Category: Most Popular

Blunders of SPLM-IO and betrayal by Taban Deng Gai

By Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudan, JUN/30/2018, SSN;

Fighting against an established system is not theatrical. The general rule for an armed rebellion is not to appease people; it is to fight for a cause using necessary political and military means.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition’s (SPLM-IO) strategy of focusing too much on peace and ignoring arming its military wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-In Opposition (SPLA-IO), is not a plausible policy.

If the SPLM-IO wants to win the hearts and minds of its supporters, then it must change its overall strategy, which has consisted of a series of blunders so far.

In October 2015, the SPLA-IO military intelligence personnel discovered that the current First Vice President, Taban Deng Gai, who was then chief peace negotiator for the armed opposition, colluded with the government.

When the issue was brought to the attention of the SPLM/-IO leadership, they brushed it off as if that was not the case.

It is worth mentioning that in late 2015, Taban was also discouraging SPLM/A-IO’s foreign friends not to assist the rebellion in any way, whether it be arms or financial.

The rebel leadership did not consider the intelligence reports about Taban’s activities, committing a mistake that the armed opposition must not ever repeat.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SPLA-IO suffers because of the political decisions made by the rebel leadership.

In January 2016, Taban was recalled to the town of Pagak to consult with the leadership of the armed opposition. This occurred after Juba’s regime refused to allow the SPLA-IO to transport thousands of its soldiers as stipulated in the August 2015 power-sharing deal.

But when he landed in Pagak, the SPLA-IO intelligence agents suggested that Taban must be removed from his position as the chief negotiator or else be arrested. However, the rebel leadership refused to act.

It was a colossal mistake on the SPLM-IO’s part. What the armed opposition’s political leadership did not understand was that Taban was visibly furious because he had been appointed as mining minister, instead of petroleum minister, a position for which he once secretly campaigned.

During the consultative meeting in Pagak, Taban surprised the leadership of the armed opposition by declaring that SPLM/-IO has no power to reverse Juba’s demand to reduce the number of its troops even though the number of the armed opposition troops was stipulated in the agreement.

After Taban deceived the rebel leadership, he flew back to Juba and resumed his duties as the chief peace negotiator for the rebels.

However, in April 2016, Taban resigned as the rebel chief negotiator, claiming that his new role as mining minister was enough and that he wanted to focus only on running his ministry.

His claim was an elaborate lie. Taban was not resigning because he was committed to his new role as South Sudan’s mining minister: the resignation was merely the first calculated step to dissociate himself from the rebel leadership.

What’s more, some SPLM-IO officials were quick to praise Taban as a role model because he was committed to his new assignment as the mining minister.

The problem was that the armed opposition was methodically fooled by Taban, forcing some rebel officials to publicly defend him. The irony was that their defense of Taban in the media turned out to be a regrettable mistake.

In July 2016, Taban, President Kiir, and former chief of staff, Paul Malong, attempted to assassinate the armed opposition leader Dr. Riek Machar in a meeting at Juba One (J1).

Fortunately, SPLA-IO’s forces emerged victorious, killing almost all of Kiir’s soldiers who were deployed with the intent to kill Machar and then blame it on “rogue soldiers.”

Another strategic mistake the rebel leadership made in 2014-2016 was that it placed too much of a focus on peace without properly arming its soldiers.

This is not to say that the SPLM-IO should not focus on peace. What I am saying is that it must find ways to supply its army wing with weapons while working for peace at the same time.

One of the main reasons why Kiir is refusing peace is that he knows his soldiers are well-equipped.

If the armed opposition were to be equipped with modern weapons and sophisticated missiles capable of destroying tanks, shooting down helicopters or jets, I guarantee you, peace would return to South Sudan in the blink of an eye.

When Machar and other top rebel leaders fled for their lives, most South Sudanese immediately concluded that Taban was behind the fighting and that his true intention was to kill Dr. Machar and take over the leadership of the SPLM/A-IO.

Prior to the assassination attempt on Machar’s life, Taban knew he was not popular in rebel-controlled areas, and he also knew that his collusion with Juba’s regime to hijack the 2015 peace pact was discovered. But he was lucky because of SPLM-IO’s inaction.

These notable mistakes must not be repeated by the SPLM/-IO’s leadership.

The armed opposition must engage in the peace revitalization talks, knowing that one of its own could become another Taban.

The rebel leadership must also negotiate reasonably and consider people’s demands, avoiding a repeat of Taban’s greedy strategy.

One of the SPLM-IO’s critical political mistakes was that it failed to act or use powers granted to it under the armed opposition constitution.

The top leadership could have removed Taban when he was working against interests of the SPLM/A-IO while serving as its chief peace negotiator at the same time.

The rebel leadership could also have used its legal powers to punish Taban or anyone the intelligence operatives deemed as a threat to the movement — and the best thing it could have done was to dismiss him from the SPLM/A-IO and allowed the intelligence personnel to arrest him.

If the leadership of the armed opposition had acted in this way, all those who joined the rebellion or anyone who lied his or her way to the movement’s top leadership could have left voluntarily.

The action could also have discouraged anyone who wished to join the rebellion with the intent of spying on the SPLM/A-IO. We witnessed this sad reality when Taban conspired with Kiir and Paul, among others, to kill Machar in July 2016.

We know who joined him after Machar fled Juba and this is what the rebel intelligence agents tried to tell the rebel leadership.

Being slow to act is not always the best strategy — it is a plan that must be scrapped if the SPLM/A-IO wants to succeed.

Taban is known as someone who would slit the throat of anyone who refuses him a position he wants. Taban is also known in South Sudan as someone who is only interested in lucrative positions.

If Machar had appointed him as the petroleum minister, the July 2016 fighting would not have happened, and the 2015 peace would have been implemented.

Taban is a world-class greedy politician and co-hijacker of the 2015 peace accord. Those who know Taban from his childhood would tell you the man is a very dangerous politician.

This does not surprise me since he once plotted to kill Machar in Unity State during 2010 gubernatorial elections when it was clear that he forced the electoral committee in Bentiu to declare him as the winner and threatened the head of the committee unless he inflated the number of people who voted for him.

Taban used all these dictatorial tactics when it was clear to him that Dr. Machar’s wife and his chief rival, Angelina Teny, was the clear winner.

The notion that the armed opposition should strike a deal with Salva Kiir’s regime while Taban is a Kiir’s ally is rather perverse. Taban knows he has no future in the SPLM/A-IO’s areas because he betrayed the movement in 2016.

Taban knows it, and that is why he pledges his full allegiance to Kiir’s destructive regime. It would be a mistake if the rebel leadership thought that Taban no longer posed a threat to its existence.

So, remember that Taban’s 2015-2016 evil plan is still very much alive.

An armed struggle is not a joke and the leadership of the rebel movement must not continue to make the same blunders while the regime in Juba continues looking for the best way to destroy the rebellion.

What the SPLM-IO decision-making body should do is to reorganize its rank and file and strengthen its political and military rules to make sure that a July 2016 J1 scenario does not happen again.

The rebel leadership must also know that focusing too much on diplomacy without a strong army is useless. It is no longer feasible in this modern world for any rebel leader to succeed on a diplomatic front alone.

For Kiir to accept peace, the SPLA-IO must be heavily armed, and the armed opposition must develop strategies that can identify traitors and those who joined the SPLM/A-IO with the intent of destroying it.

The SPLA-IO intelligence operatives must exercise their utmost powers to confront anyone who undermines the movement’s vision for the country. Taban’s collusion with Kiir must be the last.

The author can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.

LATEST: Machar’s rebels now demand peace deal amendments

JUN/27/2018- Various Sources;

Dr. Riek Machar’s rebel group are now demanding amendments to the framework agreement signed with the Kiir’s Juba government in Khartoum on Tuesday, June 26, 2018.

The rebel movement’s director of information and public relations, Mabior Garang de Mabior, said that they were opposed to the dividing of the country into three regions, the invitation of foreign forces and the resumption of oil production prior to a comprehensive negotiated settlement.

“South Sudan is one country and cannot be divided into three,” said Mabior in reaction to proposals that the country should have three capitals—Juba, Wau and Malakal.

So far, however, there are no details as to what is behind the proposal of having these so-called ‘three capitals in the country’ and what kind of governance system is envisioned for the country.

According to a document leaked to the media on Tuesday, the two sides had agreed to a peace deal, including the declaration of ceasefire in the country.

However, rebel leader Riek Machar was later quoted saying that his side needed two days to review the peace deal.

Dr Machar said in Khartoum that they had asked to be given two more days for consultations within their party and with other opposition factions before signing the deal.

Unconfirmed reports coming out reportedly from sources within the meeting hall say that there was allegedly some kind of intimidation and pressure on Dr. Riek Machar from the notorious Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) to sign the agreement or else no single opposition groups members would be allowed to leave Khartoum.

Dr. Machar had requested the secretariat to allow him to further consult the other opposition forces but that was clearly impeded and Machar had no way out except to sign the agreement.

Further, it’s being revealed that the head of the Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), Salah Goss, reportedly exerted pressure on the South Sudanese political groups to initial the so-called ‘peace deal.’

Khartoum peace talks resumed in Khartoum on Monday under Sudanese President Omar Bashir and his Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Museveni.

According to the Framework Agreement, the two rivals — President Salva Kiir and Machar — agreed, among other things, to allow the Khartoum government to secure the oil fields in South Sudan in coordination with the Juba administration, and to rehabilitate the wells to restore the previous levels of production.

They also declared to work together again for the third time after their long disagreement proved difficult for peace and stability.

Peace efforts

President Bashir on Monday promised to end the war in South Sudan and pave the way for rigorous development in the war-torn state.

“I would like to assure everyone that Sudan will work hard and try all measures based on our experience during the war and peace times to ensure that this initiative is a success.

“We shall use our experience in the management of national and community dialogues to address all the issues,” President Bashir said.

Interestingly, however, the Sudanese leader is a suspect wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide committed in western Darfur region.

South Sudan attained independence from Sudan in 2011 but descended into a civil war two years later.

The war erupted following a power wrangle between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Dr Machar.

The conflict has caused one of the largest humanitarian crises in the continent, according to the UN.

About two million South Sudanese have become refugees in neighbouring countries.

The International Crisis Group estimates that more than 100,000 lives have been lost in the young nation from from 2013 to 2015 alone.

LATEST: Kiir-Machar to sign again a New Peace Deal & Arab Beshir to take over control of the OIL….AGAIN!

From Various Sources, JUN/26/2018;

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir and rebel leader Riek Machar have finally inked an agreement to end the war.

The two met in Khartoum on Monday to continue their face-to- face talks and mute all the stumbling blocks to the peace in the young nation.

On Tuesday, the two leaders reached compromises on a number of outstanding issues.

Temporary basis:

The areas agreed upon include a permanent ceasefire, cantonments for all forces and the deployment of forces by Igad and the African Union to safeguard the ceasefire.

President Kiir and Dr Machar further agreed to have three capital cities; namely Juba, Wau and Malakal on temporary basis to host the three proposed vice-presidents.

Lords of South Sudan killing fields meet again.

SUDAN LEADER BASHIR TAKES OVER ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF SOUTH SUDAN OIL PRODUCTION: According to the signed Framework Agreement, seen by the media, the two rivals agreed to allow the Khartoum government to secure the oil fields in South Sudan in coordination with the Juba administration, and to rehabilitate the wells to restore the previous levels of production.

They also declared to work together again for the third time after their long disagreement proved difficult for peace and stability.

Sudanese President Omar Bashir on Monday promised to end the war in South Sudan and pave the way for rigorous development in the war-torn state.

His promise seems to be bearing positive results on the peace process.

Community dialogues

“I would like to assure everyone that Sudan will work hard and try all measures based on our experience during the war and peace times to ensure that this initiative is a success.

“We shall use our experience in the management of national and community dialogues to address all the issues,” President Bashir said.

Interestingly, however, the Sudanese leader is a suspect wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide committed in western Darfur region.

President Museveni appealed to key political players in South Sudan is to have constructive deliberations as they negotiate for peace, unity and concretize the ground for the development of their country.

“I used to see South Sudan developing but later it went into a standstill because of disunity. Today, we have had discussions on matters of peace in South Sudan and we have a good starting point to restore political normalcy.

It was a good gesture that both Salva Kiir and Dr Riek Machar shook hands, setting into motion the fruitful meeting we had today (June 25),” said Mr Museveni before adding: “I pledge full support and solidarity to ensure that South Sudan is back on the track of economic and social development.

I thank His Excellency Omar el-Bashir for his concern over the political instability in South Sudan and for calling this meeting. I also salute Dr Machar for honouring this peace-making mission for the benefit of all people in his country and His Excellency Salva Kiir for being present too.”

“We cannot talk about it and we cannot tell our position now because we are still working on it. The document was presented by President Bashir yesterday night,” Mayen Dut Wol, South Sudan ambassador to Khartoum told Radio Tamazuj this afternoon.

South Sudan opposition leader Riek Machar said he wanted to discuss the draft document with his officials.

“We need to be given one day so that we can look at it. I had to get it around 11 am, so I haven’t read it,” Machar said.

Meanwhile, Manawa Peter Gatkuoth, a leading member of the rebel movement led by Riek Machar also confirmed they had been served with a framework agreement by Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir.

“We are expected to sign the declaration on Wednesday. Kiir, Machar and Bashir discussed it but Machar wanted the opposition to conduct consultations on it,” Manawa.

The importance to acknolwledge the realities of contemporary South Sudan

BY: ELHAG PAUL, South Sudanese, JUN/13/2018, SSN;

Last week, an Equatoria girl produced a video in which she expressed her feelings against the Jieng tribe in South Sudan. The video can be accessed through: (video – 2018-06-03-07-11-27.mp4) for those who have a video converter facility. This video coincided with an article written by Agel Machar published in Paanlwel website titled: ‘Focus on SPLM reunification: Nuer–Dinka unity is paramount to national unity and stability’ (https://paanluelwel.com/2018/06/03/splm-unification-nuer-dinka-unity-is-paramount-to-national-unity-and-stability/)

This article seeks to drum up the unwritten unity of Jieng and Nuer as the basis for national peace and stability in the country. Surely unity between Jieng and Nuer can not be called a national thing as this is a project of two tribes only out of many others.

On the other hand, critics of the Equatorian girl deploy the word nationalism to dismiss her. It is important to note that the term nationalism can not be neatly applied into the context of South Sudan presently because South Sudan has several nationalities and nationality in South Sudan is fluid.

For nationalism to take hold in South Sudan it needs to be consciously engineered through application of policies that build things in the country the citizens can identify with to bring them together.

So in the context of South Sudan, the word patriotism fits better because it is all about love of one’s country.

The article of Agel Machar and the video of the Equatorian girl have attracted criticism across the board and rightly so. Patriots issued condemnations against these vile materials.

Machar’s article promotes upheaval and open discrimination while the Equatorian girl incites hatred. However, that said, it is vital to try to understand why these materials have surfaced in the public domain.

They did not come out of no where. Each perspective has a background to it and an ideology that sustains it.

So, in order to dismantle what sustains them, it demands careful observation and analysis of the acts and experiences of these actors (Agel Machar and the Equatorian girl).

It is no good to just condemn these personalities and their work without engaging and challenging them.

Now let us look at the work of these two persons. Machar, in a nutshell believes that the unity of the Jieng and Nuer with the sole purpose to rule is important for peace and stability in South Sudan.

He argues that the Jieng cannot afford to ignore the Nuer otherwise the management of the country and national affairs will continue to pose some serious challenges to the Jieng.

This view is neither new nor untested. Right from the inception of the SPLM regardless of the violent relationship between the Jieng and Nuer, the leaders of both ethnicities are agreed to rule South Sudan without the participation of the other tribes.

In other words, it is an agreement to marginalise the other South Sudanese tribes using force.

It is an open secret that late Dr John Garang De Mabior, the then leader of SPLM and late William Nyoun and Dr Riek Machar entered into an undeclared, unwritten and unspoken contract that specifically binds them to a unity whose sole purpose is dominance of politics in South Sudan.

They wrongly believed that as large tribes they can dominate South Sudan for a long time.

The need for this kind of unity was born out of the events of Kokora that saw Southern Region of the Sudan divided into three regions following the reaction of Equatorians to Mr Abel Alier’s tribal misrule of the 1970s.

However, what Garang, Nyoun and Machar overlooked is that numerical majority is not an automatic ticket to rule.

The Jieng and Nuer must learn from the history of Sudan itself that their majority did not allow them to rule the Sudan.

Further they need to draw a lesson from Rwanda where the majority Hutu with almost 90 percent of the population are ruled by a tiny minority of Tutsi who make less than 7 percent of the population.

The evidence of this Jieng and Nuer compact has since the inception of the SPLM been shown in the structures of the movement and later on in the structures of South Sudan government.

For example, the leader of the SPLM has always been a Jieng deputised by a Nuer. The leadership of the army too deliberately is dominated by the two tribes with the bulk of the fighting force coming from the two tribes.

When William Nyoun rebelled he was replaced by Salva Kiir and when Riek Machar returned to the fold after re-defecting from Khartoum, he took James Wani Igga’s position of the Vice Chairman in the SPLM with Igga being kicked into the long grass.

After the death of Garang, Riek Machar became Vice president to a Jieng.

When Riek was pushed out in December 2013, Igga was brought in temporarily to warm the seat for the return of Machar in early 2016 following the signing of ARCSS in August 2015.

When Riek Machar was again pushed out in July 2016, Taban Deng Gai took over. So this undeclared, unwritten and unspoken compact is a visible reality that is observable to any keen follower of South Sudan politics.

This compact is responsible for all the chaos going on in the country simply because its intention is limited to the need o dominate and discriminate against the other tribes of South Sudan.

Sadly, the downside of it has seen the Nuer, a willing partner paying heavily with destruction of its own society in all areas of life. The Nuer have become victims of ethnic cleansing.

The system they supported out of this unity turned them against each other: Nuer on Nuer violence fanned continuously by the Jieng who at the same time woo them as partners in this relationship of doom.

At the current rate of destruction going on in Nuer land/territories the result of this undeclared, unwritten and unspoken unity, may lead to an unfortunate reality where in the next decade the Nuer may drastically be reduced in population.

The Jieng buoyed by their persistent destruction of the Nuer have adopted this method as their modus operandi. They are now applying it throughout the country on the other ethnicities.

So, Agel Machar being an educated Jieng knows the benefit of this compact to the Jieng and hence his article promoting it.

It is the leaders of the Nuer including Riek Machar who for whatever reasons fail to see that this so-called unity between Jieng and Nuer does not serve or benefit the Nuer.

With all the evidence of the destruction of the Nuer, the Nuer leaders continue to invest in this foolery.

Knowing our politics, some people are going to say ‘No! Riek Machar is not involved.’ They will claim that Riek is being victimised.

To put such arguments to rest, any doubting Thomas should look at the proposal of SPLM-IO for power and wealth sharing whose principles feature in the ‘Bridging proposal’ of IGAD.

Unpack this proposal and what you can find is a perspective of Jieng and Nuer unity as a source of peace in the country which the international community unfortunately has bought whole sale.

Note that the product of this unity of Jieng and Nuer is the very source of the current chaos and destruction visited on the country.

I do not need to mention the horrific things taking place in the country as they are now common knowledge to every South Sudanese with the international community pretending to be blind while heavily involved in covering up the stench.

The individual experience of the brutal tribal government is so hurtful as to produce people like the Equatorian girl in the video. She is articulating her pains and expressing genuine feelings born out of painful experiences.

She is representing a huge section of South Sudanese who have been abused, brutalised and humiliated in various ways in their own homes for no good reasons at all.

To dismiss her feelings by calling her a hate monger or so is to alienate all those who share her pain.

It is here that the dictum: all politics is local and personal must be taken seriously.

Thus it is important to acknowledge her pain but then explain to her that to solve the problem is to look at the bigger picture and not to generalise, because obviously not all the Jieng are bad.

She needs to be better than the tribalists. By doing this, the consciousness of aggrieved South Sudanese will be raised and it will also de-frame the ideology of supremacy and domination in a practical way which in turn will stop the need to revenge.

However, to just condemn it in the name of political correctness is to sweep these painful experiences under the carpet and hope that they will go away.

This misses the whole point, because the battle the people of South Sudan are engaged in is to ensure that the current system is uprooted from its roots.

Political correctness can not be helpful without acknowledgement of the truth and realities the country faces.

In order to win over people, it is more productive to do it by persuasion and reason and not by sheer dismissal and condemnation.

If we indulge in dismissing and condemning the victims of the current regime which include us, we do not only run the risk of being seen as connivers but the real danger of becoming oppressors of the very oppressed people we purport to fight to liberate.

We want to liberate our people like the Equatorian girl in the video from the tribal system of Juba as well as from ignorance.

We should educate her to know that she has a right to express her truth but she also needs to preserve her humanity and not let herself be propelled to barbarity.

We should educate her that it is ideology like the one promoted by Agel Machar that are responsible for her pain and the pain of many other South Sudanese.

So if you watch carefully the video of the Equatorian girl and the article of Agel Machar is the continuation of the fight between the tribal regime and the people of South Sudan in a different form.

This conflict eventually will produce a middle position which acknowledges the principle of common good for which all responsible and caring South Sudanese stand for.

In conclusion, care should be exercised when dealing with people expressing their pain. Tolerance and the raising of consciousness must be the route to bring the abused and brutalised back into the fold of humanity.

Dismissal and condemnation for the sake of political correctness will not cut it. A spade must be called a spade.

Equally, those promoting divisive and destructive ideologies like Agel Machar should be confronted and challenged robustly to expose their ill intentions for the country.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com
@elhagpaul

Backdoor Peace Deals & the collimate rise of Promising Youthful Politicians

BY: Simon Yel Yel, Juba, JUN/13/2018, SSN;

No sane person can condemn the government or Gen. Akol Koor for reaching the peace deal with inconsequential members of the SS-UF. This is not to say that the government dreads to confront the twonk Gen. Malong militarily in the battle field if he chooses so.

It is because the government had already decided (since the genesis of this war) to take the path of peace to salvage the country from this infinite crisis by giving out government positions to whomever has rebelled if that can make them cease from killing the innocent South Sudanese people.

This is why Gen. Akol has reached this peace deal with SS-UF break-away group of Lino Ajang Ajang.

Frankly speaking, there is not a lucid person who has witnessed these destitutions and destructions brought upon this country by the ongoing senseless war who’s ready again to be lured by the discombobulated Malong into killing JUNUBIIN under the pretent of ‘arresting the carnage’.

That is why Ajang has led this exodus of a few hundreds if not thousands youth and some elders to Juba. Their exit confirms that they want peace.

Though Malong pretended to negate Ajang’s importance to the movement by rhetorically disparaging him with all evil terms at his disposal in the press release he signed, his dearest private wish could be that for a divine thunderbolt to reduce his once poster boy into a pile of ashes.

In fact, Malong is still mourning for losing Ajang to Gen. Akol. With the return of Ajang and many others, the self-praising lion (SS-UF) roar will soon turn into a disappointing meow. No strength to roar again.

Ajang is gone! I can now bet without fear. Most of his members will come to Juba while carrying their parts of SS-UF on their heads.

Make no mistake about it. Ustaz Ajang Ajang won’t be the last person from Awiel youth who are currently following Malong to realize that the Malong’s SS-UF is an ideologically barren organization with no political clout and hence can’t be an alternative for effecting any changes in this country.

This is because SS-UF is a motley military desperados, political opportunists, and power-hungry politicians. It has no ideological raison d’être for existence rather than a vehicle for seeking to share government positions.

To say the least, its establishment is a Hail Mary to bargain for government positions. It is not to topple Salva Kiir’s regime.

There is an emerging clique of promising youthful politicians in our country to which Ajang belongs. This group pasquinades the good name of Youth. They are an embodiment of political harlotry and sycophancy in our country.

I’m talking about the likes of Agel Riing Machar, Albino Bol Dhieu, Gordon Buay Malek, and Mabior Garang Mabior. If not all of them, then most of them are products of our unfortunate politics of rebellion and back-door peace deals. However, they are little men to be watched.

Let me start with Ajang. Once upon a time he was the most popular youthful politician in the country. A few months later, his political ambition appears to be in rigour mortis after he lost the Presidency of the National Youth Union which he claimed to have been robbed from him.

Apparently lying in tatters, he decided to rebel against the government. His adversaries were celebrating that he has worn the accoutrements of a person doomed to failure.

Yet here he is again, a few weeks later, appearing in his best suit at the country’s top airport coming to implement the peace deal he negotiated and signed with the security tsar.

Luckily, his deal appears to be more lucrative and densely loaded with many goodies than Agel’s. I am talking about the goodies it contains, for instance, the three ministerial positions in three states in Barh El Ghazal region, etc.

However, the misery of this deal is that there is no expiry date stamped on those goodies. The question on whether these goodies are real and eatable rests on the speed of implementation of this deal in the first two months.

He may, like Brigadier General Lul Ruai, risk everything and fail. I am talking about the spectacular failure of Lul’s movement for the greater Akobo people.

He may, like FVP Gen. Taban Deng, come through being dismissed as derisory and climb at last to the top of the sebaceous pole and turn this chimera and herculean mission into a practically doable mission.

We have no idea what will happen tomorrow, and that is one reason why he is a force to reckon with and to watch.

Ajang is a tactician and perilously scheming political ninja with posters of Chairman Mao and Machiavelli on his face. He is precise and capable of making complex decisions.

His cheerful charisma has meant that he always been able to attract camp-followers. No wonder that is the reason some people from both political divides can’t bear him and are desperate to find ways of discrediting him as a political opportunist and unwanted concubine.

Ajang earned his epaulettes when he was the President of Juba University Students’ Union. He indubitably demonstrated his leadership abilities and superior intellect in the Union office.

Owing to his unquestionable abilities, proven tenacity and splendid ideas, Ajang decided to run for the Presidency of the National Youth Union in 2015.

It is worth mentioning that he has cut an image as Malong’s poster boy among his peers. The most noticeable difference between him and his peers is that, he doesn’t throw bombs or speak haphazardly. He has no rhetoric of his peers.

There are some surface-level similarities between Ajang and his friend Mr. Agel Riing; however, there are also extremely glaring dissimilarities. Ajang has no insolence and ruthlessness of Agel.

The quisling Agel is a go-getter who goes against the grain to guarantee his own political survival and relevance; while Ajang believes in being given.

He is an egomaniacal introvert who believes that he is always right. To jog your memory, every line in the backdoor peace deal he reached with Gen. Akol in 2016 starts with “I” and ends with “only me.”

This explains the reason why he singlehandedly came alone to Juba. He doesn’t command any following.

He is politically amoral and immoral creature. He is an exemplary impetuous opportunist and quintessence of the political avaritia that has swallowed our country.

He is such a beefy telegenic gentleman who loves the cameras and television shows that he feeds with rhetoric. That is the spokesman of the FVP in a capsule.

Unlike the toothy grin Ajang or the knavish Agel, the cagy Albino Bol is considered by his peers to be the regime’s blue-eyed boy. That is another way of saying that he is more Muslim than Prophet Mohammed in term of how much he supports the government in relation to Micheal Makuei Lueth, if that is possible.

He has a visceral repugnance for whoever opposes him and the government. His name calls forth a good-boy foaming at the mouth with microphone in hand. He is certifiably wordsmith. His critics say he is a serial perfidious like Judas.

With his coruscating wit and incomparable oratory, you may be tempted to think that he is a philosopher of our generation.

Unlike the one-foot amputee Prof Adwok Nyaba, the President of National Youth Union has never rebelled. He is cutting an image as the darling of the establishment.

As for Ambassador Gordon Buay, the less said the better. The former rebel General is the number two diplomat in South Sudanese embassy in Washington. Though he is not a cartoon, he could be one as a living creature can be. He is entirely inarticulate and rambunctious. However, the spite he spits causes his enemies sleepless night.

We may guess alike either the son of the former SPLA fighter is a virtuosic bloviator or a rented filthy mouth. He incarnates what the government supporters want and don’t. He charms them with the same magnitude he daunts them.

To remind you, the backdoor peace deal which brought him to the government was negotiated and signed without the involvement of the IGAD and TROIKA. It is one of the living examples of the successful backdoor peace deals.

The former rebel spokesman and once self-declared President of South Sudan in 2011 on YouTube is cutting an image as a born again nationalist who is ready to die on Facebook front line.

Incontestably, he is the moral boosting chief propagandist. He bravely commands Facebook Division.

With all these, he is a regime’s diplomatic sabre rattler with a squirt gun in his hand in Washington.

There is another person. I am taking about the rambling Mabior Garang Mabior. He is first born son of the former SPLA/M leader. This creature has turned the name of his father into a badge of honor to brag about.

He thinks he will infinitely use his father name as a passport and shield to protect and sail him to any political destination he wants.

Every year Mabior confirms that he is the only stranger in Jerusalem. He is Riek’s loyal foot soldier who can’t change his mind comes high water.

The old adage is true here, it goes like this; “only fools and dead men don’t change their minds.” Therefore, Mabior can either be a fool that has never existed or a dead-walking man of the 21st century.

Like his sorry physique, Mabior has no kind words for his detractors. He believes Dr. Riek is the only right man to govern South Sudan. Anything less than that, he would rather die in the opposition fighting for Riek.

You can easily misidentify him for an outlawed drug aficionado or a financially stranded DJ who couldn’t afford to buy a hair lotion and rub it on his unkempt dreadlock hair.

I can assure you, with one minute glance at him, you will construe that there is nothing political and futuristic in his physique and character. But he has written history you know! He was the youngest South Sudanese minister in 2016.

His heart is two-thirdly and one-thirdly stolen by the drugs and politics respectively. To him, women are tertiary needs and possibly could be insignificant. That is why the rumors have it that he is currently still unmarried while he is approaching forty years.

To describe these youthful politicians wholesomely, they are political little men in a rush who are too desirous to catch up with big men by all means. To say the least, the philosophical apophthegm of Mr. Alexander Eichener, “for a hyena, a bone is just a bone; no matter whether it lies in the bush, near the pit latrine, or in the vegetable garden of a white man. It is still a bone” accurately fits the bill of their misbegotten political philosophy.

What disturbs me is seeing them committing some fouls when consummating the politics of genuflexion and obsequiousness to ensure their personal interests are met.

Let me say this before I conclude. General Akol Koor is a good and honorable man by all measures. The peace deals he reached with Agel Riing and Ajang Ajang speak volume.

He is a man who loves peace. He loves the country to prosper too. I don’t care about what performances of his successors would be later, but I know he will top them.

Don’t accuse me of typographical error and flattery. The truth is: Gen. Akol is not like the late Khartoum’s Ibrahim Shamsaddin or Salah Abdallah Gosh, the current Director General for National Intelligence & Security Service, or even closer to Major Bob Astles, the former head of murderous State Research Bureau during the regime of former Ugandan President late Gen. Idi Amin.

Gen. Akol values human life. He doesn’t kill. And if you deny, then tell me the names of politicians or any political activist he has jailed and killed?

If none, then come to me and I will tell you the names of politicians and political activists that were supposed to be buried six feet under the ground long time ago if he were really as bad as Salah Gosh.

Gen. Akol has human proclivity that sinners and offenders are not ought to be killed, but transformed and readmitted into the society. He believes that peace can only come if we forgive ourselves and allow the freedom of expression of our diverging views without intimidation.

That is why he is now making peace deals with political dissidents.

Can you imagine with me how many people would have been exiled, jailed and possibly prosecuted if he had fully implemented the controversial security act? Hundreds of people, right? But zilch.

Don’t say that I am living in Mars. I am living in Juba. The assertion that unknown gunman is a subterfuge of the Internal Security Bureau is an obloquy by any standard and is as nonsense as the narrative that the President Kiir had planned to kill Dr. Riek in J1 failed coup attempt on 8th July 2016.

No an iota of truth in it. No spy agency/secret police in any country that kills people in that deception form.

I will end where I began. The return of Ajang Ajang with some members of the SS-UF to Juba in a backdoor peace deal negotiated and signed by Gen. Akol is a hot slap in the faces of warmongers.

It is a live evident that Gen. Akol wants peace and in the same note, it rebuts the fabrications that Gen. Akol has a political vendetta with Malong and his dismal was pushed by him.

Methinks Gen. Akol should extend this olive branch to other rebel groups. For him to succeed in this, my noggin tells me that he has to implement this deal at hand in a good faith so that it serves as example that Gen. Akol makes, implements, and keeps peace deals.

This will motivate whoever wants to make a backdoor peace deal with the government.

I am not delusional; some rebel commanders in the bush can easily reach a backdoor peace deal with the government if there is such a window opening. I support such backdoor peace deal not because it is the manna from heaven that will rain the desired everlasting peace on us, but because I have no hope in IGAD bringing an everlasting peace to South Sudanese.

And if such a deal can somehow alleviate our suffering though it may not bring a complete peace, why not giving it an experimental trial?

Disclaimer: I don’t hold brief for Gen. Akol or anyone of these promising youthful politicians on this. As a citizen of this country, I felt that I should share my independent thoughts and feelings with my fellow citizens.

Mr. Simon Yel Yel is reachable via simonyel2017@gmail.com or via 0914474471

What is IGAD’s priority on ARCISS’s revitalization plan: The innocent peoples’ lives or the politicians?

QUOTE: “Committing mistakes is something human and sometimes inevitable. However, not learning from mistakes may suggest that something is fundamentally amiss because it subjects the individual, group, country or society to perpetually commit the same mistakes.” Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba

By: Bol Khan, South Sudanese, MAY/30/2018, SSN;

What is IGAD’s imperative priority in South Sudan’s tedious peace mediation? Is IGAD aiming to bring about a peace accord that saves the lives of suffering ordinary people of South Sudan or a shaky peace deal that serves only the politicians’ interests?

The HLRF’s Round Two of Phase III that recently ended in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, without a signed deal was supposed to be the last round of South Sudan’s four years old Peace process.

The public thought that even if the delegates fail to reach a comprehensive deal by themselves, then IGAD was going to come up with a neutral and moderate proposal to narrow the gaps or differences between the negotiating parties.

This was what’s in the mind of every South Sudanese citizens. However, unexpectedly, when the IGAD’s “Bridging Proposal” was out, everybody including the author was dumbfounded.

I was surprised and bewildered because the IGAD’s proposal would appear like aiming to serve only the politicians’ interests.

Let us take for example, in the structure of governance branches, the IGAD proposed an additional position of Third Vice President, forty-two (42) ministers, fifteen (15) Deputy Ministers, four hundred and forty (440) members of Parliaments.

A transitional poor government with five hundred and-one (501) cabinet and parliament members excluding the Advisors, Councils of States’ members, bureaucrats at the various ministries, heads of commissions and Directors… name them all.

Just assume that the parties have had accepted and signed IGAD’s Bridging Proposal,” how big would such a government be?

Again, the IGAD also proposed a six (6) member Transition Facilitation Council (TFC), monetary rewards for all those would-be displaced persons from positions both in National and in the States governments.

“Where, as a consequence of the allocation of positions under this agreement, a post-holder is displaced from a post, the Transitional Government shall make every effort to find an alternative position for that person, including in the reconstituted boards and commissions as appropriate.”

The proposal said “the affected person may include: (a) A member of the Executive, (b) A Governor or other office holder in a State; and a member of TNL” (Transition National Legislature).

“In the event that a person cannot be accommodated in a suitable alternative position, the Transitional Government shall endeavor to make an appropriate ex-gratia payment or form of compensation to that person.”

Generally, looking at the nature of proposed governance and security sectors, IGAD did not only expose itself as a coalition that aims to create jobs or interests for politicians but also a regional alliance that is indirectly putting the lives of suffering South Sudanese ordinary citizens into greater and further danger.

“Benefits and Standing of Former leaders”

Furthermore, the IGAD also proposed that a revitalized Transitional Government would work to give the benefits, incentives and standing of former leaders.

“Within 30 days of the signing of this Agreement, Legislation shall be introduced in the TNLA to make adequate provision for the benefits, emoluments and standing of former leaders. Legislation shall provide for benefits of a former leader, including an office staff, protection and allocation of sufficient resource commensurate to their standing as leaders.”

This increasingly casts much doubt in IGAD’s precedence in South Sudan’s peace revitalization process. Yes, it is not dreadful idea to pay leaders benefits especially in stable countries where leaders correctly serve the nation’s interests.

However, in reality, what good thing have those leaders done so far and/or in the people of South Sudan’s interest, rather than these immense damages they have been causing in South Sudan since 2013?

They are not leaders of national stature. Therefore, the benefits that the IGAD “Bridging Proposal” proposed are all unnecessary.

Instead, the proposed resources should only be use to rebuild the nation and lives of the ordinary citizens who are suffering or to provide them better security, development and peace dividends in the country, South Sudan.

Are there elected and legitimate leaders in the Republic of South Sudan?

Who are the democratically elected Leaders in the Republic of South Sudan? In other words, who is a democratically elected President, Parliamentarian or Governor in the Republic of South Sudan today?

I think there is none, because there was neither Executive nor parliamentarian elections ever conducted in the Republic of South Sudan since 2011!

Hence, there is no legitimate leader today in the Republic of South Sudan who could claim that he/she is a democratically elected leader.

Since 9 July 2011 to 21 May 2018, South Sudan has been operating under two consecutive transitional rules of unelected governments.

The first transition, interim and constitutional (leaders) term in offices government (after independence) ended on 21 May 2015. Moreover, the second transition government that was provided by August 2015 Compromise Peace Agreement also ended on 17 May 2018.

This is the reason why the ordinary people of South Sudan have been calling on IGAD to impose a peace solution that is in the interest of South Sudanese ordinary citizens.

Conclusion

What is the interest of South Sudanese’s ordinary citizens?

The central interest of South Sudanese citizens is to have a better peace deal in South Sudan that addresses the root causes of the conflict.

A deal, that holds all perpetrators accountable for atrocities they have committed as stipulated in a revitalizing ARCISS.

The interest of the people is a peace agreement that does not reward politicians for atrocities they have had committed instead.

A deal, that installs a responsible, balanced and lean government to implement peace and security, restore deteriorated economic situation, a sincere honest government that will unconditionally organize free and fair general elections at the end of transitional period.

The people of South Sudan are interested not in a shaky peace deal that who’s aim is just to renew the lifespan of politicians in offices at the expense of innocent citizens’ lives.

What the people of South Sudan do not want is a precarious peace deal that shall be susceptible to people lives just like August 2015 Agreement.

In this regard, IGAD must first acknowledge publicly its practical and proven failure in solving South Sudan’s crisis or its complicity in all these enormous suffering the ordinary citizens of South Sudan are today facing in and around the country.

Therefore, IGAD must choose to implement one of the following two popular demands, forthwith:
— (a) Either assure and prioritize the ordinary citizens’ interest (not again politicians’ interest) by bringing peace back to South Sudan within one or two weeks, maximum;
— (b) Or hand over the South Sudan’s peace process to AU or UN, a global body.

This is what the people of South Sudan are greatly yearning for. “Committing mistakes is something human and sometimes inevitable. However, not learning from mistakes may suggest that something is fundamentally amiss because it subjects the individual, group, country or society to perpetually commit the same mistakes”.

IGAD or others should learn from lack of proper security arrangements, impunity and imbalanced power that impeded smooth and successful implementation of August 2015 Peace Agreement.

Where we have had transitional period which was agreed upon in 2015, become wasted three (3) years without any tangible change towards the lives of innocent South Sudanese people who are now suffering in South Sudan and in the neighboring countries.

The author, Bol Khan, is a South Sudanese Activist and Freelance Writer. He is reachable on khanrom8@gmail.com

Historical Hints on Survival and Collapse Governments: Lessons for South Sudan and IGAD-Led HLRF

BY: James Okuk, PhD, Juba University, MAY/25/2018, SSN,

“The polis exists to assure the good life” – Aristotle. “For however strong a ruler may be, he will always have need of the good will of the inhabitants if he wishes to remain in power” – Machiavelli. “It is not by the concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected” – Thomas Jefferson. “There is no time to waste. We must either unite now or perish” – Julius Nyerere;

I – WHAT SHOULD BE AT STAKE FOR SOUTH SUDAN IN THE HLRF?

All the above quoted political wisdom should serve as reminders for finalizing the High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) without further delays. The conscience of stakeholders of the de facto Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU)—whose term of office ended in April 2018—and the loosed opposition groups should get awakened so as to reach an urgent conclusion of a peaceful settlement that must end the filthy civil war in South Sudan.

Also the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) should rethink its institutional bottleneck to become a trustworthy peace mediator with commendable achievement of the desired goal. The hierarchical decision-making organs of the IGAD (i.e., Assembly of Heads of State and Government that determines the policies and guidelines; Council of Ministers that approves the work programs and budget of the Secretariat; and Committee of Ambassadors that influence the Heads of State and Government, the Ministers and officials of the Secretariat, etc…) have often undermined the work of HLRF mediation experts, especially on issues of good governance and credibility of leadership of the awaited post-war South Sudan.

At the end of the game all the stakeholders (nationals and foreigners alike) should get tough lessons from evolution of political history of South Sudan so as to avoid dangerous blunders of unending crises. They must know that absence of good life, deflated people’s will, concentrated power and decayed national unity usually put BIG QUESTION MARKS on the essence of existence of modern democratic state in globalized era of universal human rights.

It was regrettably a wishful naivety to have thought that the tainted history of abortive governments and oppositions of the Sudan would absolve ‘independent’ South Sudan from inheriting the DNA of bad governance, dooming insecurity, confused economy and recurrent humanitarian catastrophe. The deceptive economic boom from oil revenues in the SPLM/A-controlled government in Juba (not clear for any confidence whether it is free-market capitalism, protected regulatory socialism or ‘mixed’ economy) has been infected by Dutch Disease with behavior of milking public coffers unaccountably.

As the reality of SPLM/A’s government and opposition has now gotten known by hard way of trial-and-error, it is high time the search for lasting peace is informed by roots and links of the evolved political past of South Sudan. Such acknowledgement is necessary, precisely when the territorial geography of the new country on the globe has not shifted to the Atlantic or the Indian Oceans, or even to the Red and the Mediterranean Seas.

The historical facts and actors about South Sudan must be gleaned and screened honestly from illusionary propagandist fictions. SWOT Analyses must be applied rigorously to identify internal and external Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the existing dysfunctional institutions and those leading them with defective attitudes. Also SMART Principles must be invoked to ensure adherence to Specificity, Measurability, Achievability, Realisticity and Timeliness of IGAD-mediated negotiations without fear or favor of anti-peace or anti-transformation proponents. Empirical descriptive evidence and logical premises must be used rigorously to arrive at sound prescriptive conclusions on resolving the daunting problems of leadership, security reforms, humanitarian assistance, sustainable economy, transitional justice and democratization of power in South Sudan.

What do you call the rivaling political leaders who act without vision for a mission and behave strangely as if there will not be a future to cherish for themselves or their heirs?

With its commendable emancipatory past, should the SPLM/A be allowed to continue disgracing the present and discrediting the future of South Sudan for posterity?

Is there a pride in the nauseating political disgusts about the renowned SPLM/A freedom fighters who sacrificed dearly to see South Sudan liberated from the injustices of old Sudan, but find themselves escaping the country for exile to live in diaspora as stateless individuals?

What honor is left there in the citizens who overwhelmingly voted for the independence of South Sudan but to get displaced internally to camps that are expensively guarded by foreign forces or seek refuge abroad in environmentally tough habitats of neighboring countries?

What do you call a government in a contemporary world whose 3rd secretary diplomat in headquarters of ministry of foreign affairs receive only a delayed monthly salary of 10 dollars?

What do you call a government in the era of universal human rights whose primary teachers are provisionally paid by foreign humanitarian donors (40 dollars a month) to keep them in schools for the sake of basic education rights of poor children, while the ministry of finance drags to pay in time the salaries of those teachers (equivalent to 5 dollars per a month)?

What do you call a naturally resource-rich country in the era of Millennium Sustainable Goals when 90% of its population live beyond the threshold of poverty line due to man-made crises?

As the war situation stands, it will not be sustainable to temporarily bandage a government or opposition on fear mongering of ‘if we don’t this we will collapse and perish’. Such demise is the determined destiny of any irresponsible government or opposition that blocks the needed drastic change of bad status quo to new normal. No amount of propaganda or intransigence can triumph because when political pendulum has swung to the extremes of frustrating fragile peddling, nothing but final collapse would get queued in the sequence of events.

The cross of the very authoritarian cult that the exiled and rebellious SPLM/A leaders had established in South Sudan when they were on grip of power, is what is haunting them mercilessly to the core now. The SPLM/A was supposed to be archived in libraries after the independence of South Sudan in 2011 because there was no Sudan to be liberated any longer in the new state. Only memorial celebrations of that formidable liberation movement in Africa would have remained upheld yearly every 16th May.

However, the real anguish about the embattled South Sudan is the possibility of its breaking up into tiny fragilities that would make it difficult for rescuing the savable from political ruins. The fragmented status quo usually leads to undesirable uncertainties (e.g., reckless adoption of unsustainable political governance mechanisms, crooked security approaches, anarchical political economies and unending humanitarian catastrophes) with disturbing threats to the dignity of international peace and security. That is why South Sudan shouldn’t be allowed to sink deeper into abyss because the repercussions of ‘failed African solution’ shall not smell good for the region after what was witnessed in Somalia.

The nauseating war situation of South Sudan is akin to John T. Rourke’s diagnosis in his Books “International Politics on the World Stage” (1st – 8th editions), Daron Acemoglu’s & James Robinson’s depictions in their Book “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” and Peter H. Schuck’s accounts in his Book “Why Government Fails So Often”. According to these critical writers, governments that mess up themselves with senseless conflicts and extractive corruption become predominantly characterized by:

1) Dynamics of arrogant and self-serving power ambitions greedy actors with no real sense of responsibility for state/nation building;
2) Little institutional engineering hampered by unsustainable bureaucratic deforms;
3) Poor performance due to incompetence lack prudence on political economy;
4) Recurrent abhorring violence exacerbated by rotten social fabrics;
5) Riveting dramatic events with politically-motivated complex tragedies; and
6) Dramatic collapse though sometimes hopeful ending that leaves everyone dumfounded by the turns and twists of new emerging realities.

The unending senseless wars drain the desired assurances in governments, oppositions, political parties, civil societies, interest groups and the entire people of a country. In such situation the international standards and humanitarian law become the first casualties (e.g., violence pursued and promoted not as last resort for a just cause; war declared and managed without legitimate authority; war conducted disproportionally for senseless aggression rather than self-defense; war fought without discrimination of non-combatants; and war continued without intention to restore the disturbed security and peace in the shortest time possible).

General Omar Bradley, the former Joint Chief of Staff of U.S.A Army, would not hesitate (as he did at the testimony to the Senate Committee in 1951 about extending Korean War into Red China) to call what is happening in South Sudan as “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy”. The Dutch Father of International Law and the author of ‘On the Law of War and Peace (1625)’, Hugo Grotius, would also get irritated if the HLRF ends without compelling the negotiating parties to sing an equitable peace deal.

As nothing stands strategically designed for pursuing the undignified path of ‘real politics by other means’ but political survival through war, the sustainability of running South Sudan for longer in war would get squeezed into parochial irrational arena of unsophisticated luck or believe in superstitions. The history is full of refreshing hints of fate of governments and opposition groups that had defied the sense of preservation of human dignity.

II – GLIMPSES FROM TURKO-EGYPTIAN & ANGLO-EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENTS (1821 – 1956)

The governments that founded and ruled Sudan (including Southern Sudan) in the past were modeled after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years of religious wars of monarchies in Europe. That Treaty upheld the sanctity of equality of sovereign European states based on respect for conciliatory secular approach to politics among the super powers who operate according to unified understanding for colonizing the less powerful nations that were regarded as not yet rational, scientific, moral and theistic for full humanity.

The history of Turkish-based Ottoman Empire (founded in 15th Century and collapsed in 20th Century when its territories were divided up in 1922 for trusteeship by strategic victors behind the League of Nations), is an important epistemological archive worth revisiting nowadays. That Empire was the founder of Sudan (land of the blacks) by default in 1821 via its commander, the Albanian-born Muhammad Ali Pasha (1769 – 1849). The objectives was to extract valuable resources and capture black slaves to be used for consolidation and expansion the colonial regime to new territories.

Muhammad Ali’s grandson, ‘the magnificent’ Khedive Ismail Ibrahim Pasha (1830 – 1895) tried to improve the tainted image of his government among ‘the virgin tribes’ of Southern Sudan. He appointed European adventurers to govern this slaves hunting zone (e.g., Samuel White Baker, Charles George Gordon and Eduard Schnitzler) to help him with reforms and “abolition of slavery” in accordance with Anglo-Egyptian Slave Trade Convention (1877) and the Congo Act (1885):

1) Freedom of navigation and trade for all nations in the region forming the basins of the Congo and Niger without allowing a total hegemony of Britain or Portugal;
2) Recognition of African boundaries as international borders demarcated by the dominant colonial powers who have endorsed the partition understanding via the Congo Act;
3) Future appropriation of territory on the African coast had to be conducted by the dominant colonial powers via notification in advance to the signatories of any territorial acquisition; and
4) Joint measures for suppression of slavery and slave trade within the colonial territories.

Also the history of British Empire (founded in 16th Century and expanded extensively between 17th and 20th Centuries to be known as the vast territory where the sun doesn’t go setting, though it diminished from 1950s and disappeared in 1997 after handing over Hong Kong to its rightful Chinese owners), is connected with the making of South Sudan though Lord Cromer (1841 – 1917) discredited it perceptively as a useless large tract that was difficult and costly to administer for any meaningful colonial interest. The Anglo-Egyptian colonial governments used the divide-and-rule tactics to subdue the local people of the Sudan but disadvantaging Southern Sudan through special policies of ‘Military Patrols’ to enforce colonial law and order, Closed District Ordinance (1921), Passports and Permits Ordinance (1922), Trade Permit Order (1928), Rejaf Languages Conference (1928)—six local vernaculars (Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, Bari and Latuko and Zande) were recommended as medium for Southern education without prejudice to English or other European languages, ‘Building of Self-contained Tribal Units’ based on customary system, and banning mingling or intermarriages between Southerners and Northerners.

The post-World War I (1914 – 1918) and politics of the League of Nations; the invasion of Eritrea by Italy in 1935 with attempts to conquer parts of Sudan adjacent to Ethiopia; the World War II (1939 – 1945) and politics of the United Nations; the move by penultimate King Farouk I of Egypt to declare himself the Monarch of both Egypt and Sudan; and the pressure of Northern General Graduate Congress (formed in 1936) on the Anglo-Egyptian colonial Government to revoke its Southern Sudan policy and involve Sudanese in government, led to formation of Northern Sudan Advisory Council and enactment of Local Councils Ordinances in 1943 though with ‘safeguards’ by the British to uniqueness of the South. But the post-World War II (1939 – 1945) and politics of the United Nations shifted the paradigm where the British resorted to policy of empowering Southern Sudan educationally and economically to enable them stand strongly and competitively on their own as Negroid African, either as attached to the North, annexed to East Africa, or distributed between North and East Africa.

The U.K’s Labour Minister, Ernest Bevin, and the Egyptian Prime Minister Ismail Sedky Pasha signed a Protocol in 1946 on self-government and referendum for the Sudanese to decide on their annexation to Egypt or staying independent after nullification of Condominium Agreement (1899) and the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (1936) prior to the exit of colonial officials from Sudan. The Condominium Civil Secretary, James W. Robertson, wanted the South to remain attached to the North and the Middle East rather than East Africa. He and the Machiavellian Northern Sudanese Judge, Mohamed Saleh Shingeiti, organized the Sudan Administration Conference in Khartoum (1946) with special focus on ‘Sudanization’ of public service. The Conference recommended for conduct of Juba Conference in 1947 to bring Southern participants (civil servants, local chiefs, religious leaders and British officials) on board by persuading them to get closer to central government in Khartoum in returns for equal treatment in job remuneration, promotion, privileges, transfers and education.

Unfortunately the London-Cairo-Khartoum geopolitics undermined the original mood and promised of the Juba Conference. London preferred appeasing Khartoum to strike a blow on Cairo and its push for unity of the Nile Valley. The 13-Man Committee that drafted the Self-government Statute (chaired by Justice Stanley Baker in 1951 and with MP Buth Diu as the only member from the South but who boycotted with disappointment when his call for federalism was rejected) was affected by the diplomatic wrangling and confusing legalistic interpretations of the Agreement between The Egyptian Government and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island Concerning Self-government and Self-determination for the Sudan (1953.

With approval by the British authorities, the Northern politicians (patronized by Pro-Egypt Khatimya Islamists under Ali al-Mirghni and Pro-Britain Ansars Islamists under Abdel Rahman al-Mahdi) spat on the face of Southerners by denying them representation in the negotiations of Anglo-Egyptian exit from the Sudan. They despised the South as apolitical to be consulted because it didn’t have a single political party and would not deserve to sit equally with their masters to discuss government affairs. The Egyptian Information Minister Saleh Salim, serving under the Junta of Mohamed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, frequented his visits to Southern Sudan to promote unity of the Nile Valley.

It didn’t take longer before the workers in Nzara and Yambio went on riots, Torit armed forces went on mutiny, and wider unrest ensuing in Southern Sudan by1955. Khartoum blamed “the Southern Problem” on British policies of isolating the South from North with widened gap of mistrust, underdevelopment and backwardness of Southerners, disrespect of Northern traders and elites towards Southerners, false assumptions that Egyptians and British will intervene in favour of the South, miscommunication and maladministration by government officials, and rumour mongering by the opposition against Ismail al-Azhari’s interim government.

In a nutshell, the respective governments of the Great Ottoman Empire and the Greatest British Empire, including their extension into Sudan via assistance of de facto governments in Egypt, had to collapse mainly for these reasons: 1) conducting themselves above the fundamental universal human rights, and 2) pursuing globalization without moral conscience or human face. Regrettably, their political DNA is still haunting South Sudan nowadays (e.g., family dynasties with use of religions for political appearance of support and solidarity, proliferation of militias for government security against opposition, capitalist free market economy, anti-federalism, spree of corruption, maladministration, insensitivity to plight of local population, recycling of arrogant politicians in government, and intransigence on military might and other repressive demeanors against the colonized people).

III – HINTS FROM GOVERNMENTS OF INDEPENDENT SUDAN (1956 – 2011)

The Stanley Baker’s Statute of Self-government was passed into Transitional Constitution of the Sudan (1956) without incorporating the demand of Southerners for self-rule (Southern politicians were only persuaded that their demand would be given due consideration by Constituent Assembly during permanent constitution-making process). The independent Sudan didn’t change the bad politics of the colonial past, particularly against Southern Sudan and other marginalized peripheries that remained intact as God created them at the time of Adam and Eve (i.e., no added value of human and infrastructural development).

The British policies adopted after the Rajaf Conference (1928) and Juba Conference (1947) regarding ‘due recognition’ of uniqueness of Southern Sudan in its multi-cultural, multi-customs, multi-religious and multi-linguistic diversity, were trashed under new “Sudanization” policies adopted by the veterans of Northern Sudanese General Graduate Congress inline with the ‘Baqt’ (652 – 1323 A.D) of the Treaty that victimized the natives of Southern Sudan:

1) Allow safe and free movement and settlement of Arabs and Muslims into Nubians territory, and vice versa for a limited movement of Nubians to and through Egypt for trade only without resettlement;
2) Cease raids and wars between Egypt and Nubia so that the Peace of God and Islamic Message of Prophet Mohamed could prevail without obstruction;
3) Build a Mosque in Dongolla and protect it for the Muslims and the in respect to Rulers in Egypt;
4) Pay a tribute of 300 slaves annually to Egypt (reduced later to 360 slaves per 3 years);
5) Return to Egypt the escaped black slaves and fugitive Arabs who opposed the Islamic dynasty.

The political character of the Jellaba and the intelligentsia who inherited government institutions of post-colonial Sudan didn’t become different from that of Jihadists of the Mahdiyya (1885 – 1898) who unleashed havoc in Southern Sudan to extract resources for the upkeep of nepotistic, corrupt, brutal, famine-stricken and slaves trading regime of Khalifa Abdullahai Al-Taishi (e.g., the notorious Jihadist Zaki al-Tamal beheaded the Shilluk King Yor Akoch of Fashoda after capturing him in a fierce battle of Nigiir, and Karmallah al-Kerkasawi tried to Islamize by force the tribes of the Lado Enclave but was ferociously resisted by King Gbudwe Bazingbi of Azande who was eliminated by British later).

The elites in Khartoum continued to deny the demand of Southerners for federalism and sabotaged the implementation of feasibility studies on big developmental agro-industrial schemes and mechanized farming in Southern Sudan (e.g., Nzara Cotton Plantation and Cloth Industry, Melut and Mongalla Sugar Sugar Plantation/Processing, Aweil Rice Plantation/Processing, Wau Fruits Plantation/Canning, Tonj Kenaf Plantation/Processing, Kapoeta Cement Factory, Upper Talanga Tea Plantation/Processing, and Malakal and Bor Fish Freezing and Drying Industries, etc).

The young politicians of Southern Sudan didn’t compromise like their old fathers and uncles. They won elections overwhelmingly in 46 Southern constituencies in 1957 on the following campaign trail for change of status quo: emancipation of the marginalized with adoption of secular federalism, repatriation of Southern schools and students from Northern Sudan, recognition of both English and Arabic as official languages, establishment of independent economic development program for Southern Sudan, formation of independent organized armed forces for Southern Sudan, and repatriation of the Sudan back from the Arab World to Africa. By then the cold war between Russia and its allies versus the U.S and its allies was staring to get hot in Africa.

The learnt youth of Southern Sudan didn’t betray the cause even when their leader, Ezbon Mundiri, was arrested and imprisoned for seven years for crime against unity of the Arabized Islamic Sudan purported to have been committed by leading aggressively the Southern campaign on the above-mentioned cards. Fr. Saturnino Lohure Hilangi took the challenge of leadership of the federalists as he protested in the Constitutional Constituent Assembly (1958) and underscored the following statement succinctly as Southern Parliamentarians walked out to boycott the undesirable sittings:

“The South has no ill-intentions whatsoever towards the North; the South simply claims to run its local affairs in a united Sudan. The South has no intention to separating from the North, for had that been the case nothing on earth would have prevented its demand for separation. The South claims to federate with the North, a right that the South undoubtedly possesses as a consequence of principle of free self-determination which reason and democracy grant to free people. The South will at any moment separate from the North if and when the North so decides, directly or indirectly, through political, social and economic subjection of the South.”

The betrayal of aspiration of Southerners led to collapse of Ismail al-Azhari’s and Abdallah Bey Khalil’s governments (1956 – 1958) as their shifting coalitions got characterized by rivalling, strikes, violence, mutinies, imprisonments, dismissals, nepotism, divisions, conspiracies, vote of no confidence, change of electoral laws, budget crises, suppression of contrary opinions, and insensitivity to people’s predicaments caused by the raging civil war.

General Ibrahim Abboud’s Government (1958 – 1964) made things worse by banning discussions on self-rule (federalism); restricting recruitment of Southerners into armed forces except those who converted to Islam and embraced Arab culture; adopting Missionary Society Act (1962); expelling hundreds of foreign Christian missionaries from Sudan in 1964; and deploying Muslim missionaries and Arabic teachers to the South. The Junta used repressive military power (e.g., indiscriminate detentions, torture, assassination of Southern intellectuals, burning of villages and massacre of the civilians) to subdue the Southern resistance.

The exiled Southerners sought refuge in the sympathetic eastern and central African neighbouring countries, organized themselves into associations and liberation political groups: The Sudanese Christian Association in East Africa (SCAEA) and the Sudan African Closed District National Union (SACDNU) formed in 1962 and transformed to Sudan African Union (SANU) in 1963 with formation of Anyanya (snake poison) as an armed wing in 1964.

It didn’t take long before the Junta of General Abboud collapse finally as it failed to end the oppressive war in the South. The educationist Sirr al-Khatim al-Khalifa took the charge of the post-uprising interim government with participation of Southern Front (SF), most of whose leaders were young university graduates and local chiefs. Queen Elizabeth of the U.K visited the Sudan (February 8, 1965) where Interim Supreme Councillor, H.E. Mr. Luigi Adwok received her in Khartoum when he was the Rotational Head of State for the Sudan for that month, an honour detested by Northerners as it raised the political self-esteem of Southerners.

The traditional Northern political leaders (i.e., Khatimya, Ansars, Unionists, Communists & Islamists) got divided on how to handle “the Southern Problem” even when the Round Table Conference and 12-Man Committee were launched in 1965 to bring all the political forces and different shades of opinions together to deliberate on how to end the civil war and normalize the country again, especially in the Southern part of the country. But the Conference failed its objectives of healing the old wounds of slave trade and slavery—tributes to St. Josephine Margaret Bakhita (1869 – 1947) of Roman Catholic Church who got rescued from humiliation of slavery and to Effendi Ali Gifoon—known as Lwaldit Mayker of Fashoda village, the slave who became an outstanding fighter of Turko-Egyptian army in Mexico during South American wars (1862 – 1867) and also in the war against Mahdiyya (1898 – 1900) where he accompanied General Herbert H. Kitchener in his conquering expeditions. Its resolutions were thrown into politicization dustbin for the sake of partial elections and maintenance of shifting conspiratorial governments of Imam Sadiq al-Mahdi’s and Mohamed Ahmed Maghoub (1965 – 1969).

Additional number of movements and declarations propped up for liberation of Southern Sudan from the Sudan: Azania Liberation Front was formed by Joseph Oduho in 1965, Nile Provisional Government by Gordon Mourtat in 1969, Anyidi Provisional Government by Emedio Tafeng after crashing the Nile Provisional Government in 1969, the SUE Republic and Sudan African Union Conservatives declared by Michael Towil in 1969, and South Sudan Liberation Movement in 1971 by Joseph Lagu. The shifting governments in Khartoum kept harassing, massacring, arresting and assassinating Southerners (e.g., assassination of Fr. Saturnino in 1967 while mobilizing Anyanya forces at Uganda Border & William Deng Nhial in 1968 while campaigning for partial elections in Bahr el Ghazal); committing massacres; massacring of intellectuals in Wau where Southern First Veterinary Doctor from University of Khartoum Justin Papiti Akol Ajawin was shot dead with others in a wedding occasion and also in Juba and Malakal). Khartoum forces burnt many villages and closed down schools for scorch-earth policy of punishing Southern civilians for supporting the Anyanya guerrilla.

Prime Minister Sadiq tried to improve Sudan’s relations with Uganda, Congo, Kenya and Ethiopia to help his government to crush rebellion in the South. But the forced submission to the will of Khartoum under pretext of restoration of law and order in Southern Sudan pushed Israelis to support the South against the Arabized Islamists of the Sudan who wanted Israel wiped out from geography of the Middle East (indicated by Israel-Egypt War in 1967 and solidarity by Khartoum). The British volunteer guerrilla trainer known as Uncle Fashoda and Israeli retired Army General Kawagia John trained the Anyanya freedom fighters rigorously as he confirmed in 2013:

“The building of the military force in the South provided the basis and military framework which resulted in both command and operational experience. The above changed the situation of years whereby the North could harass the population in the South. The Anyanya soldiers demonstrated a high level of discipline, a willingness to learn all relevant subjects and above all to demonstrate stubbornness in sticking to their mission.”

It was just a matter of time before the government in Khartoum collapsed to the guts of the second military coup (1969 – 1985) led by Jaafar Mohamed Nimeiri in collaboration with the Sudan Communist Party. The Junta banned multi-party politics and adopted one-party presidential-parliamentary system under umbrella of Sudan Socialist Union (SSU)—politicians, teachers, farmers, technicians, professionals, intellectuals, armed forces, youth and women. From the onset Nimeiri acknowledged “the Southern Problem” and diagnosed it as being caused by local backwardness and western imperialism, similar to the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Southern Unrest in 1955. He prescribed the solution to be the treatment of Southern Sudan as a unique region with its own diversity of culture and mode of rule within the bigger united, stable and prosperous Sudan.

Nimeiri issued a general amnesty for Southern opposition politicians and Anyanya fighters, promising them higher education opportunity and top public jobs (e.g., appointing first Southern law graduate of University of Khartoum, communist Joseph Garang, as Minister of Southern affairs though he hanged him to death later with Hashim al-Atta and other Communists for a foiled coup in 1971 but replaced with another Southern lawyer from University of Khartoum, Abel Alier Kwai). Moscow, Beijing, Libya and other communist countries isolated Nimeiri’s regime and motivated the traditional Islamic Northern political forces to harden their opposition to topple his government. Nimeiri had no choice but to look west for support from the U.S and the capitalist allies, including churches and Zionic lobbyists. He recommitted himself to resolving “the Southern problem” in accordance with the resolutions of Round Table Conference (1965). The World Council of Churches and the All African Council of Churches agreed to meditate the peace negotiations between Nimeiri’s regime and Anyanya leaders.

Though by then the Anyanya and South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM) were better organized under the young graduate of Sudan Military College, Joseph Lagu, he was faced with tremendous pressure for peace. Ugandan government became unsafe and unstable under President Idi Amin who arrested Mr. Rolf Steiner (the volunteer German Anyanya trainer) and handed him over to Khartoum where he was imprisoned for life. Zaire government of Mobutu Sese Seko got closer to Khartoum through Arab countries that funded his deficit budget and offered him other benefits. Ethiopian government of Emperor Haile Selassie improved its relations with the Sudan and couldn’t tolerate Anyanya rebellion within or across the borders. Humanitarian donors (e.g., Norway, Denmark, Sweden, UNHCR and Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan), Southern refugees and intellectuals pressed hard on the rebel opposition to minimize the divisive wrangling and agree to peaceful settlement.

The 1972 Addis Ababa Peace Accord between SSLM and Nimeiri’s government brought back the lost sanity. The Relief and Resettlement Commission was established with mandate of: 1) establishment of adequate reception centers containing facilities for shelter, food supplies and medication; 2) arrangement of transportation of refugees to permanent resettlement places of origin; and 3) provision of materials and equipment for executing this work. Christian missionaries and humanitarian NGOs were encouraged to assist the people of Southern Sudan with service delivery and community development projects (UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, FAO, German Caritas, Norwegian Church Aid, Lutheran World Service, Catholic Relief, ACROSS, etc…), including continuous assistance for student refugees until appropriate arrangements were made for their repatriation and resettlement.

The peace agreement provided for special security arrangement for Southern Command (12,000 troops with 6,000 Southern Sudanese distributed equally to its 3 regions and integrated into the Sudan Defense Forces within 5 years as managed by Joint Military Commission & Joint Cease-fire Commission). It also granted autonomy to Juba with jurisdiction over Southern Provinces (Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile), and where other culturally and geographically associated areas to Southern Complex (e.g., Abyei) would decide via referendum whether to join the South or remain where they have been transferred in the Northern Sudan.

The High Executive Council (HEC) was constituted together with the People’s Regional Assembly (PRA) to govern the South in a parliamentary system where the citizens would elect their representatives democratically via secret ballot. The PRA had to legislate for Southern Sudan in accordance with the Sudan’s constitution and the provisions of the peace agreement as incorporated into the Organic Law of the Regional Government, including Public Service and Economic Institutions (e.g., revenues from taxation, profits or loyalties accruing to the Central Government from exports in Southern region, and grants in-aid or donations). English was affirmed as the principle language for the Southern Region without prejudice to the use of any language or languages that would serve a practical necessity for efficient discharge of executive and administrative functions of the Regional government.

The Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie visited Juba to participate in the anniversary celebration of Addis Ababa Agreement (March 3, 1973). He donated the Multipurpose Training Center (MTC) in Juba for promoting developmental skills. The Tanzanian President Julius K. Nyerere also visited Juba (October 1974) and advised Southerners to be patient with implementation of the peace accord. He donated ox ploughs and agricultural hand tools with large quantities of maize seeds. The Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi visited Wau to participate in the Peace Agreement Anniversary (March 3, 1975) where he tried tipped Juba to conspire in overthrowing Nimeiri’s regime.

The Addis Ababa peace dividend blessed South Sudan with the opening of University of Juba in 1975 alongside Yambio Institute of Agriculture, Institute of Veterinary Science and Institute of Rural Development. Egypt, U.K and U.S offered some scholarships for competitive Southern Sudanese students to pursue tertiary education and come back home to contribute in building the country. The U.S.A Government constructed communications station (television, radio, telex and telephone) in Juba. The USAID paved a 500-mile road from the border of Kenya via Nadapal to Juba. Yugoslavia built the regional Government Complex in Juba with only 5 million USD (Big Parliament, 11 Ministries and 28 Residences). The Government of Netherlands through its business company built the Nile Bridge in Juba (the only bridge build on the Nile in the territory of South Sudan since the begining of God’s creation). The contingent of British Royal Army Engineers built Tonj Bridge and repaired other bridges and roads in Bahr el Ghazal. The Federal Republic of Germany Built the Bussere Bridge and repaired a 600-mile road from Juba to Wau. The Government of Kuwait established a coordination office in Juba headed by Ambassador Abdalla AI-Seraie to monitor Kuwaiti projects (e.g., AI-Sabah Children Hospital, Friendship Primary and Junior Schools, Nyakuron Cultural Center, Juba Broadcasting Station, Hai Kuwait Residential Area and Kuwait Mosque). Chinese Medial Team provide medical services in Juba Hospital and other parts of Southern Sudan.

Juba stood firm in honor of Addis Abba Peace Agreement when northern opposition (Umma Party) armed elements attacked Khartoum in 1976 and President Nimeiri went hiding for few days. However, the Field Marshal Nimeiri’s political behaviors became unpredictable when he declared ‘National Reconciliation’ in 1977 and 1978 with leaders of traditional northern political parties that were opposed to peace in the South, especially Sadiq al-Mahdi and other Muslim Brothers. Nimeiri decided to dishonor the peace accord by encroaching unilaterally and illegitimately on the land rights of Southern Sudan. He linked up with Egyptian Government to dig 360 kilometer Jonglei Canal (1974 – 1984) despite the outrage by the people of Southern Sudan who felt the threat on the environmentally rich Sudd Region (blockage of 350,000 m2 of grassy wetland and lagoons of 30 rivers converging naturally with plenty of variety of fish that die of old age). Also Khartoum tried to redrew the South-North boundaries with intention to annex oil and agricultural rich areas (Bentiu, Hofrat el Nehas, Kafia Kingi and Northern Upper Nile region) to the North, and to issue unilaterally oil exploration licenses (e.g., to American Chevron in 1974 and to French Total and Royal Dutch Shell in 1980), including construction of refineries in the North to process the pipe-lined Southern crude oil or ship it to international markets via Port Sudan with no returns to the South.

Nimeiri’s violations of peace agreement was exacerbated by the divisions and lack of unity of Southern the leaders under the conspiratorial groupings of Joseph Lagu and Abel Alier who were used by Khartoum by short-changing them in power as the Jellaba wished. His disruption of armed forces integration process in the South and declaration of the peace agreement as not Bible or Quoran provoked the discontented Anyanaya veterans to rebel (Kerubino Kwanin Bol in Bor on May 16, 1983 joined by William Nyuon Bany in Ayod on June 6, 1983, Dr. John Garang de Mabior from Panyigor, among others) and go to border of Ethiopia to form the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) with the Manifesto that called for liberation of the old Sudan from bourgeoisie and marginalization so as to realize a new Sudan of camaraderie, nationalism, secularism, socialism, equality, freedom, justice, prosperity and respect of human dignity; signified by self-rule and equitable development regardless of gender, race, family, ethnicity, tribe, region or religion.

“In 1956 our country gained formal independence but entered into the era of neo-colonialism. Since then a small parasitic clique that had mutated from pre-independence system of exploitation and took over the formal instruments of oppressions in the form of the state for their own interests and against the interest of the majority of the Sudanese people. This clique has utilized the multi-racial and multi-religious character of Sudanese society to perpetuate their rule and to keep our people undeveloped and backward.” – Dr. Garang in 1983.

The renewed struggle went beyond “the Southern Problem” with civil war paralyzing the economy and causing humanitarian catastrophe, which become unbearable for civilians and armed forces to tolerate. The professional and trade unions became restive as they demanded for increase of salaries to cope with hyperinflation while government dragged its feet. The judges went on strike as Nimeiri imposed Islamic Penal Code (Sharia) to cuts of hands petty criminals and hang to death the black market dollar traders together with the accused for apostasy (e.g., capital punishment against Mahmoud Mohamed Taha).

Nimeiri failed to survive in politics by nooks and crooks and without peace in the country. The wrath of people’s power and second popular uprising in the Sudan caught up with his intransigence as he was on medical treatment visit to Washington-DC in April 1985. The American generosity and CIA-led foreign policy under President Ronald W. Raegan’s Administration had to stand with the people against the abnormal betrayal by Nimeiri. His diehards and arrogant apologists had to go hiding in shame, internally and abroad, as the plane carrying Nimeiri was landed in Military Airport in Egypt for arranged exile of a fallen dictator. The Regional Government of Southern Sudan Government, which rescued Nimeiri in 1976 when Khartoum was put on fire by Libya-backed Northern opposition armed elements and mercenaries, was already destroyed by Nimeiri-induced ‘Kokora’ (divisive politics and tribalism instead of equality) with politicians scattered in disarray to Malakal, Juba and Wau in 1980s after the unconstitutional dissolution of Juba-based regional government.

The National Alliance for National Salvation (NANS) of the banned political parties, professionals and trade unions, and students convinced the Chief of General Staff of the Sudan Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Abdel Rahman Suwar Al Dhab, to become the Head of the Interim Revolutionary Command Council and with Dr. El-Jizouli Dafallah as the Transitional Prime Minister. The SPLM/A signed the Koka Dam Declaration (March 26, 1986) with the NANS to end the war and adopt a just secular system of governance. However it didn’t take long before partial elections brought back Sadiq al-Mahdi to assume the Premiership again without peace but more atrocities of war and creation of chaotic militias to terrorize Southern Sudan in attempt to defeat the SPLM/A militarily. Famine and humanitarian crises intensified in Sudan. The UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez, and the UNICEF Executive Director, James P. Grant, initiated the Operation Life-Line Sudan (April 1989) for quick response. Though many fake internal and external peace initiatives were attempted the war continued relentlessly.

Sadiq al-Mahdi’s government had to collapse again in June 1989 when the third Junta’s coup overthrow him in collaboration with National Islamic Front where Dr. Hassan El-Turabi was the ideologue. Islam was officially sanctioned as government’s policy. Holy war was declared against the SPLM/A. Radical international Islamists, including Osama bin Laden, got involved in pursuit of the Holy War and enforcement of “Islamic Civilization Project”. Mengistu Haile Mariam of the Derg Regime in Ethiopia was deposed and SPLA/M got split into Naser and Torit factions. The Frankfurt (1992) declaration on self-determination for Southern Sudan, the Abuja I and Entebbe (1992), Abuja II (1993) and other peace initiatives were attempted but failed due to intransigence of the warring parties.

The IGADD’s Declaration of Principles (1994) for achieving peace in the Sudan was adopted: dialoging for a just political solution, affirmation of the right for self-determination, making unity in diversity attractive with secular democracy, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and human rights, realizing appropriate and fair sharing of wealth, and ceasefire and interim arrangements. The National Congress Government exploited the divisions within the SPLA/M and initiated some short-lived internal peace deals (Khartoum Peace Agreement in 1997 and Fashoda Peace Agreement in 1998) to pave the way for protection of oil areas in Southern Sudan. The Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, Canadian, French and Swedish oil companies got involved in the oil business in the Sudan despite human rights concerns on the scorched-earth policy against the local population in oil fields. Khartoum shipped the first oil consignment to the international markets in 1999, emboldening its arms sale capabilities for military victory against the SPLM/A and enforcement of its Islamic policies and Arabization of Southern Sudan.

The Zionic Lobbyists, the Churches, humanitarians NGOs, and human rights activists persuaded the U.S. Congress and President Bush to intervene robustly in order to end the war and achieve peace in the Sudan, using “Carrot and Stick Policy”. Osama Bin Laden’s terroristic attack on the biggest Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon (9/11/ 2001) made George W. Bush Jnr’s Administration press for peace in Sudan. The SPLM/A factions got reunited under the leadership of Dr. John Garang. The IGAD and its partners and friends (Troika, Italy, China, Netherlands, EU, AU and UN) were able to make a breakthrough with mediation of the Machakos Protocol (July 2002), which endorsed the previous IGADD’s Principles. This paved the way for agreements on Security Arrangements (September 2003), Wealth Sharing (January 2004), Power Sharing (May 2004), Resolution of the Conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile (May 2004) and Resolution of the Abyei Conflict (May 2004) mediated by the IGAD Special Envoy and Kenyan Army General, Mr. Lazarus Sumbeiywo.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) made the Sudan Government in Khartoum to grant a special autonomy for the Government of Southern Sudan (2005 – 2011) in Juba and in control of the 1o states in the South based on a separate secular Interim regional Constitution (2005). The SPLM became the ruling party in the South while its military wing, the SPLA, remained as standing army alongside with other organized forces. The oil wealth was shared between South and North. The developmental multi-donor trust fund was established and coordinated in Juba to assist in post-war reconstruction and normalization Southern Sudan.

Despite the hitches between Juba and Khartoum, the 2010 general elections confirmed the incumbent SPLM/A and NCP leaders to continue in the same power positions and make unity of the Sudan attractive. But the people of Southern Sudan overwhelmingly voted for separation in the January 2011 Referendum. The independence was declared with national euphoria and international admiration. In this regard, the Government of Field Marshal Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir (1989 – 2011) could only be considered as partially collapsed after South Sudan broke away officially from Sudan in July 2011. President al-Bashir has been a bit lucky because the IGAD and the African Union were ready to cheer him up in solidarity as his government continue to facing tremendous political and economic difficulties, some of whose mitigations were designed in the expense of oil revenues accruing from independent South Sudan (e.g. paying Transition Financial Arrangements of 3.028 billion USD and hiring Sudan-based oil pipelines costing unfair 24.5 USD per a barrel). That unfair deal was negotiated by the leaders of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) under mediation of African Union High-Level Implementation Panel who favored the Sudan to get compensated by South Sudan for its losses. Part of the cause of 2013 spike of crisis in South Sudan could be traced to that deal and the oil flow shut-down in 2012 by Juba to the dismay of the world.

Abel Alier’s Book “Too Many Agreements Dishonored: Southern Sudan” and Dr. Lam Akol’s Book “SPLM/SPLA: Inside an African Revolution” had captured succinctly the machinations and hegemonies of governments of the Jellaba of Sudan but also the problems of Southern leaders (e.g., unity, federalism, armed forces, Jonglei canal, oil fields, land tenure, tribalism, the price of dishonoring peace agreements, regimes collapses, prospects for political settlements and multi-party politics). Both of these experienced politicians were convinced that the Machiavellian politics on economic and social progress in Southern Sudan was a farce without peace, security, stability, tranquility, good policies, stable government, professional workforce, financial resources, pluralism and inclusivity.

IV. LESSONS FROM SURVIVAL & COLLAPSE OF SUDANESE GOVERNMENTS

In recapitulation, the subsequent collapse governments of the independent Sudan, which kept short-changing themselves in Khartoum between military and civilian politicians had the same colonial ‘master-slave’ mercantilist mentality of extractive hegemony and alienating marginalization of Southern Sudan and the adjacent backward areas. Their political misconduct was met with fierce resistance by the liberation fighters who could not tolerate the disruption of the originality of cultural and religious settings and traditions of native African tribes; their kinship value system of totems and taboos; their believe in God as the source of all life and to whom all human persons should be responsibly accountable; their reverence of inter/intra generational powers of diviners, herbalists, warriors, elders and living-dead; and their preference for Christianity than Islam.

The hinted refreshing historical knowledge about the critical junctions of survival or collapse of governments and oppositions in the independent Sudan could be summarized in these points: imprudence of government and opposition leaders, politically motivated raging senseless long civil wars, discontent of citizens with corrupt political economy, popular uprisings due to sharp economic shocks on purchasing power of ordinary population, aggressive foreign sanctions provoked by humanitarian despair, and international lobbying for restoration of democratic civic duty in an environment of peace. Tough Lessons should be learnt here for shaping a way forward for a better South Sudan because history doesn’t forgive faltering leadership.

The exposed historical blunders should sent alerting signals and disqualify any consolation of political fallacy of the blind content that the earth will go around the sun normally with the morning and night passing daily for the status quo to remain triumphant against all odds of the pressing change. It should also shift the paradigm and present alternative keys that must unlock the potentials of finding reliable innovative solutions for a government and opposition of peace and happiness in South Sudan, based on liberal democratic culture of checks and balances with periodic trustworthy fair elections that are upheld legitimacy by both winners and losers. The glimpses from history should move the good people convincingly to withdraw their confidence from any bad political leader in South Sudan who cannot think outside the box to implement the vows of peace, justice, liberty and prosperity incrementally with spirit of stewardship and dynamic synergy of the stakeholder’s performance on the following mandate:

1) Commit to full and timely implementation of the revitalized ARCSS with oversight by reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC) and its Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM);
2) Consolidate the restored security and peace in collaboration with IGAD and Partners;
3) Promote Human Rights and Fundament Liberties for Preservation of Dignity;
4) Fast-track and Provide Protection for Humanitarian Relief, Repatriation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation of IDPs and Refugees;
5) Recover the Economy and Manage it Effectively with Prudence, Transparency and Accountability for the Welfare of the People;
6) Rebuild the Destroyed Infrastructure and Construct new Public Facilities;
7) Provide Services for Human Development and Stable Livelihoods;
8) Expedite Public Service Reforms and Transformation for Civil and Armed Sectors;
9) Facilitate Transitional Justice, Reconciliation and Healing;
10) Devolve Powers and Allocate Development Resources to States and Counties;
11) Initiate and Finalize Permanent Constitution-making Process;
12) Facilitate the Conduct of National Population Census and Household Survey;
13) Facilitate Credible Conduct of Elections Before the end of Transitional Period; and
14) Perform the normal Functions of Government, Horizontally and Vertically.
—————————————————————-
Dr. James Okuk is professor of political science in University of Juba and peace-building consultant reachable at okukjimy@hotmail.com.

Culture of Revenge Destroys: A Call for Political Tolerance across South Sudan

BY: Mayak Deng Aruei , USA, MAY/22/2018, SSN;

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Martin Luther King proclaimed. Having just concluded the SPLM/SPLA’s historic Day-May 16, I’d like to encourage South Sudanese to reconnect with their past, recall the many wars they fought against the colonial powers, and against the successive Sudanese governments.

The quest for independent South Sudan dated back to 1947, but the liberation struggle that started in 1983 gave birth to the nation called South Sudan. Freedom as it was the basis for five decades struggle cannot be realized until peace is every citizen’s Motto.

For the record, war destroys good conscience, bankrupts countries, and corrupts the intelligentsia. In South Sudan, the culture of revenge, vicious cycles of violence and cattle-rustling have contributed to political intolerance across the country.

The nation’s founding principles have been suppressed; freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, justice and equality. Fear of unknowns, aided by deliberate obstruction of democratic governance has undermined South Sudanese collective efforts. Take your time and read the article in its entirety.

Why are South Sudanese fleeing their homes?

The outflow of South Sudanese into neighboring countries is a proof that they cannot live in their country whilst the war rages. In the aftermath of the ongoing civil war, many civilians were forcefully uprooted from their villages, crops production in rural South Sudan hit all times low, and attempts by the Regional Bloc to resolve the conflict were met with steep resistances.

Because of the unbearable economic conditions, civilians who have no other sources of income apart from local production chose to leave the country for refugee camps, and some took up residence in internally displaced camps.

The conflict has disturbed people’s livelihoods in many ways: frequent raiding of cattle ensued, trading activities declined, boundaries and territorial disputes have proliferated over the newly created counties and states.

With all that, mistrust among neighboring communities has deteriorated “bigly.” To make matters even worst, South Sudanese warring Factions acted more like racist rival gangs.

State’s power and Media in Crisis!

As part of the recent history, those who have had the courage to write history as it occurs have been preyed upon by agents of destruction.

A short-lived politics where those in power use their positions to make gains has ripple effects and negatively impact on the society as a whole.

Intolerance in its all forms should be discarded. The new wave of unknown gunmen has resulted in mysterious deaths of vocal cyber-critics.

The Republic of South Sudan is known in papers as a democratic State, the Interim constitution is colorful in terms of what it says, and how it envisioned South Sudan as a country governed by laws.

Despite to all that, South Sudanese leaders have made themselves unattractive; failed to acknowledge all they have caused onto the governed.

There should be no any doubt; those in charge have failed the leadership’s test, and have tarnished their legacies.

The world at large has written extensively about South Sudan as the world’s newest State, and the challenges it had faced in the past 6 years of its independence.

This leads me to the next point; governance and politics in the new nation.

Misguided national politics!

The political landscape of South Sudan is barren and rough, not a lot of rooms for citizens to contribute freely to the nation-building.

The politics of “divide and rule” is not new in South Sudan; it has been used numerous times by select politicians to rise to power.

The causes of the mini-wars in South Sudan have been spelled out in the last itemized points. Social media has helped expose so many hidden and behind the scene political dealings.

The raging war has destroyed citizens’ expectations, and undermined goals for South Sudan’s independence. The displacement of civilians speaks volumes.

The unequal civilians’ access to public good is a primary problem in South Sudan, and it’s often exploited by disgruntled Groups, and uses it as a recruiting political message.

This is where the Interest Groups in the Region and around the world get their chances to meddle in internal affairs of South Sudan.

Humanitarians’ organizations that bring in assistance: food and medical supplies are not immune from influencing the political process in the country.

It is also relevant to point out that their donors want to see positive impacts, and organizations want to stay there as long as war continues.

Solutions!

For South Sudanese to coexist, to harvest fruits of their hard earned independence, peace must prevail in South Sudan.

The nation of South Sudan started on a wrong footing, the first rebellions (2010-2012) were just the beginning of bigger political wrangles.

It was a matter of time, but things were going to explode.

The current crisis is no longer what it was between 2013 and 2015, it has evolved into something else.

The wounds of this conflict are deep, clans are competing against clans, and neighbors are constantly in heated arguments.

The incentives for peace are many: economic prosperity, free trade, high crops yield, and cheaper homemade commodities.

The treasures of war are many: political unrest, economic despair, and widespread poverty.

In summary, it’s fair and safe to conclude that political tolerance is the way forward. The problem(s) of South Sudan are better termed as systemic:
— lack of meaningful political structures, breakdown of social relationships, and lack of adherence to the nation’s founding principles.

As a multicultural and multi-ethnic State, South Sudan needs laws and policies that can protect citizens equally, institutions that will accelerate nation-building, and leaders who’d follow through with people’s aspirations.

Just to touch up edges, Martin Luther King further emphasized, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

This piece of writing is for the voiceless, and for invigorating nationalism among South Sudanese.

May the ongoing peace conference end the conflict, and may South Sudanese find a common ground for all their political differences!


The writer is Mayak Deng Aruei, a Peace Activist & Human Rights Advocate. He can be reached at Kongor.da.ajak@gmail.com

ARCSS & its Institutional and Judicial Reforms Agenda: Achievements and Failures

By Tong Kot Kuocnin, LLB (Juba), LLM (Nairobi) MAY/21/2018, SSN;

I. Introduction

Since the establishment of the government of Southern Sudan in 2005 following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, South Sudan failed to embark on extensive judicial reforms with a rigorous process of impartial and non-partisan appointment of the Chief Justice, justices, judges and other judicial officers where applicants should have been publicly interviewed by a revamped Judicial Service Council (JSC). Subsequently, parliament should have vetted and passed the nominees before full appointment by the President.

However, as I always share different and contending opinion, my contention has always been that, the effectiveness of judicial reforms depends on wider reforms in the entire justice sector. This would include critical stakeholders, such as, the prosecuting authorities, penal institutions and the police – and even the executive and parliament which put forward and approve budgetary allocations.

This is to ensure that complementary reforms are taking place within all those other institutions in order to ensure effective and timely delivery of justice.

Since 2005 to date, weak institutional culture and structural impediments have stood in the way of judicial reforms, but this should not be allowed to retard efforts to implement an ‘ambitious plan to make the courts more efficient and open, increase professionalism, and expand the court system’ if at all the judiciary leadership was willing to undertake much needed reforms.

The process of judicial reforms has to revamp an opaque system, many of whose members have historically had strong senses of entitlement as liberators of the country. These reforms, should aim at overcoming internal resistance, strengthening weak accountability mechanisms, and finding the necessary resources in order to stir forward the reforms sought.

Another key component of judicial reforms is structuring judicial accountability. Accountability is a particularly tough challenge because many South Sudanese do not understand how the court system works. Thus, for such institutional and judicial reforms to take root, users of the justice system – whether lawyers or everyday citizens – have to understand how the courts should function and demand that judicial officers deliver quality judicial services. This requires high and consistent levels of sensitization.

The Compromise Peace Agreement commonly referred to as the ‘The Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (2015) contains key fundamental recommendations in justice sector reforms.

Access to justice has been pointed out as the first pillar and key result area. This should ‘encompass such actions as the establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan to try those who bear greatest responsibility of the atrocities during the conflict.

The establishment of an independent judicial body to known as ‘hybrid court for South Sudan came as a result of disregard of the laws and customs of war resulting to a serious violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The court, according to the terms of the ARCSS, shall have jurisdiction with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as other serious crimes under international law and relevant laws of the Republic of south Sudan including gender based crimes and sexual violence.

This entails, in part, an attempt to in this regard break the ‘traditional refrain of the soldier and the bureaucrat that “I was only doing my duty” is no longer an acceptable ground for abrogating the rights of humanity in the person of the other’ as much of the power of government is exercised by the president through bureaucrats who regulate the daily lives of citizens and therefore exercise broad delegated powers.

Thus, inspiring public confidence in the redress of grievances, human rights violations and various forms of injustices obtainable through legitimate means within known structures and predictable processes is important in the consolidation of peace in South Sudan.

Legitimate structures for peaceful settlement of disputes and fair administration of justice within strong democratic institutions of governance are amenable to peace consolidation only if these institutions are transparent, accountable and non-corrupt and the power isn’t absolutely control by the elite heading the institution.

This has hitherto been tested that States with high institutional quality are less likely to experience civil war or conflict due to their responsiveness to the needs of their citizens; whereas those with low quality institutions can lose the loyalty and support of their citizens, and consequently fall prey to violent conflicts. This has been our challenge since the inception of the then government of Southern Sudan in 2005.

As already said, peace, stability, and development are more likely to happen in countries with strong democratic institutions not held hostage by the few elites who wields an absolute power, not only because they are inclined towards upholding justice, human rights, equality and the rule of law, but due to the high level of political inclusivity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms they exude.

II. Achievements

Since weak or lack of strong institutions is not only the cause of state failure to prevent human rights violations but also the reason that state power is used to perpetrate injustices. It is to be underscored here that there are no much achievements made thus far by the current government since the signing of the Peace Agreement in August 2015.

The institutional reforms sought as enshrined in the agreement remains largely an untenable dream as there exist a serious lack of political will to undertake such reforms as these reforms predictably brings unwarranted and an unexpected complete change and overhaul of the current dysfunctional system.

Strong democratic institutions are remedial and can facilitate the movement from instability to stability; from human rights violations to a situation where such rights are universally upheld, respected and protected.

The economic reforms as stipulated in the agreement remains on the paper to be realize as the government took no attempt to institute such reforms as required by the agreement.

The spirit of the agreement hasn’t been implemented as expected as the leadership of the country indulge in mockery not only of its citizens but equally to the region which brokered the agreement and the international at large.

III. Failures

In terms of implementation progress, leaders in South Sudan have not been moving as fast as expected when their progress is measured against the milestones stipulated in the ARCSS.

The leaders in Juba should be credited for managing to form the TGoNU, as well as constituting the Council of Ministers in April 2016, as provided for in the ARCSS. But it is sad to say that they have not started establishing the necessary institutions of governance provided for in the ARCSS.

However, the implementation of other provisions of the ARCSS has been slow, poor and above all, not been implemented as FVP Taban Deng Gai, who took over the leadership of SPLM-IO after the June 2016 J1 incident was only working to appease his BOSS.

Not only that, there has been slow implementation of the ARCSS as evidenced by the delays in the formation and reconstitution of transitional institutions and mechanisms, provided for under Chapter 1 (14.1) of the agreement which include, inter alia, the institutions such as the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing (CTRH); Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS); CRA; and the Board of the Special Reconstruction Fund (BSRF).

All these have not yet been established – yet most were supposed to be in place within the first month of the TGoNU, as provided in the ARCSS.

The slow progress recorded in implementing the ARCSS is one of the main causes of this return to violence. Political will has also been singled out by the JMEC as one of the key factors behind this limited implementation progress.

The fact that key signatories to the peace deal – specifically Kiir – signed the peace pact with many reservations, obviously has a bearing on his will and commitment to the agreement. This, however, does not in any way downplay the other factors contributing to the limited progress in implementing the ARCSS – notably the struggle for power and control between SPLM/A-IG and SPLM/A-IO leaders Kiir and Machar; the exclusion of other stakeholders to the conflict in the ARCSS negotiation process; and nation-building complexities that naturally face the South Sudanese, as the state is still in its formative stages with very little institutional infrastructure to anchor governance and other systems.

IV. Conclusion

This article therefore accentuates the need to have robust institutional reforms as the basis for institutional and judicial reform mechanisms to avoid replication of failure of institutional and judicial reform measures as South Sudan is still trapped in violence and political uncertainty.

South Sudan should relentlessly embark on the path of reforming structures of governance through designing institutions responsive to current demands of peace-building, reconciliation, and national cohesion.

To surmount such challenges, the inevitability of institutional reforms comes to bear since the process largely depends on the nature of government and democratic institutions in place in the country. There is a need to exert more pressure to procure workable political will to institute such reforms.

Thus, this article maintains that strengthening of institutions, as a strategy of peace-building, is most likely through implementation of various judicial reforms mechanisms. Such mechanisms should aim at confronting the past, ending injustices, fostering reconciliation, redressing the victims, ending the culture of impunity and building structures that can prevent recurrence of past injustices.

The author holds Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Degree from the University of Juba and a Master of Laws (LLM) specializing in Law, Governance and Democracy from the University of Nairobi. He an advocate before all courts and his areas of research interest are: constitutional law and human rights, access to justice and transitional justice, rule of law and good governance.

Pres. Kiir’s cunning strategy only prolongs the conflict

By Duop Chak Wuol, MAY/21/2018, SSN;

Salva Kiir likes to preach democracy to confuse people, looks for ways to legitimize his atrocious regime, uses deception to promote his despotism, and calculatingly waits for the right time to obliterate his political rivals.

His supposed recent quest for peace through the reunification of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) appears more like a cunning strategy.

The recently concluded SPLM reunification meeting in Juba was a good gesture, but the conference was not meant for party reunification as Kiir would like people to believe.

The move was an elaborate deception intended to validate Kiir as the only leader of the SPLM and to legitimatize his tyranny.

What Kiir is trying to do is to build trust between himself and his rivals using a fake party reunification so that he can later purge of them permanently.

Kiir’s cruel attitude is a copycat of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s, who is known for killing his political adversaries and blaming their deaths on unknown gunmen, car accidents, heart attacks, or other strange illnesses.

The reunification plot worked in Kiir’s favor after he successfully tricked his First Vice President, Taban Deng Gai, into signing the bogus reunion pact. Kiir also won when Taban ordered his fighters to be integrated into government forces.

If the agreement between Kiir and Taban is a genuine deal, then we can logically conclude that there is no such a thing as the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) between Taban and Kiir because the two men now represent the infamous Juba regime.

The people of South Sudan know very well that the reunification process managed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is not a credible peace.

Museveni and el-Sisi are using the reunification card to fool other SPLM leaders into believing that the party is united under Kiir and that the conflict has ended.

Their strategy is questionable since the two men have known interests in South Sudan and the East African region.

What the Egyptian and Ugandan leaders are doing is keeping Kiir in power so that Kampala can continue benefiting from South Sudan’s war while Cairo maneuvers on how best it can prevent Ethiopia’s Nile dam from being completed.

Unity of the SPLM cannot be imposed on the party leaders by known supporters of Kiir’s regime. Museveni and el-Sisi have South Sudanese blood in their hands. Any person who thinks rationally would not accept such a self-serving strategy.

Museveni and el-Sisi should just keep their immoral investments in Juba’s atrocious regime. The South Sudanese know the two men have been fighting alongside Kiir’s regime against the armed opposition, SPLM/A-IO.

The Egyptian President must know that his opposition to Ethiopia’s Nile dam project will not succeed by supporting a murderous regime in Juba. Addis Ababa has the right to build its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam since Cairo does not own the Nile.

Salva Kiir’s leadership only brought more destruction to South Sudan. Under Kiir, the Republic of South Sudan has become like a mafia corporation.

Kiir’s leadership is all about deceiving, purging, looting, killing, torturing, raping, and destroying. Salva Kiir fits the persona of a cruel tyrant.

His refusal to allow peace to prevail in the country is deeply rooted in his mythical belief that he can win militarily against the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-In Opposition (SPLM/A-IO).

The fact is that the war is still raging on, and millions of South Sudanese are still living in United Nations-run camps in South Sudan and neighboring countries.

There is no justification for Kiir’s SPLM reunification. It is clear, however, that his call for peace through SPLM reunion is nothing but a fishing tactic to lure his opponents to Juba, eliminate them, and remain unchallenged.

Peace under Kiir is not feasible because he knows Uganda, Egypt, and Kenya are backing his regime. If the international community wants peace to prevail in South Sudan, then it must impose stiff sanctions on Kampala, Cairo, and Nairobi.

Kiir is a leader who cannot be trusted when it comes to South Sudan’s peace. The man has a habit of claiming without any evidence that rebel leader Dr. Riek Machar and other South Sudanese political leaders who oppose his leadership are not for peace and that he is the only one who wants peace to return to the country.

Kiir is the one who does not want peace. For instance, prior to signing the 2015 peace deal, he broadcast a list of ‘serious reservations,’ claiming the agreement was not fair to his regime.

Those reservations were a part of his plan to impede peace implementation. Kiir was also laying the groundwork for his next move, which became the July 2016 assassination attempt of Machar.

His failure to demilitarize Juba as stipulated in the 2015 agreement was also part of his “serious reservations” tactic. This is exactly how Kiir’s mind works.

Kiir is unquestionably a cold-blooded killer who would cut someone’s throat and then would smile as if he did not do anything. His recent announcement that he has forgiven Machar and that he wants him to go to Juba without a single soldier shows that Kiir’s manipulative personality is beyond common sense.

Kiir is not fit to forgive people. The people of South Sudan are the ones who have the choice to forgive Kiir because he has committed tribal-motivated massacres against South Sudanese.

What Salva Kiir is trying to do is lure Machar to Juba in a pretext of peace and then finish him off politically. Kiir is clearly not for peace. He recently instructed his peace negotiation team to work for a deal that will only accommodate rebels and other opposition leaders.

Kiir is only interested in prolonging the conflict so that he can keep looting the nation’s oil wealth.

Kiir has no vision for the country and his regime is morally bankrupted to the core. His sense of reality is solely focused on seeing himself ruling the nation as long as he lives.

The people of South Sudan have had enough of his disparaging ego — his political demise would be a blessing to the county.

Those who believe the reunification of the SPLM is the only way to achieve peace in the country are wrong. Reuniting the SPLM entails that Kiir would remain as the chairman of the party; this process can only be accepted by conscience-stricken people.

Allowing a murderous tyrant to lead the same party he once used to slaughter innocent people is not acceptable. Those who want SPLM to reunite under Kiir should first explain to the people of South Sudan why they want a killer to lead again.

Kiir’s cunning mentality is a known fact throughout South Sudan. The man is too ruthless to win back the hearts and minds of the South Sudanese. He must not be allowed to deceive people again.

His destructive presidency style does not permit room for opposing views. Kiir’s mind seems to be only capable of consuming praise and glorification of his brutality.

South Sudan rebels and other opposition leaders must not allow Kiir to use a bogus SPLM reunification to extend his vicious rule.

SPLM does not belong to Kiir, so those who want the reunification of the party while Kiir remains as its leader are the same people who conspired during the December 2013 Juba massacre.

This reunification nonsense must be rejected until the tyrant exits the presidency or drops all his misguided plans against the peace process.

Salva Kiir is not interested in real peace. His main goals are to eliminate any potential South Sudanese leaders and to surround himself with sycophantic and tail-waving politicians, rendering him a disgrace to the people of South Sudan.

The author can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.