Category: National

Gen. Thomas Cirillo: Demand for Federal system and the 10 former states system

RadioTamazuj, Addis Ababa, JUL/24/2018;

Gen. Thomas Cirillo Swaka, leader of the National Salvation Front (NAS), said the opposition seeks to reduce the power of President Salva Kiir and strengthen institutions in the transitional period.

The disaffected army general quit his position in the military last year and formed a rebel group to fight against the government.

In an interview with Radio Tamazuj from Addis Ababa on Monday, General Cirillo, who secretly quit the on-going IGAD-sponsored talks in Khartoum, said the opposition rejected many power sharing proposals presented by the mediation team at ongoing peace talks for failing to address the root cause of the conflict.

He further said the current system of governance in South Sudan is awarding the office of the president wide powers.

The opposition leader underscored that excessive power in President Kiir’s hand is undermining the workings of the democracy and accountability in the world’s youngest nation.

“We don’t want to dwell on power sharing. We want to tackle the system of governance, so we are saying this is our top priority,” Cirillo said.

He pointed out that a fundamental weakness of the current system of government is the way in which it allocates powers and resources to the states and counties.

The opposition official said it is crucial that South Sudanese parties agree on a council of presidency with equal powers during the transitional period.

“We don’t want powers to be in one man’s hand so that he does whatever he wants to do in the country. If Salva Kiir will continue as the president, he should be part of the presidency where there should be a consensus based decision-making process during the transitional period,” he explained.

Cirillo said that the opposition will not religuish its demand to get power at the local government level during the transitional period.

He also said that the people of South Sudan demand for federal governance, a system in which sovereign powers are divided between federal and state governments.”

“The national government has too much power and the states are being weakened, so we are confident that the federal system will empower our people at the local government level. We reject any proposal saying the federal system will be introduced after the transitional period,” he said.

The opposition leader voiced support for a peace agreement that is widely inclusive of the views of the South Sudanese people and that engages civil society, faith-based groups and women.

Cirillo demanded that South Sudan should revert to the defunct 10 states as provided for in the 2015 peace agreement. “If the people of South Sudan demand more states, there will a referendum so that they can decide on the number of states. The current 32 states have caused conflicts in South Sudan,” Cirillo said.

He further said the opposition alliance will sign a peace deal in Khartoum on Thursday if their concerns are addressed by the mediation team.

Detail Copy of the Khartoum ‘Agreement on Outstanding Issues of Governance’ yet to be signed by Kiir & Opposition

Published by SSN, JUL/21/2018;

This is the failed/pending Agreement on Outstanding Issues of Governance to be signed by Kiir’s Government and the rebel/opposition movement.

**Mindful of their commitment under the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 to lay the foundation for a united, peaceful and prosperous society based on justice, equality, respect for human rights and the rule of law,

**Deeply regretting the scale of untold human suffering that had befallen their country and people as a result of disregarding this commitment,

**Determined to compensate their people by recommitting themselves to peace and constitutionalism and not to repeat mistakes of the past,

**Recognizing the prime significance of preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country,

**Cognizant that a federal system of government is a popular demand of the people of the Republic of South Sudan and of the need for the Revitalized TGoNU to reflect this demand by way of devolution of more powers and resources to lower levels of government,

**Confirming the commitments that they have solemnly undertaken in the ARCSS and the Khartoum Declaration,
–The Transitional Government of National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan(TGoNU),
–the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement Army-In Opposition(SPLM/A-IO),
–the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA),
–Former Detainees(FDs),
–Other Political Parties (OPP), referred to hereinafter collectively as the Parties, confirm their commitment to the agreed part of the Revised Bridging Proposal and hereby resolve as follows the outstanding issues on governance:

1. The Presidency:
1.1. As of the beginning of the Transitional Period:
a. H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit shall continue as President of the Republic of South Sudan.
(page–2)
b. The Chairman of SPLM/A-IO, Dr Riek Machar Teny, shall assumethe position of the First Vice President of the Republic of South Sudan.

1.2. During the Transitional Period there shall be four Vice Presidents of the Republic of South Sudan who shall be nominated as follows:
a. Vice President to be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.
b. Vice President to be nominated by SSOA.
c. Vice President to be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.
d. Vice President to be nominated by FDs, who shall be a woman.

1.3. Apart from the First Vice President, there shall be no hierarchy among Vice Presidents. The ranking in 1.2 above is for protocol purposes only.

1.4. Decision making in the Presidency shall be in a spirit of collegial collaboration. However, the powers and functions of the President, First Vice President, and Vice Presidents shall be delineated along the provisions of the ARCSS 2015.

1.5. The First Vice President and Vice Presidents shall oversee respectively the following Cabinet Clusters:
(a) First Vice President: Governance Cluster.
(b) Vice President: Economic Cluster.
(c) Vice President: Services Delivery Cluster.
(d) Vice President: Infrastructure Cluster.
(e) Vice President: Gender and Youth Cluster.

2. The Revitalized TGoNU:
2.1. The Council of Ministers shall be comprised of thirty five (35) Ministers that shall be organized in the abovementioned five (5) Clusters.

2.2. The three Clusters stated in the ARCSS shall continue having due regard to the amendments required as a result of creating new Clusters and new Ministries.

2.3. The Infrastructure Cluster shall include Ministries of Energy and Dams; Transport; Roads and Bridges; Information, Communication Technology and Postal Services, and any appropriate Ministry of the five new Ministries.
—(page..3)
2.4. The Gender and Youth Cluster shall include Ministries of Gender, Child and Social Welfare; Culture, Youth, and Sports, and any appropriate Ministry of the five new Ministries.

2.5. The additional five Ministries and their clustering shall be agreed by the Parties before or during the Pre-Transitional Period further to a proposal to be drawn by the IGAD and shall be included in the Revitalized ARCSS. The full list of the thirty five (35) Ministries shall be drawn at that time.

2.6. The Ministerial positions shall be selected as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 20 Ministers.
b. SPLM/A-IO: 09 Ministers.
c. SSOA: 03 Ministers.
d. FDs: 02 Ministers.
e. OPP: 01 Minister.

2.7. There shall be ten (10) Deputy Ministers in the following Ministries:
a. Cabinet Affairs.
b. Foreign Affairs.
c. Defense.
d. Interior.
e. Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
f. Finance.
g. Agricultural and Food Security.
h. General Educational and Instruction.
i. Public Services and Human Resource Development
j. Lands, Housing and Urban Development.

2.8. Deputy Ministers shall be nominated by the Parties by rotation from the above list according to the following ratio:
a. TGoNU: five (5) Deputy Ministers.
b. SPLM/A-IO: three (3) Deputy Ministers.
c. SSOA: one (1) Deputy Minister.
d. OPP: one (1) Deputy Minister.

2.9. No fewer than three (3) of the Deputy Ministers shall be women.

2.10. No Assistant Presidents, other Ministers or Deputy Ministers shall be appointed during the Transitional Period.
—(page…4)
2.11. If more than two Advisers to the President are appointed, the responsibility sharing ratio shall apply to their selection.

3. The Transitional National Legislature:
3.1. The Transitional National Legislature (TNL) shall consist of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) and the Council of States.

3.2. The TNLA shall be dissolved and composed of 550 members who shall be allocated as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 332 members.
b. SPLM/A-IO: 128 members.
c. SSOA: 50 members.
d. OPP: 35 members.
e. FDs: 5 members.

3.3. The Speaker of the TNLA shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU. One Deputy Speaker shall be nominated by OPP and the other, who shall be a woman, shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.

3.4. The Council of States shall be dissolved and composed of 50 members or the closest figure that can be shared evenly by the States as per the number that shall be recommended by the IBC. However, the minimum number for the representatives of every and each State shall be two.

3.5. The membership of the Council of States shall be reconstituted as per the responsibility sharing ratio.

3.6. The Speaker of the Council of States shall be nominated by SPLM/A-IO and the Deputy Speaker shall be nominated by Incumbent TGoNU.

4. Number and Boundaries of States:
4.1. Within thirty (30) days of the signing of the Revitalized ARCSS, the IGAD Executive Secretariat, taking into account the decision of the 55th Extra-Ordinary Session of the IGAD Council of Ministers held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, January 30-31, 2016, shall appoint Independent
Boundaries Commission (IBC) for the Republic of South Sudan.

4.2. The IBC shall consist of fifteen (15) members with the necessary skills and expertise.
—(page…5)
4.3. Members of the IBC shall be appointed as follows:
a. Five (5) South Sudanese who shall be appointed by the Parties, one (1) each.
b. Two (2) representatives of the IGAD states that shall come from states with no boundaries with South Sudan.
c. Three (3) representatives of the Troika states.
d. Five (5) representatives of the African Union that shall be from the C5 states.

4.4. The IBC shall be chaired by one of its non-South Sudanese members who shall be of recognized standing and integrity and who should have had occupied a senior judicial, executive or administrative position in his home country.

4.5. The IBC may retain the services of a team of experts.

4.6. The IBC shall establish three teams, each consisting of five representatives and relevant experts, to be deployed at locations it will designate.

4.7. The function of the IBC shall be to consider the number of States of the Republic of South Sudan and their boundaries and to make recommendations on the same.

4.8. The IBC shall focus on studying the alternatives currently proposed by the Parties and any other viable alternatives in the light of guidelines that shall be drawn beforehand. The IBC shall also draw its own internal regulations.

4.9. The IBC shall strive to arrive at its recommendations by consensus. If consensus is not achieved, the IBC shall adopt its recommendations by simple majority.

4.10. The recommendations of the IBC shall be presented to the IGAD Executive Secretariat and shall be immediately communicated to the Parties.

4.11. The IBC shall complete its work within ninety (90) days, extendable to a maximum of ninety (90) days more. In all cases it shall make its recommendations on the number and boundaries of States during the Pre-Transitional Period. Thereafter it shall be dissolved.
—(page…6)
4.12. The Parties agree to abide by the recommendations of the IBC, and hereby authorize the IGAD Executive Secretariat to enshrine those recommendations in the Revitalized ARCSS. The Parties accept to implement the recommendations in full at the beginning of the Transitional Period.

4.13. In the unlikely event of the IBC failing to make its recommendations before the end of the Pre-Transitional Period, the Republic of South Sudan shall have as regions the old three provinces, as per their boundaries of January 1st 1956. This solution shall be adopted on
temporary basis until the number and boundaries of the States are agreed.

5. States and Local Government
5.1. The Responsibility sharing ratio at State level and local government level shall be as follows:
a. Incumbent TGoNU: 55%
b. SPLM/A-IO: 25%
c. SSOA: 10%
d. OPP: 10%

5.2. State and local governments shall be dissolved and reconstituted as per the responsibility sharing formula stated above.

5.3. The positions that shall be subject to responsibility sharing include: Governors, Speakers of State Legislatures, State Councils of Ministers, State Legislatures, County Commissioners, County Councils, Mayors and City Councils.

5.4. In sharing State and local government positions Parties shall take into account the relative prominence each Party has in the respective State or Payam and effective administration of that unit.

5.5. The FDs shall have three State Ministers in States of their choice.

6. General Provisions:
6.1. The Parties recognize that during the Pre-Transitional Period, the Incumbent TGoNU shall continue to exercise its powers as per the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.
—(page…7)
6.2. At the beginning of the Pre-Transitional Period, the Parties shall issue a solemn commitment to their people and the international community at large confirming unequivocally that they will not return to war and shall work hand in hand diligently and collectively for the sake of peace and stability of their country. In particular, the Parties shall pledge to use the resources of the country wisely and transparently, for the best interests of the people of the Republic of South Sudan, and to put in place the efficient mechanisms required for achieving this paramount goal. In their solemn commitment the Parties shall also appeal to the international community for support and cooperation at this difficult time of the Republic of South Sudan.

6.3. The activities that shall be undertaken during the Pre–Transitional Period, which can take as long as 8 months, shall include:
a. Dissemination of the Revitalized ARCSS to South Sudanese People inside the country, in different cities and towns of Sudan, in refugee camps in neighboring countries, and in diaspora, so that the people can own it.
b. Carrying out the tasks entrusted to the IBC.
c. A process of national healing and reconciliation that shall be led by all Parties inside and outside of the Republic of South Sudan.
d. The agreed security arrangement activities.
e. Incorporation of the Revitalized ARCSS in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.
f. Reviewing and drafting necessary bills as per the Revitalized ARCSS.
g. Any other activities agreed by the Parties.

6.4. Provisions of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan and ARCSS on participation of women (35 %) in the Executive shall be observed. In particular, Incumbent TGoNU shall nominate no fewer than six (6) women to the Council of Ministers, and SPLM-IO shall nominate no fewer than three (3) women to the Council of Ministers.

6.5. Having in mind that more than 70 percent of the population in the Republic of South Sudan is under the age of thirty and that youth are the most affected by the war and represent high percentage of refugees and —(page…7) IDPs, the Parties shall strive to include people of young age in their quotas at different levels. In particular, the Minister of Culture, Youth, and Sports in the Revitalized TGoNU shall be less than forty (40) years old.

6.6. In selecting their nominees Parties shall give due consideration to national diversity, including regional representation.

6.7. Without prejudice to Paragraph 6.1. above, a National Pre–Transitional Committee (NPTC) shall be formed as follows by the President of the Republic of South Sudan within thirty days of signing the Revitalized ARCSS:

a. The NPTC shall be formed of ten members representing the Parties as follows:
— five (5) for Incumbent TGoNU,
— two (2) for SLPM/A-IO,
— one (1) for SSOA,
— one (1) for FDs, and
— one (1) for OPP.
The NPTC shall be chaired by TGoNU representative with two Deputy Chairs to be nominated by SPLM/A-IO and SSOA respectively, and shall adopt its decisions by consensus.

b. The NPTC shall be entrusted with the function of oversight and coordination of the implementation of the activities of the Pre–Transitional Period with the Incumbent TGoNU taking full account of all constitutional institutions and powers.

c. The NPTC shall draw the road map for implementing the political tasks of the Pre-Transitional Period, prepare a budget for the activities of the Pre–Transitional Period that involve the Parties, and address issues of VIP security and preparations for new Ministers, among others.

d. The NPTC shall start its work in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and shall move to Juba sometime during the Pre-Transitional Period. The NPTC shall be dissolved when the Pre-Transitional Period ends.

6.8. There shall be established a fund for the implementation of the political and security activities of the Pre–Transitional Period provided for in the Revitalized ARCSS. The fund, which shall be drawn from the proceeds of oil, shall be deposited by Incumbent TGoNU in an escrow account in a bank agreed to by the NPTC. The NPTC shall manage the fund (page—8) transparently and report on it monthly to the President of the Republic of South Sudan and to the Parties.

6.9. The Parties shall agree on Inter-Ministerial Mechanism for Implementation of the Revitalized ARCSS including reporting to JMEC. The IGAD led mediation and the Guarantors shall revitalize and
restructure all monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure inclusivity of all Parties, including new Parties, and to enhance the effectiveness of all mechanisms. Such review and restructuring shall be included in the Revitalized ARCSS.

6.10. Within 12 (twelve) months of the beginning of the Transitional Period, the Reconstituted National Constitutional Amendments Committee (NCAC) shall revise relevant laws and draft new legislations pursuant to the Revitalized ARCSS.

6.11. The Parties reaffirm their agreement in the ARCSS that a federal and democratic system of governance that reflects the character of the Republic of South Sudan and ensures unity in diversity be enacted during the permanent constitution making process.

6.12. The Parties also reaffirm their commitment to the principle of lean government and to having national assembly that shall have a number of members commensurate with the number of population pursuant to the internationally recognized proportions. The Parties recognize that the high number of members of the Executive and TNLA is agreed herein on exceptional basis for the purposes of the Transitional Period only and that those numbers shall form no precedent or any precursor for the future.

6.13. This Agreement shall prevail on contradictory or incompatible provisions of ARCSS and the Revised Bridging Proposal.

Done in Khartoum, Sudan, this day 19th of July 2018.

To Be Signed:
For Incumbent TGoNU
……………………………………………………………
For SPLM/A-IO
……………………………………………………………………
For SSOA
……………………………………………………………………………
For FDs
………………………………………………………………………………
For OPP
………………………………………………………………………………
For the Republic of Sudan (Guarantor):
……………………………………………
For IGAD (Witness):
…………………………………………………………………………..

We’ve to start preaching the culture of Openness and Tolerance

BY: Apioth Mayom Apioth, South Sudan, JUL/2018, SSN;

First and foremost, I am thanking Salva Kiir for having swallowed his ego and pride in accepting Riek Machar and other opposition political alliances into the fold of South Sudanese politics.

South Sudan, as a nation, would make no progress when our people are stuck in the vengeful mindset of the past. Our past should only act as a memorial cautionary tale by which we can only remind ourselves to never embark on such a tragic path ever again.

We should also congratulate ourselves for having struck a peace deal sooner rather than later. It would have been too costly on all of us if we had protracted the war for no apparent reason.

Millions of South Sudanese go to bed hungry every night, and the peace deal came at the right time to start stitching things back together.

Some people never wanted Kiir and Machar to work together again, but hey, South Sudanese politics was never about Kiir or Machar for that matter in the first place; it was about putting the interests of South Sudanese above everything else in the realm of politicking.

The bigger than life task at hand has more to do with the unity of South Sudanese; that is why we have to be more inclusive more than ever to bring an eventual lasting peace.

In 2002, John Garang brought all the SPLM/SPLA factions together for a possible reunion. He knew in his guts that a complete lasting peace was never going to be achieved without cementing one solid foundation by which we can all stand and cherish all the fruits that a just peace might bring.

It would have been ill-conceived if we had Riek Machar in his own camp alone and John Garang in another camp and all are campaigning for the betterment of all South Sudanese.

Coincidentally in the same year 2002, the Kenyan political parties joined hands together to bring an end to a dictatorial regime of Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi. When the next election came in 2007, there was no apparent interest to strike a super alliance party again because the rotten beast was thrown into the deepest pits of Hades.

On the same token, we have to come together this time around and continue to cater to our healing wounds, bodies and souls until the election day in three years’ time.

We have three political giants in Salva Kiir, Riek Machar and Taban Deng Gai who wield enormous amount of power and may potentially create another tragic civil war if they don’t curtail their political ambitions and align them with the economic interests of South Sudanese populace.

Let’s say Taban Deng Gai decides to play second fiddle to Salva Kiir for an up coming election; or the same Taban Deng Gai switches sides and becomes Riek Machar’s running mate; would that be a reason to take up arms and declare war on ourselves?

No! No one in his/her right mind would do such a thing just to cater to the needs of a warmongering politician.

The success of our peace deal may also depend on an honest integral dealing of our politicians.

A politician who decides to wear a bow-tie instead of the lengthy neck-tie is not guilty in any way to be kicked out of the Parliament since a bow tie also fits the category of a neck wearable clothing even if it has no bodily length.

Our president did that to Mabior Garang in the short-lived peace deal of 2016. Paul Mator Manyok (South Sudanese pastor from Kentucky) recently stated that this war was going to happen no matter who was the president of South Sudan.

These tribal divisions keep on cropping up and every time they rear their ugly heads, we keep on regressing back to the primordial and primitive ages of an underdeveloped Africa.

In our war of liberation against the Jellaba of Khartoum, we turned on our ourselves, and shortly afterward, Bashir started to capture the profits we won with the blood of our people; and in 2013, the same episode came back to the fore and tens of thousands lost their innocent dear lives.

As South Sudanese, it is time to start preaching the culture of tolerance toward a vast array of cultures and people who might hold different political views.

There is no where we can send the Kechipo people of Boma state; for because the land was divided amongst all the people of Africa during the Scramble of Africa in the 19the century.

The Kechipo are South Sudanese by nationality through birth and every alienable right sanctioned upon them by all the International Organizations that deal with sovereign rights of people and nationalities.

We can’t send Nyangwara people to the Democratic Republic of Congo, because the Nyangwara belong to the nation of South Sudan.

Our tribal pride can’t be any reason whatsoever to subject anyone who may come from a different tribe to any disrespectful inhumane crime of terrorism; it is about time to start accepting that every South Sudanese national has a right to life, and that right must be respected no matter which tribe that he or she may hail from.

For all our 64 tribes to coexist peacefully, we must respect the existential relevance of other tribes, to put it another way, we have a need to tag along with them even knowingly that they practice different customs and cultural norms.

In just four years after the December 2013 onslaught, we turned our country into the land where the vultures could easily get a free meal.

“It is said that power corrupts,” but it’s actually more true that power corrupts the corruptible. The sane are actually attracted by other things than power” (David Brin).

South Sudan is a broken nation. We are still nursing the wounds of the liberation war era when we were busy finishing ourselves off when in reality we were supposed to be pointing guns at Bashir.

And barely eight years later, after a sweet return home in 2005, we started the whole internecine war all over again.

Shortly after his arrival during this round of peace talks in Khartoum, Kiir openly stated that he needs to keep an open mind so peace may come to South Sudan once more.

What David Brin meant by the above quote is that if there was too much evil in you then it is possible that you may end up as a temple of the devil where it can easily spit every unspeakable venom to the passersby.

Now that the peace deal has been struck, some of our most corrupt politicians are going to start campaigning for an election that is three years into the future.

William Arap Samoei Ruto, the current Kenyan Deputy President is running coast to coast and from north to south campaigning for an election that is 5 years away.

He is not dealing with the recent mercury poisoning of a sugar import by an Indian businessman. What he cares about and what he cherishes only is the Kenyan presidency itself.

What our politicians must start doing from day one until the end of the Transitional Period is to keep channeling our energies into reconciliation initiatives and matters concerning forging a national identity.

The reconciliation and conflict resolution efforts may be too much for some of our contemporary politicians because the issues at hands were decades in the making and they won’t be so easily swept under the bed.

South Sudanese politics is changing everyone from the common person to president Kiir himself. If that is not the case, then why change of hearts all of a sudden and decide to make amends with the SPLM-IO and SSOA?

The current peace deal sways leniently towards the power base of GOSS and SPLM-IO, but we must also realize that since 2016, much of the battle has been fought in the Greater Equatoria region, so very much the first two years of the war were fought in the Greater Upper Nile region and then the last two years of the war were waged heavily in the the Greater Equatoria region.

The situation is evenly spaced out and keeping an open mind must be the sure way to start stitching back our lives together.

A great political thinker should know how to play his/her cards of wins and losses shrewdly, and he/she must also know how to control the political sentiment.

An intelligent political thinker must first and foremost play his/her cards of wins and losses very well; he/she must at all times knows that she would never win all her initiated games; that is why it is always essential to be a shrewd schemer whose game plans are hard to shake off.

Political sentiment is another emotional animal that must continuously be fed by consistently doing good deeds to the general populace.

We are a nation that needs rebuilding from the ground up and from north to south and west to east.

When the election comes into play after the Transitional Period, the politicians who will bag the most votes would be those who were the best servant politicians during the Transitional Period.

There is no going around it, or cutting corners about it; otherwise, we would just keep going back to square one where we keep on fighting ourselves when in reality we should starting on taking responsible leadership for our actions and preaching.

*****Apioth Mayom Apioth has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Sciences from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA USA. He is an Admission Counselor from the University of North Dakota. He can be reached at: agutkeu@gmail.com.

Salva Kiir’s kingdom of doom, killings and tyranny

By: Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudanese, JUN/17/2018, SSN;

Empires come and go, regardless of whether they’re good or bad. One of the chief measures employed by historians is an investigatory examination into the legacies the empires leave behind — these legacies are always methodically scrutinized by the people who the empires once ruled.

In South Sudan, the final report of Salva Kiir’s regime is already written on the wall. Kiir’s leadership isn’t just troubling; it’s a kingdom of destruction where his regime’s policy is heavily influenced by tribal interests instead of issues that’re of national importance.

South Sudan cannot be a stable country if we don’t tell the truth. Kiir’s presidency is indisputably an ethnic one.

The man is not a president for all, although he claims to be such a leader only when he sees a real threat to his leadership.

Kiir surrounds himself with known tribal hooligans who’ve hate towards other South Sudanese ethnicities. For instance, the notorious Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), that’s by default a co-president of South Sudan, is consumed by a twisted belief that the Jieng should be the only tribe to lead South Sudan.

The South Sudanese believe that Kiir and the JCE don’t work for all South Sudanese, rather they work for JCE’s interests.

This seemingly ethnic thinking is also maintained by Defense Minister Kuol Manyang Juuk, information minister Michael Makuey Lueth, and Presidential adviser Nhial Deng Nhial, among others.

But if one asks these three men if they’re for a tribal supremacy, they’d deny it and even try to kiss the soil to prove that they’re not tribalists. Kuol, Michael, and Nhial are known tribal freaks who always talk diplomatically during the day and tribally at night.

Salva Kiir always claims to be a man who cares for unity in South Sudan. History tells us that a good leader who cares for his or her legacy tends to focus mainly on policies that unite people and develop the economy.

Kiir’s a heartless tyrant who cares nothing for the suffering of the people of South Sudan because his immediate family members and close relatives don’t suffer the same way other South Sudanese do.

In addition, it appears that Kiir’ll only accept peace or act with care and consideration if, and only if, he’s confronted with a real threat striking at his very doorstep.

The man has been making surprisingly absurd claims about his leadership. Kiir believes that the people of South Sudan should recognize his leadership as the legitimate moral authority of the country.

However, investigations into his regime demonstrate that these claims are inconsistent with an actual, material state of affairs. Surely, any leader who cares for his people wouldn’t destroy his or her own country and demand respect from people at the same time.

What’s clear is that Kiir’s main focus is an imposition of a tribal supremacy on other South Sudanese tribes. This is a monumental mistake on his part. He forgets the fact that his presidency will be gone and that he’s placing an irremovable stain on his legacy and family members.

Kiir isn’t the good person he always wants people to believe. His background is spoiled with appalling crimes. In public, Kiir will pose as a national figure who deserves to be trusted by the South Sudanese. But in private, he’s a very dangerous man.

In Kiir’s world, anyone who glorifies his tyranny is a good person and anyone who questions his cruelty is a bad person. This is like a madman trying to blame his mental issue on bystanders.

In 2004, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) was fractured by rumors and factional interests. Kiir himself was furious about former SPLM/A leader, the late Dr. John Garang.

When the leaders of the SPLM met in Rumbek in late 2004, Kiir accused Dr. Garang of controlling everything in the movement. Kiir, who’s second in command of the SPLM/A at the time, also dispelled rumors about him being against chairman Garang.

He admitted during the conference that he’s for peace because his people, the people of Bahr El Ghazal, were the ones who’re hit hard by famine and attacks from Arab militias. Kiir also blamed Garang for allowing uncoordinated leadership conferences to take place.

A methodical analysis of Salva Kiir’s speech at the 2004 Rumbek meeting shows that Kiir’s now doing the very same things he once accused Dr. Garang of doing.

For instance, he cunningly changed South Sudan’s constitution to make himself an absolute dictator, imposed some provisions in the SPLM’s by-laws that allowed him to appoint his allies to the party leadership, and gave himself powers to appoint some members of the national parliament, including state governors, among others.

So Kiir’s claim of being a rational leader who wanted the democratization of the SPLM/A during the 2004 conference was a pure deceit and merely showed that he’s more dangerous than the people he always accused of wrongdoings.

Kiir’s tyranny didn’t begin when he took over the leadership of the SPLM/A in 2005. His brutality began in the late 1980s when he was the head of the SPLA military intelligence. His ruthlessness later developed to a serious stage.

In Itang, for example, Kiir was known as someone who’d summon any military commander he hated to his headquarters and execute him or her, using surprisingly similar techniques to those he now uses.

Another method was that Kiir’d abruptly tell a commander that he or she was ordered to immediately go to a frontline, claiming some changes in military command had taken place. When such an officer agreed to go, Kiir then ordered his own killing squad to eliminate the officer on the way.

For instance, Kiir’d tell the targeted person to travel in an SPLA car with a few bodyguards, carefully choose a road the individual would travel, and when the person began his or her fake assignment journey, he or she’d be stopped on the road by Kiir’s thugs and silenced for good.

After his orders were fulfilled by his killing squad, Kiir’d then turn around and lie to the family members of the deceased that he or she is still fighting on the frontline.

But when Kiir knew the family of the person he secretly eliminated was skeptical of his elaborate lies, he’d fabricate a story that the person in question was killed on the frontline.

As you can see, Kiir’s use of unknown gunmen today is deeply rooted in his blood. If there’re people who believe Kiir’s a good leader then, does this make you wonder why he’s a bad leader now? But as you can see, Kiir’s background speaks for itself.

Salva Kiir’s ambition to become an absolute dictator is real. For instance, when Dr. Riek Machar spearheaded the national reconciliation in 2012, Kiir was noticeably furious.

He employed his trusted sycophants who publicly accused Machar of running against Kiir. The irony is that Kiir now wants the national reconciliation he once labeled as “Machar’s campaign strategy” to oust him from the party leadership.

Kiir’s campaign of trying to hide behind a false concern for the nation can easily be tested if a non-Dinka tries to run against him for the party leadership or presidency.

This was what happened in 2013, when it was clear his then deputy Machar was going to take over the leadership of the SPLM. This was where Kiir’s political madness exploded.

At that time, most South Sudanese forecasted that there was going to be blood on Juba’s streets.

This prediction occurred in late 2013, when Kiir unleashed tribally-motivated attacks on Nuer civilians in Juba under the pretext of a bogus coup.

What some people do not know is the fact that Kiir’s decision to prevent Machar from contesting the party leadership was tribally-motivated.

Kiir’s a very cunning person. If his current First Vice President Taban Deng Gai decides to contest the chairmanship of the party while Kiir’s a candidate for the same post, I guarantee you that Kiir’ll go ballistic, and Taban and his followers will be slaughtered the same way Kiir massacred innocent Nuer in December 2013.

Kiir’s presidency is all about tribal reign, but because the case is somewhat sensitive, Kiir’d claim that he isn’t a tribalist. But nobody’d believe him except his tyrannical ring-lickers.

Kiir’s strategy isn’ot only limited to Dinka and Nuer decades of rivalry. This could happen to any non-Dinka person who tries to run for a position Kiir holds.

If you wonder why, then try to convince James Wani Igga to run for Kiir’s position and see what happens.

Kiir has built a kingdom that’s too destructive for the country. The people of South Sudan must stand up against this atrocious regime to free themselves.

We didn’t fight against Khartoum’s regime only to face the same brutality again. Kiir must be forced to accept peace or be confronted militarily until he’s buried in the same coffin with his doomed presidency.

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

BREAKING NEWS: UN sanctions defense minister, butcher Kuol Manyang and Martin Lomuro

From different sources. MAY/27/2018, SSN;

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has slapped sanctions against South Sudan defense minister Kuol Manyang Juk over ceasefire violations and Martin Lomuro, the cabinet affairs minister for threats to the press and UN and foreign organizations.

UNSC said the crisis in South Sudan was being fueled by the conduct of leaders like ‘Butcher’ Gen Juk, who believed in violence, thus prolonging the suffering of the people.

During the SPLM/A war of liberation in the 1980’s, the notorious Kuol Manyang infamously earned the despicable title of ‘Butcher of Equatoria’ for the egregious killings and gross human rights he personally oversaw and allegedly ordered and committed as SPLA chief commander in Eastern Equatoria region.

In the Palotaka area of Eastern Equatoria alone, Kuol Manyang kept hundreds of young boys and girls in slave-like conditions whereby these kids were starved, sexually and physically abused by him and his tribal soldiers.

“Under (Gen) Juk’s command, SPLA forces violated the agreement on cessation of hostilities, protection of civilians and humanitarian access signed between government and rebels in 2017,” UNSC said in a statement following a Saturday meeting in New York.

It also said Gen Juk provided military support to the SPLM/A-N, the main Sudanese movement fighting the Khartoum regime, to attack Pagak, the rebel headquarters inside South Sudan.

The conflict
“Under (Gen) Juk’s command and his support to the Sudanese rebel group, the SPLM-N extended the conflict through offensive in South Sudan’s Pagak,” it says.

Cabinet Affairs minister Elia Lomoro was also sanctioned for threatening members of the press against critical coverage of the conflict in the country.
“Minister Lomoro threatened the press, obstructs humanitarian missions, and threatened to eliminate the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangement Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM).

“(Dr) Lomoro also obstructed the activities of the UNMISS,” the statement reads.

Two pilots
Sanctioned from the Dr Riek Machar’s camp was Gen Koang Rambang Cho, who is accused of leading an attack in Bieh State recently.

“He ordered his forces to restrict the moment of people working in humanitarian organisations. He was responsible for the detention of the two pilots delivering aid, obstructing their humanitarian activities,” the UNSC statement says.

The global security agency also renewed and extended to May 31, 2019 sanctions imposed on several other key South Sudan leaders namely; Information minister Michael Makuei, former army deputy chief of staff Malek Rueben and rebel leader Paul Malong. END

SPLM reunification: Is Taban Deng done politically in South Sudan?

By: Peter Gai Manyuon, South Sudan, MAY/08/2018, SSN;

Taban Deng Gai has been the First Vice President of South Sudan since 2016 after J-1 incident that killed thousands from both Kiir’s forces and Riek Machar’s forces.

Previously, he was the Minister of Mining and the Governor of the Unity State, a position he held before and after South Sudan’s independence in 2011 until 2013 when he was sacked by President Kiir.

On the 7th of May 2018, Taban came out with a press statement amalgamating his bodyguards or his forces to the Kiir forces claiming the reunification of the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) when in fact his closed allies were not part of the decision and many from his group are currently confused about the unfortunate decision from their boss.

It should be noted, General Taban Deng Gai is done politically in South Sudan and what he (Taban) will enjoy now and beyond is the title former First Vice President of the Republic of South Sudan, nothing more.

You can’t tell me, General Taban will be President after President Kiir or whoever will be the President in South Sudan.

Why do I say so? In fact, general Taban has got four groups of enemies in South Sudan as per politics is concerned.

The first enemy is the general population of the Country because many masses have taken him as the only obstacle to peace in the Country after the collapse of the peace agreement in 2016 July. Taban was taken as an opportunist who only wanted destruction and position, not peace.

The second enemy is Kiir’s group, because they normally say frankly, Taban is the only Nuer man more dangerous than Dr. Riek Machar in South Sudan politics and therefore, he (Taban) covered himself with the name of SPLM in opposition as the only protector in Juba and in the region but now his position and resources are in serious risks.

Don’t ask me why now but ask me after two months from now so that I will be able to give you an answer.

Furthermore, Micheal Makuei Lueth (information minister), General Kuol Manyang (defense minister) and other extremists from Kiir’s camp will eventually introduce a methodology of finishing Taban politically in SPLM since they looked at him as the person who caused the 2013 crisis.

The third enemy is Dr Riek Machar’s group, where currently I don’t see any possibility of Taban assimilating or associating himself in the Nuer-Nation politics is 1% as per now and beyond.

Grassroots Nuer population have taken Taban as an obstacle to peace since Khartoum Peace Agreement and the 2015 agreement that Taban claimed the position of First Vice President through deception.

The fourth enemy to Taban are his supporters in Juba, mainly Hotels officials, there will be instructions from Kiir soon to evacuates the hotels’ accommodations to their various homes in Juba or the States.

In this case, many will defect from the government and rejoin any rebel factions in the Country because the aims of many who are with Taban is money, nothing else.

In summary, since Taban and his group denounced being part of the SPLM in opposition, then he should be ready for serious humiliation both physical and political, and most likely he will be sacked from being the first Vice President and will not also get any position either as deputy chairman of the Party or as Secretary General as he wishes.

Taban will go home in peace after sacking from the second top office in the country and all his supporters especially those in the hotels and other cities will disintegrate and merge with other political parties in the Country.

Peter Gai Manyuon, is an author, Independent Journalist, and Columnist who has written extensively on Human Rights and Democracy in South Sudan He can be reached at southsudanjournalist@gmail.com or independentjournalistpgm.wordpress.com.

Latest Breaking News: Why Army Chief of Staff, Ajongo, was killed by Pres. Kiir…

APR/21/2018, SSN;

It’s now emerging from various sources inside the Juba government that it was President Salva Kiir and others who decidedly conspired to assassinate by poisoning the SPLA Chief of General Staff, Lt.Gen. James Ajongo Mawut, who supposedly was announced to have died in Cairo, Egypt, last Friday, 20, 2018.

However, his death is shrouded in mysterious circumstances and even the exact cause of death.

Reportedly, during an important meeting at Bilpham, the SPLA Headquarters, that was attending by the President, Salva Kiir, the Defense minister, Kuol Mayang, the ruthless Chief of National Security, Akol Kur and some member(s) of the Jieng Council of Elders, the President ordered the Chief of Staff to travel to an unnamed country to purchase and bring CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOR USE IN UPPER NILE REGION against the opposition forces fighting against his Kiir regime.

Further, the Chief of Staff was informed that according to prevailing protocol, his presence and signature were necessary and important during the purchase and transportation of these chemical weapons, which are actually banned by the international community.

During the meeting, all the Army commanders in attendance and the Chief of Staff and his military commanders strenuously objected to the use of these banned weapons in the wars in South Sudan.

After this, it’s reported that the angered dictator, President Kiir ordered the Chief of Staff and his officer commanders to exit from the meeting, whence thereafter the president and his inner group brought forward the plan to dismiss the Chief of Staff but his co-conspirators seriously objected to the idea.

Their reason was that this will seriously create a situation similar to that of General Paul Malong, who, after his dismissal as Chief of Staff, created a serious crisis that eventually ended with Gen. Paul Malong creating his own rebel group against Pres. Kiir.

Hence, the President didn’t proceed with idea of dismissal of Gen. Ajongo, instead, the next plan of the president and his conspirators was to kill Gen. Ajongo by poisoning.

Then, it’s reportedly said that the body was sent on a plane to Egypt where he was later officially declared as died.

Mawut, who joined the SPLM/A, southern Sudanese rebel movement in 1983, became army chief of staff in May 2017 after Gen. Paul Malong was sacked.

Is IGAD complicit in the confinement of Dr. Riek Machar?

By Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudanese, APR/05/2018, SSN;

In most organized societies, keeping someone in detainment who did not commit any crime is a criminal act punishable by law. However, in its 61st extra-ordinary session held on March 26, 2018 in Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) released a communiqué stating that it decided to lift the house arrest it imposed on the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-In Opposition (SPLM/A-IO), Dr. Riek Machar.

In addition, IGAD demanded that the rebel leader must first denounce violence before it can decide where he should be relocated. The East African regional bloc also asserted that Machar must only be transferred to a country without borders with South Sudan and that a group of designated IGAD ministers will propose and decide where the armed opposition leader will be moved to.

If such a resolution sounds like a conspiracy to you, then you are probably correct, because it fits within the meaning of a carefully-orchestrated political plot.

The statement was not only unreasonable — it was, in fact, a glorification of Salva Kiir’s tyranny and an insult to those who lost their lives in the civil war.

IGAD’s decision to lift Machar’s unlawful imprisonment is a welcome move. I strongly believe that placing Machar under house arrest was questionable. By signaling the release of the armed opposition leader, IGAD identified its blunder for the first time.

However, I wonder why the regional bloc wants the SPLM-IO leader to be relocated to a different nation instead of allowing him to go to any place of his own choosing?

There is absolutely no rational explanation as to why a group of IGAD leaders united themselves to keep an innocent man in confinement against his will when, meanwhile, Kiir committed massacres and enjoyed freedom in Juba.

IGAD leaders should explain to the people of South Sudan why they are willing to punish Machar while simultaneously failing to bring the war to an end. The bloc should also explain why it is interested in preventing Dr. Machar from participating in South Sudan’s politics.

IGAD’s main goal is to work for a peaceful solution to the ongoing civil war, instead of choosing a seemingly one-sided approach.

If the bloc does not change its current stance on South Sudan’s situation, then I suggest that the African Union (AU) and the international community take over the peace process.

The South Sudanese are also interested in knowing whether IGAD is merely an entity for East African leaders to protect themselves or is instead interested in solving regional issues.

It is worth noting that South Sudan’s conflict has become a lucrative business for some countries. What these nations need to know is that tens of thousands of people have died because of Kiir’s political madness.

Protecting Kiir by passing pro-Juba resolutions will not only escalate the war but will increase South Sudanese anger towards Kiir.

The Republic of South Sudan should not be a testing ground where civil liberties and human rights are traded for money, regional interests, or hidden intentions.

If IGAD is working for the goodness of the people of South Sudan, then it must not justify Salva Kiir’s ruthlessness by coming up with motions that are contrary to its own vision.

The March 26th decision by IGAD to transfer the rebel leader to a country outside of the East African region only strengthens the suspicion already present in the minds of millions of South Sudanese that the regional bloc is marred by bribery, illicit deals, greed, and conspiracy.

Is the confinement of Riek Machar an act of complicity? What crime did Riek Machar commit against Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, or Eritrea?

Is IGAD conducting itself impartially in relation to South Sudan’s peace process? Why are the leaders of the East African regional bloc seemingly working in the best interest of Juba’s atrocious regime?

What exactly is IGAD trying to tell the people of South Sudan and the international community? Is IGAD trying to legitimize the regime of a murderous tyrant?

Dr. Machar did not commit a single crime against any IGAD member state. If the bloc’s resolution is not an act of collusion, then I am not sure what it really means.

I agree with the idea that leaders should denounce and condemn violence. However, the notion that Machar is the only leader who should denounce violence is rather fallacious. The conditions set by IGAD are absurd.

Transferring Machar from South Africa to another country should not be called a release — it is, in fact, an extension of his current confinement. The reality is that the bloc is not ready to release the rebel leader.

If IGAD is impartial in its quest for peace, then it must ask all South Sudanese leaders, including Kiir, to denounce violence.

IGAD has been somewhat instrumental before, but the people of South Sudan know that most of its decisions have been anti-SPLM/A-IO.

I am not quite sure whether this apparent help-Kiir-at-all-costs policy is influenced by Kiir’s ally, Yoweri Museveni.

There is nothing wrong with supporting your friend or counterpart, but giving your full support to a leader who slaughtered tens of thousands of his fellow citizens without any good reason is rather reprehensible.

The ethnic carnage Kiir carried out in December 2013 in Juba was so brutal that only a leader who does not care about the suffering of South Sudanese would support it.

The leaders of IGAD should work towards finding a lasting solution to the conflict and not allow themselves to be used by Kiir. Salva Kiir is a cunning person.

He used the 2013 fake coup as evidence to purge Machar and other South Sudanese leaders who he saw as a threat to his leadership. There was no such a thing as a coup in this instance, contrary to what Kiir would like everyone to believe.

The real coup was the bogus one he orchestrated in Kampala with the help of Museveni.

It is good to remind people that in 2016, when the SPLM-IO leader was forced to go to Juba to implement the August 2015 imposed peace agreement, he was nearly killed.

What I find ironic about this specific narrative is that when Machar survived the July 2016 assassination attempt and fled Juba, there was not a single IGAD leader who came out and criticized Salva Kiir.

One would argue that the only thing the East African regional bloc wants is to keep Kiir in power, regardless of what the people of South Sudan want.

Peace is better than war. I am certain that the South Sudanese want peace to return to their country. IGAD must know that peace will not be achieved by imposing anti-peace resolutions on the SPLM/A-IO leader.

Kiir is the one who started the current civil war and Machar is the victim.

Thus, for the bloc to insist that Dr. Machar should continue living in exile instead of completely lifting his house arrest to live a free life is not a plausible decision the armed opposition should endorse.

The bloc must choose between keeping its tainted image, or else risk being declared by the South Sudanese as “not a credible, neutral, or impartial entity.”

Complicit or not, the people of South Sudan are fully aware of IGAD’s pro-Juba stance.

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

To IGAD, AU and Troika: Time to Call off Addis Peace Talks & Declare Regime Change in South Sudan

By: J. Nguen, Commentator, analyst & advocate, FEB/14/2018, SSN;

The question today isn’t whether the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCISS) be revived or not, but rather, it’s whether those who invariably refuses the resuscitation of the agreement must be punished and held to account.

We know for certain that the ARCISS had collapsed on July 8th, 2016, when Dr. Riek Machar was violently pushed out of Juba in what many analysts characterized as a “well-organized assassination” attempt on the life of a man who came to Juba to implement the peace agreement.

We also know that the regional (IGAD) and the USA Administration under former president, Barack Hussein Obama, sided with President Kiir’s regime and placed Dr. Machar under house arrest in South Africa. These are tried cases, but hit dead end.

As a matter of fact, these desperate moves were falsely intended as shortcuts to end the contradictions and bring unfounded peace in South Sudan.

Without any doubt, these fraudulent efforts failed in earnest. Instead, suffering worsened and civil war spread like a wildfire across South Sudan.

In addition, for a year and half, President Kiir was licenced to rein terror on the lives of innocent South Sudanese –free hand; while the world watched on in deafening silence with no condemnations even on moral ground.

Uganda’s President Y. K. Museveni went as far as congratulating Salva Kiir for killing innocent South Sudanese. What a world!

Because of these hopeless contradictions, thousands of innocent of South Sudanese died in the mix. And this is tragic when a rogue regime is unleashed and left unchecked.

In this regard, Salva Kiir’s regime went on rampage, murdering, raping, displacing and destroying innocent South Sudanese’s lives and properties in this unscrupulous world of paradoxes.

After a year of extreme bloodshed, when no news was a good news, when facts there were news of mass murders, raping, displacement and destruction of properties in South Sudan. When hope was so far and beyond reach.

Then, by default, President Donald J. Trump came to power in 2017 in US. Remarkably, President Trump saw the appalling flights of innocent souls in South Sudanese, in an unforgiving million ways and in unforgivable world.

Then, President Trump, moved on moral grounds, sent his top ambassador, Nikkie Haley to south Sudan to see developments, first hand. Amb. Haley was so disgusted and appalled by the flights of decomposing South Sudanese in IDP camps inside the country and in the refugee camps in the neighboring countries.

Like any sane and moral human being, Haley was taken aback by the narrated stories and experiences shared by the victims concerning Salva Kiir’s “scorched earth policy” of ethnic cleansing on all tribes in South Sudan with the exception of Dinka, where Kiir belongs.

For Trump’s administration, this experience revealed the ugly side of Kiir’s regime, and the fact that Kiir doesn’t care about the life and suffering of South Sudanese. This revelation changed the course of President Trump’s administration and its approach toward the civil war in South Sudan.

As a result, President Trump through Amb. Haley, endorsed the resuscitation of the collapsed Peace Agreement in South Sudan in the name of High Level Revitalization Forum under IGAD.

As a result, on the 21st of December 2017, the Cessation of Hostility and unfettered Humanitarian Access Agreement was signed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. However, before ink went dry, President Kiir violated the agreement by sending his lieutenants and First Vice President, Taban Deng Gai on offensive in Upper Nile, Unity and Jonglei States.

As a result, thousands of civilians were displaced. And as I write, this violation continues, which in many ways showcase that Kiir and his lieutenants in crime can never be persuaded peacefully.

Despite Kiir’s intransigence, on February 5th, 2018, the High Level Revitalization Forum begun. The aim of the talks is to ensure that peace returns and prevails in South Sudan so suffering of people ends.

However, because President Kiir is so removed from the reality, so stubborn, and the fact that he does not care and fear no one, his troops continued to violate the Cessation of Hostility and restricted humanitarian access to the needy.

Not only that, the regime has arrogantly refused to follow through with the rules of the talks, by overcrowding the venue with un-commissioned personalities just to show defiance and arrogance.

To make matters worse, Kiir gave a middle finger to the IGAD, African Union, EU and Troika by refusing to sign the Declaration of Principles (DoP) for the talks.

Kiir’s delegation refused to sign the DoP on the ground that article 28 on the DoP, which states that “punitive measures” be taken against anyone found to be obstructing the implementation of the peace agreement, is unnecessary and not needed.

In this regard, in my view, this is a fine and explicit defiance and test case for IGAD, AU and the Troika countries. It’s also a serious indication that Salva Kiir is not committed to any peaceful political settlement aimed to end South Sudan’s conflict.

Furthermore, the regime has today sentenced Mr. James Gatdet Dak, former spokesman of Dr. Riek Machar to 20 years life in prison and death by hanging. Note, this is happening while the region and the world is searching for peace to return to South Sudan.

Without any doubt, these undertakings by Salva Kiir are aimed to derail any chance for peace in South Sudan. Salva Kiir rendered peace talks underway in Ethiopia irrelevant and useless.

The question now is, why do we bother for something considered dead on arrival by one party to the conflict? Is this not waste of time and of scarce resources?

In my honest opinion, moving forward with High Level Revitalization Forum is irrelevant, at this point. Therefore, what must be done moving forward, and to make sure that Salva Kiir listen, is a declaration of regime change agenda.

The prospect of the High Level Revitalization Forum succeeding is highly minimal and limited. Salva Kiir’s regime has made it very difficult and revealed that he will not respect it.

With all these signs written on the wall, it’s time for the world at large to change course and abandon this delusional view that Salva Kiir and cohorts might change their minds.

President Kiir believes in military Solution and will not change his mind any time soon, comes rain or sunshine.

As such, I proposed the following grand strategies and options to achieve desirable peace and positive outcomes for conflict in South Sudan:

1. That IGAD, AU, European Union and the Troika countries should immediately suspend peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It’s rather useless to force a donkey to drink when all the indications showed his/her unwillingness.

2. That Troika countries, European Union and the African Union must convene an urgent meeting of “coalition willing” with the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and requests the Khartoum authorities to immediately suspend transportation of South Sudan’s crude oil through its territories. In return, the Troika countries, EU, IGAD and the African Union will divert all the necessary aid.

3. That IGAD, EU, AU and the Troika countries must immediately impose more targeted individual sanctions and travel ban on South Sudan government officials including President Salva Kiir himself and First Vice President Taban Deng.

4. That IGAD, European Union, African Union and the Troika countries must suspend all diplomatic ties with Juba immediately.

5. That Troika countries, EU, IGAD and the AU must immediately impose blanket armed embargo on the Government of South Sudan and suspend all financial support both military and bilateral cooperation with any Eastern and Northern Africa country found to be supporting or colluding with Salva Kiir regime, even remotely.

6. That Troika countries, EU, AU and the IGAD must overwhelmingly support military “regime change” as the only option to depose Kiir regime from power.

These must be the options to walk away with. Because, under the current political configuration in South Sudan, the region’s stability is under serious threat. Under Salva Kiir’s regime, the region is unlikely to be stable.

Evidently, South Sudan is currently a hotbed for the Al-Shahab’s financiers. Secondly, South Sudan Government is harboring and supporting Ethiopian and the Sudanese negative forces -the rebel groups.

Therefore, with these indisputable facts, it’s imperative to note that “REGIME CHANGE” in South Sudan is ONLY the best option. It will bring needed peace in South Sudan and stability to the region.

J. Nguen is a South Sudanese political commentator, analyst and advocate living aboard. He can be reached at jamesnguen@gmail.com

The facade of the International Community in South Sudan

BY: ELHAG PAUL, South Sudan, JAN/25/2018, SSN;

At long last the SPLM/A in its different guises together with its off-shoots have called the bluff of the international community. For four years now the international community’s handling of the peace talks and implementation of ARCSS leaves a lot to be desired. During this period, they have left footprints of bias everywhere.

Just before the start of the revitalization talks, the international community issued strong letters sending a message that this time round they meant business. This raised the hopes of South Sudanese and for the first time the people appeared to give the international community the benefit of doubt about their conduct of the talks.

Ms Rebecca Nyandeng Garang, the widow of the late leader of SPLM/A, Dr John Garang, captured the positive feeling of the South Sudanese people in her interview with Mr John Tanza on Voice of America on 2nd January 2018.

Nyandeng expressed optimism about the revitalization talks based on the assurance she received from IGAD. This is what she said, “And I was happy to hear that IGAD said they were speaking in the same voice. Because IGAD in the other hand also have to unite their ranks and file.”

Asked by Tanza, why she was saying so, Nyandeng explained, “I say so because IGAD was divided. From 2013, even during the 2017 there are some leaders in IGAD who are supporting leaders instead of supporting people of South Sudan.”

Given the numerous violations of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement signed on 21st December 2017 by the government, the international community initially went mute only to issue the usual statement loaded with condemnation wrapped up with moral equivalence.

Many people have been asking what the international community is doing given their latest tough statement. Nobody has the answer and unfortunately the hopes of the people have once again been dashed. Nyandeng must be very disappointed.

The South Sudanese people have for over a year now lost faith in the international community following the naked violation of ARCSS by President Salva Kiir’s regime and its subsequent silence followed by their endorsement of General Taban Deng Gai as a replacement to Dr Riek Machar.

Why the international community as guarantors of the agreement chose to ignore Juba regime’s destruction of the agreement remains to be explained? It is something that makes many people to date to scratch their heads.

Worse still, they have gone on to isolate and confine the victim, Dr Riek Machar, the leader of SPLM/A-IO in South Africa. Machar has his own blemishes, but to put the blame of what happened in Juba in July 2016 on him to the extent of victimising him is as unfair and unethical as to reveal the internecine bias by international community against an innocent person exercising his birthright in his country’s affairs.

Machar’s isolation has proven one thing beyond doubt. His absence has not brought any peace. The war has continued unabated and this should be a reason enough to exonerate this innocent man and release him from the crude illegal confinement in South Africa.

Democracy demands that there must be a level field for all to compete for the highest office in the land. At the moment that is not the case in South Sudan. An innocent man is illegally held against his wishes in foreign land while the culprit is allowed to roam freely mismanaging the country.

This culprit, the trouble maker is in Juba. He is called President Salva Kiir, an extremely dangerous tribalist-psychopath who has already committed ethnic cleansing and continues to pose serious risk to himself, the people of South Sudan and South Sudan the country itself.

The facade of the international community in relation to peace in South Sudan dressed up in statements like, “We care for the people of South Sudan”, “There will be consequences”.. etc is unravelling before the eyes of the people of South Sudan and the world.

The revitalisation of ARCSS was meant to be a serious business. Though speeches were delivered by Troika, African Union and IGAD as mentioned above, only for the regime in Juba to instantly rubbish it by violating the CoH openly without any consequences as promised.

    The international community has lost credibility in South Sudan.

The majority of South Sudanese now wrongly or rightly believe that the international community including IGAD are conniving with the government of South Sudan against them. In a sense, the international community is viewed as part of the problem and as such they are perceived as allies of the Juba regime.

Conversations in South Sudanese circles nowaday is riddled with expressions like, “We are fighting the whole world.” This collective belief can be seen from the outcome of the National Dialogue consultations results held in Uganda and Kenya.

Please see, ’19 Things Uganda Refugees Want: An Official Summary by the National Dialogue of South Sudan’ (https://www.ssnationaldialogue.org/press-release/uganda-refugees-want-change/) and ‘Official summary of South Sudan National Dialogue in Kenya consultation in Nairobi, Kenya.’ (https://www.ssnationaldialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/Nairobi-Consultation.pdf)

Gatluke Reat in his letter to Troika titled, ‘What is the difference between Hitler’s Nazi regime and Troika today in South Sudan’ compares the activity of the International Community in South Sudan with the appeasement of the Nazi regime in Germany by some European countries in 1940s.

Although South Sudanese understand that the reigning world ideology of globalisation has made everything to be seen in monetary terms including human life, they can not understand why lessons learnt from the holocaust are ignored. It is clear that the cost of appeasing totalitarian regimes eventually out ways the benefits.

Please see (https://africanspress.org/2018/01/02/what-is-the-difference-between-hitlers-nazi-regime-and-troika-today-in-south-sudan/).

Boumkuoth Gatkouth writing a week after the signing of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement (CoH) questions whether the process would be fruitful. He highlighted the continuous silences of IGAD on the violation carried out by the government.

In his article, ‘The IGAD-led High Level Revitalisation Forum & Its Prospects’ (http://www.southsudannation.com/the-igad-led-high-level-revitalization-forum-its-prospects/), Gatkouth concludes that IGAD is not neutral and can not be trusted.

Why is the international community losing credibility in South Sudan? Primarily there are three drivers. These are: direct intervention of IGAD member countries in support of the Juba regime; the application of policy of moral equivalence by Troika; and the failure of African Union to protect the “African person”.

When the conflict broke out on 15th December 2013 with President Kiir targeting and cleansing the Nuer people around Juba, Uganda joined the Juba regime on pretext of stopping genocide.

The reality on the ground was completely different. It was the government of President Kiir that was committing genocide on the Nuer people. How could Uganda then stop genocide by aiding the genocidaire? This is a question that Uganda needs to answer.

Uganda even sent its jet fighters to bomb the Nuer who were fighting to defend themselves from the Juba regime in Bor using internationally banned cluster bombs.

In addition to this President Yoweri Museveni visited Juba on 30th December 2013 and said, “We gave him [Machar] four days [agreed that] if he doesn’t [comply with the agreement], then we shall have to go after him. That is what we agreed on.”

Please see, ‘South Sudan – Uganda’s Museveni threatens Machar over ceasefire’ (https://africasustainableconservation.com/2013/12/30/south-sudan-ugandas-museveni-threatens-machar-over-ceasefire/).

This declaration by President Museveni on behalf of the regional leaders clearly proves that the region sided with the Juba regime. This explains the fact that none of the countries in region condemned the ethnic cleansing of the Nuer by the Juba regime. The crime was hashed up.

The other country in the region openly siding with the Juba regime is Kenya. Both Uganda and Kenya to date often allow Juba regime’s security agents to kidnap South Sudanese exiles in their countries.

Now all these countries are members of IGAD and given their collusion with the Juba regime, is it any wonder why peace is difficult to achieve. We move on to the Troika.

When President Kiir unleashed his tribal militia known as Mathiang Anyoor on 15th December 2013 to cleanse the Nuer in Juba, everyone who was in Juba was horrifically shocked.

Hilda Johnson, former Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nation in Juba at the time records her observations of the grave crime in her book, ‘South Sudan The Untold Story: From independence to civil war’, on chapter 6 under the subtitle, The Nightmare. The Nuer cleansing in Juba was witnessed by the whole world.

When I talk about the world, I mean all the representatives of the foreign governments in Juba witnessed it. In spite of this fact, the world outside South Sudan was kept uninformed and as a result no country to date has condemned Juba for the grave crimes it committed. The UN and the Troika countries kept their mouths zipped up.

Following the ethnic cleansing of the Nuer and prior to April 2014, the international community did not condemn the grave crimes against humanity committed by the regime.

However in April 2014 when the Nuer wrongly and unacceptably retaliated by killing people in Bentiu, Akobo and Bor, the international community swiftly reacted by rightly condemning the opposition for these heinous acts.

Unfortunately from then on it embarked on a policy of moral equivalence. If the Juba regime commits a crime, the international community will wait until the opposition retaliates and thereafter it will condemn both sides equally.

A good example of their application of this policy is in the areas of sanctions and press releases. All the so called targeted sanctions in South Sudan have been equally applied on the warring parties.

Surely, this can not be right. In any conflict there must be a culprit and in the case of South Sudan the Juba regime without doubt is, yet it has never been held responsible.

Eric Reeves, senior fellow at Harvard University, elsewhere argues that the balancing of moral equities plays into the hands of the aggressors.

I agree with Reeves’ argument because in my view it psychologically distributes the guilt to all the actors which in a sense absolves the wrong doer from acknowledging the reality of his/her actions and the responsibility that accompanies it.

Further, this policy has the potential to fuel the conflict and keep it going endlessly as both sides get corrupted with time and believe that their position is right.

The problem with this policy is that it suggests those applying it do not have a moral position/responsibility on the issue at hand. But is this really true? What has happened to the values flowing from the instruments of the various resolutions of the United Nations?

What has happened to the Western values of justice and fairness? Perhaps South Sudanese are not perceived as humans enough and thus do not deserve to be treated as such.

The history of European interaction with Africa speaks for itself. Its vestiges may be what are in the policy of moral equivalence applied to South Sudan. Here is where African Union should have been of help, but perhaps it may have moved on and forgotten about the value of the “African person”.

The report of African Union Commission of enquiry in South Sudan (http://www.peaceau.org/uploads/auciss.final.report.pdf) which went through sieving many times before its release clearly captures what happened in Juba in December 2013.

African Union as the body with power over IGAD has been expected to play supervisory role to make sure that the issues presented in the report are addressed adequately to provide lessons for the future in relation to the continent.

Thus for the sake of the “African person” (the civilians, women, children and old persons being raped and killed) it should have exercised maximum supervision on the conduct of the peace talks and the implementation of August 2015 Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS).

So far the indication is that it did nothing. So, when the Juba regime violently destroyed the peace agreement by turning the city into a battle field in July 2016 forcing the former Vice President Dr Riek Machar out of the country into the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudanese expected the guarantors of the deal and the international community including African Union to hold the regime to account.

Surprisingly, like in 2013 they did not condemn the regime but went on to reward it for violating the agreement. Without exception they endorsed President Kiir’s blatant decision to install Mr Taban Deng Gai as vice president.

All these were done in a lightning speed without any enquiries on the fact that the population of Juba were criminally exposed to serious danger by the government.

Unlike IGAD, the West African regional body ECOWAS regardless of the interest of the member states seems more competent in handling political conflicts efficiently in that part of Africa. When former President of Gambia Yahya Jammeh was voted out in December 2016, he attempted to stick to power by depriving the winner Adama Barrow.

ECOWAS acted swiftly to protect democracy. It mobilised a regional force within a short time which saw Jammeh off with no violence, and the winner Adama Barrow installed in power. Well done ECOWAS for standing up for democracy in Africa. You make the average African person proud.

So South Sudanese for the last four years have been watching some of the regional countries openly supporting the regime that is tormenting them; Troika’s application of equal moral equities and the failure of the African Union to protect them helplessly while their suffering continues.

Now they are making sense of their experiences and translating that into a belief that they are on their own. Are they not right?

Whether the talks in IGAD succeed or not, it does not matter. South Sudanese are beginning to discuss ways of finding their own solution to their problem. That by default is empowerment.
[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul
elhagpaul@aol.com
@elhagpaul