality is that the cattle rustlers have now been authorised by the state to do the only thing they know. Thus it wasn’t a surprise to many when they ran amok on several occasions, killing innocent civilians and ransacking whatever in their way.

It’s a behaviour that stands in stark contrast to what people saw from the Anyanya movement. We never witnessed or heard of atrocities committed against civilians during the Anyanya war. In general, the Anyanya fighters were reputed for being protective and supportive of the civil population.

A hybrid political authority led by an African team to run South Sudan as suggested by Mamdani, would most likely deliver a partial solution to the problem or even further complicate the situation. The reasons are the following:

Firstly, the crisis in South Sudan is not only political but has social and humanitarian dimensions. The regime has pitted communities against each other and inflicted immeasurable damage to the social fabric of the country. As a consequence of its brutality that caused massive population displacement, famine has occurred or looming in many parts of South Sudan. Given the immensity of the problem, it’s less reassuring that an African team would be up to the task. The track records of previous AU missions that saw failures more than success stories evoke little confidence that things would be different this time around.

Secondly, the African regional forces that are sanctioned by the regional leaders to be deployed in South Sudan could be likened to giving a patient a pill that would cure his/her illness but in the long term would produce severe side effects that could prove lethal. The forces are to come from Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Sudan. Apart from Rwanda, all the rest have clear geopolitical interests in what is going on in South Sudan.

Many issues are unresolved between South Sudan and Sudan among them are, the disputed area of Abyei and others, the oil fields in Heglig and the transportation fees for South Sudan’s oil. Many South Sudanese are unaware that the Elleimi Triangle which is currently part of Kenya, does belong to South Sudan. Without a doubt, time will come for the case to be brought up. Ethiopia does have a large Nuer and Anuak population in the western province bordering South Sudan. We have seen how the war in South Sudan affected Ethiopia due to movement of refugees and attacks by the Murle militia across the borders.

The case of Uganda is a little bit worrying because it has shown a lack of neutrality by joining the war on the side of the government. The Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) has been stationed in Western Equatoria since 2005 in the quest to eliminate the threat of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Despite the fact that the LRA is nowhere to be found, yet the UPDF continues to be deployed in Western Equatoria.

More troubling is that of late the locals have been complaining about the presence of the UPDF in Eastern Equatoria where some appear to be involved in illegal mining. With South Sudan being the primary market for Uganda’s exports, it will do whatever in its capacity to influence the course of events in South Sudan. Ugandan influence may not necessarily be beneficial to the people of South Sudan.

It’s not a secret that there has been ups and downs and even open hostility in the relations between these regional powers. Therefore, the risks of South Sudan becoming a stage for settling scores or its political factions and militias being used to fight proxy wars are real. South Sudan could end up being “devoured” by the regional powers.

Thirdly, the AU and the IGAD neither have the resources nor the expertise to launch a massive humanitarian operation on the scale that is required in South Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people need to be returned to their homes that would also require help with reconstructions. Some areas need swift actions to limit the spread of famine. From where would the AU and the IGAD secure the funds if both couldn’t pay the bills for transporting SPLM/A-IO forces to Juba?

Fourthly, Accountability is fundamental to achieving a lasting peace in South Sudan. It will also hasten the process of healing and reconciliation between the communities. As we know, the AU stance on indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains nothing but antagonism. President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan had been indicted by the ICC since 2008. Despite being served with two arrest warrants he managed to evade justice because of lack of cooperation from some countries. President Museveni of Uganda has openly declared that he would not cooperate with the ICC.

In the light of the above, would it be feasible for the Hybrid Court of South Sudan to function without being influenced by the regional powers? It’s obvious that the only credible way to hold the perpetrators of atrocities responsible for their actions is to send them to the ICC at The Hague.

The option that would bring about sustainable peace and ensure a relatively smooth transition towards a united South Sudan is full United Nations Trusteeship.

The regional powers could contribute forces provided they wear the blue helmets and be under the UN designated military command. The UN would form the administrative body that would run the country for five years. Competent South Sudanese would be selected to join the administration through a national vetting committee. The committee would be principled by transparency and having the right qualifications wins someone a job.The five-year period would give the political parties and the candidates enough time to prepare for elections at the end of it.

As for Mamdani’s question, I quote, “how to isolate the perpetrators of political violence from their supporters?”, the answer is – it’s impossible at present. The question suggests a group of elites manipulating and misleading the masses for their personal benefits.

Outsiders would be amazed to know that some top-ranking SPLA commanders who command thousands of soldiers or militias are barely literate or not at all. It’s a cultural thing that links the perpetrators with their supporters.

The civil war wouldn’t have happened if the SPLA was truly a national army composed proportionately of all the ethnicities in South Sudan. Hence, the only solution is for the SPLA and the entire security forces to be disbanded.

The new administration would use the five-year period to build a professional army and a well-disciplined police force. In essence, South Sudan needs a government of institutions where the constitution guides the judiciary, the military, and the entire security organs for the common good of the country.

Dr. Lako Jada Kwajok

Dr. Riek Machar Should Leave Politics for his Safety and the Nuer People

By John Adoor Deng, Australia, JUL/27/2016, SSN;

Having read through the lines, in and out, about the current conflict in South Sudan, I have come to the conclusion that at least the best way out of this serious situation is for Dr. Riek Machar Teny to sacrifice his political ambition and temporarily quit politics altogether.

This may sound odd to many hardliners on both sides of the political divide, especially the SPLM-IO supporters and presumably the FDs (former detainees) whose lifeline depends on IO victory. The following paragraphs shall illustrate why I came to this conclusion.

Indeed after thorough debates in my mind and after having seen and read the trends on which the conflict continues to turn each day in South Sudan, the following elucidations helped inform my inherent conclusions:

Firstly, the war is unwinnable in all aspects especially on the side of SPLA/M-IO and to some extent on the SPLA/M- IG as well. It is a baseless war, aims to achieve nothing but to notoriously kill, maim civilians, destroy properties and rob generations once again from gaining literacy and early childhood education.

Previously, we had lost generations into extreme illiteracy in civil wars; the war kills education opportunities, destroy infrastructure and germinate obnoxious hatred and mistrust among the elite themselves.

Recent wars have taught us to believe this, former enemies never in totality live in complete harmony. For instance, the atrocities of 1991 conflict are being sung and used as intimidation against those believed to have engineered them.

Although the bygones are gone through reconciliation, it is still the case in South Sudan.

Secondly, in the African context, conflicts are not won between brothers; the only winning point for each of the protagonists is reconciliation.

The war between Dinka and Nuer plus their acquaintances will only in my view be won by reconciliation and not in effect through the barrel of the gun as some generals may want to believe. The usage of artillery and bombing usage against each group in this conflict only serves to depopulate our country and leave unredeemed scars on our future generations.

Thirdly, the nature of contemporary Nuer people is rigorously characterized by defections and non-stick-ability on the perceived collective goal. This is true on how Dr. Riek Machar in most of his founded rebellions suffered rapid re-defections.

The data is replete with his followers changing allegiances at each of the critical time of his rebellion. For example, in the 1991 rebellion engineered by Dr Lam Akol and led by Dr Riek Machar, many officers from the Nuer tribe deserted their man to the mercy of SPLA/SPLM led by Dr John Garang De Mabior but were so kind to fully forgive him, and embrace him as his brother through true reconciliation.

History has repeated itself in the 2013 crisis, although many analysts believed that there wasn’t a planned coup at all but instead a mismanaged mutiny in the presidential guards unit.

Dr. Machar, for the second time, found himself exposed to a mounting another rebellion, which he had indeed led since 2013 to Aug 2016, that ended with IGAD brokered Agreement in what later became a short-lived and dishonored peace deal.

Again, for the third time, in July 2016, Dr. Machar has found himself exiled from the capital, Juba. Less than a month later, his close associate, Mr. Taban Deng Gai (his close relative) has taken up his position in a bloodless coup although some people are calling it a survival strategy by barricaded ministers at the wrath of roaring SPLA/M-IG.

Nevertheless, it true that some Machar’s appointed ministers in the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) have turned against him with the view that it is business as usual without Dr. Machar.

His contemporary acquired the spirit of a non-shameless notion of re-defection referred to earlier s has fallen on those of Taban Deng Gai and Ambassador Ezekiel Lol Garkuoth, who were until the recent days the very men at Dr. Machar‘s left hand (Machar is left-handed).

Fourthly, Dr. Machar forces may not at this stage win this third conflict given the sound realities; i.e. the government forces have considerable numbers and are well resourced with the backup from Uganda People Defence Force (UPDF).

He is likely to fight three enemies; SPLA-IG, SPLA-IO-Juba and external force in the form of UPDF. Thus for his own safety and for the safety of his remaining loyal Nuer members, he must quit politics temporarily as a matter of a long time strategy.

This pull back in my view may help spare innocent lives of Nuer people who might, if this war continues, be killed, bombed and displaced.

Ironically, the trust based on International Bodies (AU, IGADD, and UN) is certainly not a guarantee in for Dr. Machar’s survival and his factions. The Rwanda case is a good example of the profound failure of International Community.

Therefore, I believe that a decision to rescue this conflict and bring it to an end once and all rests with Machar relinquishing of his quest for power in South Sudan.

Although it is his democratic right, the prevailing situation in our young nation makes it fervently difficult to apply conventional realities.

The Dinka people who rarely change allegiances have at this point rallied around President Kiir, whether through the influence of the recent known politically notorious group referred to as Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) or through tribal bonds.

It is hard at this juncture and in the near future to think of taking leadership by opposition to the Dinka governing elites (this may sound tribal but these are the facts on the surface).

It may sound like giving up or surrendering position but in essence, it is the best option out of the mess. Dr. Machar has engendered enemies both within IO Juba faction, FDs and obviously SPLA Juba who all really want him buried.

The Taban’s faction may be more dangerous to Dr. Machar’s survival than SPLA-IG. There may be a plan of a close proximity assassination of Machar filtering through in the SPLA-IO-in-the-Bush.

Thus, there is a high possibility for the resumption of Nuer against Nuer conflict emerging as it has always been.

Finally, sometimes when rams fight, they pull back to gain momentum, consolidate power and later on apply the power.

To give Dr. Riek Machar the benefit of the doubt, he appeared to have learned his lessons from the past; he too is seen as a leader who can take the nation forward in terms of development. He is fairer in power distribution as illustrated in the allocation of his 10 ministries.

All regions of South Sudan were well equitably represented in his IO part of the government, unlike president Salva who in most of his appointments appreciates seeing his giant Dinka community equitably represented first plus pockets of other communities.

Significant contrast may be drawn between these two leaders. The circumstance as I had alluded to in previous paragraphs dictates Dr. Machar to defer his quest for leadership until when the dust settled and that there is peace and tranquility in the country. END

Mr. John Adoor Deng is the author of the book entitled: Politics of Ethnicity and Governance in South Sudan: Understanding the Complexity of the World’s Newest Country.
He is a student studying a Doctor of Philosophy at Torrens University of Australia (TUA). He can be reached at dengjohn780@gmail.com

The consequences of the South Sudan government’s violence

BY: ELHAJ Paul, JUL/20/2016, SSN;

The implosion of SPLM/A with its factions in Juba from 7th July 2016 to 11th July 2016, was not an unexpected thing. That it would happen was not a matter of if, but when, and indeed it happened much earlier than expected. South Sudanese warned the world and kept beating the alert drums consistently, but all these as usual fell on deaf ears.

The chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission who should have heeded the warning certainly ignored the messages and now we have chaos in the South Sudan.

Now that things have slightly settled down following the cease fire, it is time to do some thinking on the whole thing. In this process it is important to acknowledge the pains inflicted on the country by actions of a grossly negligent government.

All of us the South Sudanese in one way or another are deeply hurt by loss of loved ones, and traumatised by witnessing the savagery in Juba that went on for those four days. For those of us who survived the Juba carnage of 1965, this brutality awakens a deeper and hidden pain in us.

What makes it worse is that the Juba Carnage happened on exactly the same day: Friday 8th July. Note everything is the same except for the year.

As a survivor of that grave crime against the people of South Sudan, I have sadly come to accept that extreme evil exists in all societies. The naive and racially biased judgement we doled out to the Arabs was full of ignorance. For the savagery of President Salva Kiir’s government far exceeds what the Arabs had done in South Sudan.

This piece attempts to examine the consequences of the South Sudanese government’s violence against its people that has thrown the country into chaos.

If President Kiir, the Jieng Council of Elders and their Chief of the army General Paul Malong Awan Anei thought that by attempting to assassinate Dr Riek Machar they would strengthen their political grip on the country, they no doubt must have miscalculated.

With or without Dr Machar their half baked plan would not bring peace. If anything it would lead to further destabilisation of the country.

It is not rocket science to work out that if Dr Machar disappears from the scene the Agreement for Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) would still have to be implemented. What then is the point in trying to assassinate Dr Machar, if this is not personal tribal hatred?

In the process of this evil plan, the government has plunged the country into a crisis inviting possible foreign intervention to the government’s dismay. The United Nations response to the crisis in questions appears to be heading in that direction.

Now there are three variant perspectives competing to shape the future of South Sudan. The first is made up of those who strongly recommend trusteeship as the only solution to address the chronic failure of leadership in Juba.

The second group is made up of those who advocate partial intervention to save ARCISS, and the third group is made up of supporters of the government who do not support intervention of any nature. If anything they want President Kiir to continue with violation of ARCISS to appoint a Machar replacement.

The advocates of trusteeship include Professor Mahmood Mamdani, Dr Remember Miamingi, Dr Lako Jada Kwajok and others. This group has made a compelling case that can not simply be brushed aside.

Mamdani in his YouTube video, ’South Sudan was not ready for Independence’, thinks that “politically this authority [South Sudan] should be led by somebody who has both the experience, and the vision, and the confidence of everybody concerned.

In my [Mamdani’s] view there is one party, which is the AU High Panel in the Sudan led by former president Thabo Mbeki.” (https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B214GB642D20110806&p=south+sudan+was+not+ready+for+independence)

Although Mamdani’s argument is powerful for the case of trusteeship, his conclusion quoted above falls short of acknowledging and accepting that there are capable South Sudanese who can actually competently with confidence lead South Sudan, for example, Fr Paride Taban.

Dr Miamingi in conversation with Ivan Okuda of the Monitor newspaper under the heading, ‘South Sudan as a state was still born’, equally makes a powerful case of intervention for a hybrid administration consisting of local and foreign people.

He sums it as follows: “This country has failed and won’t work unless the following happens: first, an international military intervention to secure the country and protect civilians.

Second, the replacement of the failed government in Juba with a hybrid administration of South Sudanese technocrats supported by our brothers from the region and international community. This transitional arrangement will reconcile, heal, foster accountability, restore order, hand it a constitution and after that process organise elections with guaranteed sanity.” (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/PeoplePower/South-Sudan-as-a-state-was-stillborn/-/689844/3298006/-/rv8c42/-/index.html)

Dr Kwajok expressing the view of the majority of South Sudanese in his article titled, ‘United Nations Trusteeship is the best option to resolve the crisis in South Sudan’, points out that “There is a growing consensus among a significant number of South Sudanese that supports UN takeover of the country until it’s able to function as a viable state. A 5-year period under UN Trusteeship would give the country the chance to start afresh on sound foundations.” (http://www.southsudannation.com/united-nations-trusteeship-is-the-best-option-to-resolve-the-crisis-in-south-sudan/)

The second group wants to see the implementation of the peace agreement resume with both President Kiir and Dr Machar working together. The group consist of the United Nations, IGAD and the Troika.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki Moon advancing this view in his response to the crisis recommended to ‘the Council (UNSC) to take action on three fronts:
=== impose an immediate arms embargo on South Sudan,
=== enact additional targeted sanctions on leaders and commanders blocking the implementation of the peace agreement, and
=== fortify UNMISS with “desperately needed” attack helicopters and other material to fulfil the mandate to protect civilians.’ (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54434#.V41JaNQrLs0) Equally both IGAD and the Troika called for the same. (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article59587)

The third group is that of the government and its supporters who want the status quo to continue. The Jieng Council of Elders is already issuing out threats against any intervention. Please see, ‘Dinka Council of Elders warns war over additional UNMISS troops’, (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/dinka-council-elders-warns-war-over-additional-unmiss-troops). This group should be ignored. They have already failed spectacularly and they have nothing to offer the country.

Those arguing for trusteeship no doubt have made strong and valid points that South Sudan one way or other needs to be pulled out of the mud it is deeply stuck in.

Their recommendations however ignore a hidden reality in South Sudanese politics, which is that the country actually has knowledgeable and competent leaders to lead it, the reason these leaders have not surfaced is because of SPLM/A’s violence towards leaders from other ethnicities.

They have not asked the question: Is it true that South Sudan does not have the necessary leaders? If they did, they perhaps would have come up with the right answer.

Mamdani’s recommendation is outright contemptuous of South Sudan and its people. He parachutes Mr Mbeki as the qualified person to fix South Sudan without taking into consideration that leaders like his nominee, are currently failing South Sudan.

What have the foreigners with impeccable governance credentials appointed to manage the current agreement done? Are they any more of a success than the failed South Sudanese leadership? How has the implementation of ARCISS led to chaos under their watch?

All the signs for impending troubles were in their face, what did they do? Mamdani presents a paradox himself in his video where he acknowledges the failure of the international community.

On the other hand, placing hope on ARCISS and spending energy to salvage it is a dead end. It will not work. What is needed now is for the two perspectives of those supporting intervention to be merged to give birth to a totally new approach that breaks the backbone of the cancer – SPLM/A with its various factions once and for all, in order for peace to come to South Sudan.

Therefore, the international community as recommended should intervene to separate the SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO and demilitarise the capital. Once the capital is demilitarised and security is restored, the intervention force takes over the security of the capital for the entire duration of the interim period.

This should then be followed by the dissolution of the Transitional Government of National Unity of President Kiir and Dr Machar.

A national Unity conference should then be organised composed of all the registered parties, registered civil societies, faith based groups, and the Diaspora supported by one of ‘The Elders’ (www.theelders.org), preferably Kofi Annan with the main objective to choose a new transitional government whose agenda includes the main provisions of ARCISS.

This new administration must be a product owned by the South Sudanese people, to dispel the propaganda of the JCE and their song of sovereignty aimed at elevating themselves fraudulently. It also should avoid the shenanigans and bias of IGAD Plus during their mediation of ARCISS.

South Sudan’s parliament should not play any role in this process because:

1) It is not a legitimate body. All the MPs like President Kiir himself were not voted in by the South Sudanese people in an independent South Sudan.
2) They failed to play their role in holding the executive to account since 2005.
3) A good number of the MPs are nominees of the already proven failed leaders that have plunged the country into the abyss. The people of South Sudan through the mentioned organisations should now make the decision of who should run the country on behalf of the people.

In conclusion, South Sudan has been hijacked by the SPLM/A, and it has been abused to an extent that the only way out now is partial intervention.

If the international community truly wants to support the people of South Sudan as it claims, then they need to provide the needed security and safe environment for South Sudanese to exercise their collective sovereignty. This surely is not much to ask for…

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]
Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com

Jieng Council of Elders’ pre-plan: To arrest, harm & celebrate Dr. Riek Machar’s death on 9th July, 2016

By: Bol Khan, JUL/18/2016, SSN;

The pre-plan designed by Jieng Council of Elders’ leadership in Juba was to arrest Dr. Riek Machar on Friday 8th July 2016 at J1, harm/murder him and then celebrate his death on Saturday 9th July 2016. This was what the later details transpired. The details transpired that the postponement of Independence Day Celebrations was not done out of the blue.

It wasn’t a normal postponement as such! The primary plan was to divert the public’s attention from what the Administration’s Legislative body, the Jieng Council of Elders, had already worked on & cooked: A plan to arrest and harm Dr. Machar before Friday 8th July 2016.

Yes, the prime reason as reported was a financial hardship which had earlier on badly hit the Council led-Government of Salva Kiir. This became known to everybody. However, the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) in collaboration with the administration also thought of how they could get Riek Machar in an official corner so that they arrest and permanently harm him.

Thus, the council’s executive body led by Salva Kiir Mayardit on 8th Friday July 2016 was acting on its legislative body’s directives.

I have concrete evidences sent to me by an insider in the administration. Had this pre-plan succeeded on Friday 8th July 2016, a little budget reserved by the administration would have been used to celebrate Dr. Machar’s death instead on Saturday 9th July 2016.

Accordingly, as directed by the council, President Salva Kiir called Dr. Riek Machar for a meeting at J1 on Friday 8th July 2016. While on the other hand, the council also directed its military wing to send extra force as soon as Dr. Machar arrives at J1, State House.

Indeed, when Dr. Machar arrived at J1 on Friday 8th July 2016, the forces that would start fighting were immediately sent by the military wing under the leadership of Malong Awan. A huge forces which Ateny Wek, Salva Kiir’s spokesperson and Akuei Bona Malual, J1 Council’s Representative to the UN later described as “unknown gunmen” appeared from the Headquarters and opened fire on Dr. Machar’s bodyguards.

Paul Malong was nicknamed by the Administration as “King Paul” for having successfully masterminded 15 December 2013 genocide in Juba, Wau’s mass murder in June 2016 and many more atrocities he planned, instigated and executed.

Primarily, the Jieng Council of Elders’ forces took for granted that they would easily chase away Dr. Machar’s unit in three minutes time on Friday 8th July 2016.

Primitively, they only looked at Machar’s protection unit as was very small, without taking into account guards’ nationality and that fighting those natural bravest bodyguards was not as easy as withdrawing cash ($ USD) from South Sudan Central Bank (SSCB).

The council’s forces also thought once they start fighting, Machar’s gallant unit would be easily wiped out or even during the fighting, perhaps Riek would come out running, cowed, crouched or cringed in fear. Or might come out either to see what was happening or see his bodyguards’ whereabouts.

Instead, Machar small unit force made the opposite happen. That fierce fighting took place between unequal forces and Dr. Machar’s bodyguards humiliated the council’s forces instead. The two forces fought until when a third party, the UNMISS separating forces came. And reportedly, this was where the council’s members could start blaming each other for the failure to arrest and finally harm Dr. Machar.

On Friday night when the council’s prominent members realized that their designed pre-plan failed then they went back to the drawing board. Where they freshly start strategizing how they could again get Dr. Machar after the failure of a calculated assassination attempt at J1.

The Council leadership could not sleep for those two consecutive nights, i.e. Friday & Saturday nights. Desperately, they agreed to launch an open and direct attempt on Dr. Machar and his protection unit comprising of only one thousand-three hundred and seventy (1,370) servicemen.

They resolved that “All the available weaponry or military hardware currently in SPLA’s possession including helicopters gunships would be used against Machar and his forces on Sunday. Hoping, ordering over thirty (30,000 excluding unified police) to fight and crush Machar would have resulted into rounding up, arresting and permanently harming him.

Perhaps, by launching both ground and aerial bombardments attacks using heavy artillery plus helicopter gunships may result into a whole elimination of him and his forces.

On Sunday morning, 10th July 2016, SPLA launched fierce offensive ground attacks and then followed by aerial bombardments on SPLM-IO’s two bases, wishfully hoping to hear that Dr. Machar got killed in combat.

The multiple attacks which were coming from different directions were all beaten back at best by SPLA-IO’s protection and support units. A war which was initially set to take only two hours lasted for five good days between over thirty thousand (30, 000) Jieng Council of Elders’ troops and only one thousand, three hundred and seven (1,370) strong servicemen of Dr. Machar. While Machar’s small forces were using only slight machine guns e.g. AK47, RPGs and few PKMs compared to modern weaponry and military hardware including helicopter gunships the SPLA were using against Machar’s forces.

Congratulations Dr. Machar’s gallant forces!! With this unequal number of forces and military supplies the two armies had in mind, if you made SPLA-IO’s troops to be thirty thousands (30, 000) and SPLA-IG’s troops as only one thousand, three hundred and seventy (1,370 ) troops in Juba. What do you think would have happen therein?

Could Jieng Council of Elders still roving around maiming ordinary citizens, today in Juba? I don’t think. Hence, Malong and Council’s cronies must not proudly talk today in Juba as if theirs was braveness. They are not!! If they think they are, can they accept two equal forces with equal military hardware in Juba? Will they?

Willingly, and to avoid further clashes, the SPLM/A-IO’s forces had to voluntarily decide a tactical withdrawal from its two bases on Monday evening.

When Jieng Council of Elders heard this, the council’s online and blanket Ambassador, Gordon Buay Malek, quickly posted a white lie on his facebook account saying “SPLM-IO’s Chief of Staff, Gen. Gatwech Dual, IO’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration & Finance, Gen. James Koang Chuol and perhaps Dr. Riek Machar were all believed to have been confirmed dead during series confrontations between the SPLA-IG &SPLA-IO forces in Jebel Kujur”.

Gordon Buay is a South Sudan’s Jieng Council of Elders trivial, self-imposed representative to the United States of America. Gordon’s name was not included in South Sudan’s Ambassadorial list; so he has no fixed basic salary in the Council’s pay roll.

He depends only on wage; he earns a living by making up information and reports this hoodwinking information to the Council, JCE, so that he is given something to eat at least for a day. His (Gordon Buay) payment depends on how much information he made up or how many lies he makes/levels per day against Dr. Riek Machar’s character. This is how he survives all these years since late 2013.

Back to the topic, so the notorious Jieng Council of Elders’ deadly but failed pre-plan was to murder and celebrate Dr. Machar death on date 9th July 2016. Even if the executive branch of Jieng Council Elders managed to arrest and permanently harmed Dr. Machar on Friday 8th July 2016 at J1, the offensive attacks which were later launched on Sunday 10th July 2016 against the SPLA-IO would have all been suspended.

What they would have been busy doing was the celebrations. This was evidently transpired and was ascertained by the following two factors: 1) The celebratory sporadic firing of guns into the air allover Juba on Monday night was of this fact that they thought what Gordon Buay uttered about the alleged killings of Gen. Gatwech Dual, Gen. James Koang and Dr. Machar were true.

Some Jieng’s Community members automatically became arch enemies of Dr. Machar in 1990s when He, Dr. Machar challenged the SPLM’s first objective/vision of Secular, United, and One Sudan. Additionally, as a result of that long-established tribal incitement, which has later on been spread by some Jieng Elders for years now, about almost sixty-five (65) percent of today South Sudan’s Jieng Community, wish to see Dr. Riek Machar’s corpse placed into a grave.

From that year, Jieng Community (with more or less) began to believe that as long as Dr. Riek Machar still exists on this planet South Sudan cannot and will never be a stable country. Without complimenting Him (Dr. Machar) for having opposed that unachievable United Sudan Vision in 1991. Gluttonously, they also forget that what they are enjoying today in Juba was Dr. Machar’s brainchild.

Lastly and not the least, in my capacity as the said Council regime’s survivor, I would like to add my voice to those whose voices might have reached you, Dr. Machar, earlier on. About how you should be cautious or stay alert regarding these evil acts of Jieng Council of Elders.

Naturally, ninety (90%) percent of this Jieng Council of Elders-led Community knows very well how to set a political, coordinate and eliminating evils plans. Let’s not forget that, the organized terrorists always have millions tricky ways to achieve their evil and deadly plans every time, anywhere and at anytime.

Bol Khan can be reached on bolkhan39@yahoo.com

United Nations Trusteeship is the best option to resolve the crisis in South Sudan

BY: Dr. Lako JADA KWAJOK, UK, JUL/16/2016, SSN;

To many South Sudanese, the 9th of July each year is a day for joy and magnificent celebrations all over the country. There is nothing unusual about such expectations in a day that marks our independence following a protracted war that resulted in massive losses of human lives, material, and a consequent underdevelopment of the country.

People were filled with dismay following the cancellation of the 2016 anniversary because of lack of funds. But never in a million years did anyone envisage that the gates of hell would open in South Sudan on the very day it gained its independence.

The deadly clash outside the Presidential Palace (J1) in Juba on Friday 08/07/2016 was the final nail in the coffin of trust between the two parties; SPLM/A-IO and SPLM/A-IG. The triggering event was the killing of Lt. Colonel George Gismala and Sgt. Domach Koat Pinyien on 02/07/2016 by elements of the National Security Service (NSS) and Military Intelligence (MI).

From there, the tension between the two sides escalated significantly and culminated in a further shooting incident on 07/07/2016. It was obvious to sharp observers that SPLM/A-IG has opted for war and the shooting of the two SPLM/A-IO military men were the first shots in it.

In the aftermath of the carnage at J1, President Kiir stated that he does not know who was behind it. Reports indicate that a large force came from nowhere and attacked the SPLM/A-IO guards deployed outside the presidential palace.

It appeared to be a coordinated attack with the presidential guards already positioned outside J1 joining the “unknown force” in the fight against SPLM/A-IO guards. Only a person with remarkable naivety would believe that President Kiir has nothing to do with what happened.

Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, how could the attack on SPLM/A-IO headquarters and Machar’s residence the next day, be explained? Is there anyone on planet Earth who believes that thousands of army troops supported by artillery units, tanks, and helicopter gunships could launch such a major offensive without the blessing and knowledge of the Commander in Chief?

The regime, in its moment of madness never spared a thought for the consequences of its actions. Suppose Kiir and his supporters succeeded in wiping out the entire SPLM/A-IO leadership – what then? Would South Sudan attain a lasting peace?

The regime seems to hold the erroneous belief that its problems are caused by certain personalities, therefore, neutralising or liquidating these individuals would pave the way for the consolidation of its rule over South Sudan.

But it’s up against the reality that the overwhelming majority of the people are behind the opposition, hence, there will never be any shortage in filling up any vacant leadership position.

The fact that these ugly events took place around independence day, sent a message to the whole world that South Sudan lacks responsible leadership. Those who have been sceptical regarding South Sudan becoming an independent state now feel vindicated.

However, the fact of the matter isn’t that the South Sudanese communities are incompatible with each other or unable to coexist peacefully. They have been living together as tribal communities neighbouring each other for centuries.

There hadn’t been any hostilities in our ancient past on the scale we are witnessing now. The majority of the populace are law-abiding and peace-loving people.

The unfortunate reality is that the country is being misruled by a bunch of sadistic leaders who do not give a damn about the future of the country.

Self-enrichment through rampant corruption, targeting of political rivals and adherence to a divisive policy on ethnic lines are the reasons that landed the country in the current predicament. The regime has utterly failed in all aspects of good governance.

Calling it a government is a sort of a misnomer as there is no government in the world where civil servants, teachers, university lecturers and soldiers do not receive salaries for 3 to 4 months. It even resorted to the medieval practice whereby soldiers are allowed to rape and loot as part of dividing the spoils or payment for their services.

There is a difference though as the victims in the medieval era were subjects of conquered countries and not citizens of the same country.

Not long ago, India today TV station and several news outlets reported that the government of South Sudan sanctioned its soldiers to rape and loot as payment for their salaries. These abominable acts were confirmed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and several relief organisations – what a disgrace!

The second misnomer is the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) which is said to be the national army of South Sudan. The name itself creates a paradox as on one hand South Sudan chose secession from Sudan and on the other it continues to use the name that relates to Sudan.

The SPLA is anything but a national army. It’s composed overwhelmingly of one ethnicity, the Jieng, making it a tribal army. It lacks discipline, training, structured chain of command and standard rules of engagement. It often resorts to looting, destruction of properties and extrajudicial killings.

Following the recent ceasefire in Juba, the whole world witnessed how the SPLA ransacked Juba markets, private homes and properties belonging to citizens. Even the UN World Food Programme (WFP) central warehouse in Juba was not spared by the unruly SPLA soldiers.

The WFP has been delivering vital services to the needy population of South Sudan and presumably saved many lives.

What took place is not the behaviour people would expect from a national army. Those soldiers brought nothing but shame and disdain on South Sudan.

We must remember that President Kiir and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) lost legitimacy on 09/07/2014. Signing the Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) restored their legitimacy for the purpose of implementing the peace accord.

Apparently, the recent hostilities have dealt ARCISS a fatal blow. Anyone who thinks that there is hope in enacting ARCISS is only burying his or her head in the sand. It’s time to consider other avenues that could rescue the South Sudanese people from an imminent catastrophe.

There is a growing consensus among a significant number of South Sudanese that supports UN takeover of the country until it’s able to function as a viable state. A 5-year period under UN Trusteeship would give the country the chance to start afresh on sound foundations.

During the said period it would be possible to establish an inclusive system of governance and develop equitable government policies. The international community should avoid being complacent as it’s not in anyone’s best interest to allow the replication of the Rwanda’s horrors.

Those who are concerned about the breach of the sovereignty of an independent state must understand that a failed state has no sovereignty. Even from the citizens’ perspective, it has no value when the state fails to deliver essential services, uphold the rule of law and promote peace and harmony between its communities.

Moreover, with the growing influx of refugees across the borders to the neighbouring countries, South Sudan has become a destabilising entity in the area and a real threat to regional security.

There is an urgent need for a pre-emptive intervention by the UN to save lives, prevent massive population displacement and avert widespread famine.

Dr. Lako Jada Kwajok