Category: Politics

Pragmatic Patriarchy of the Sudan Over South Sudan

BY: James Okuk, PhD, Professor, University of Juba, South Sudan, SEPT/23/2018, SSN;

“We honor the human capacity to manage our collective lives with peace and even, at times, dignity” – Barbour & Wright

The political process of the Sudan and South Sudan has largely been determined by shifting situations of war and peace, traceable to the history of the entry of Arabs into the Sudan as legitimized by the Baqt (652 – 1323 AD). That treaty spelt out the patriarchal soft invasion, free movement and safe residence of Arabs under guise of trade—using Nile Valley, Route Forty of Sahara Desert, Mediterranean-Transatlantic Maritime Routes and Red Sea-Indian Ocean Routes with connection to Asian Silk and Belt Roads. It obliged the indigenous African natives to cease raids on the entering Arabs (Jellaba) in return of guaranteeing them the Peace of God and blessings of Prophet Mohamed. The local inhabitants had to build mosques, pay annual tribute of 300 slaves and deport fugitives or opposition elements back to the Arab Umayyad Dynasty in Egypt.

While the Land of Cush was grappling with effects of the unfair Baqt, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648 AD) was already marking a critical juncture of political secularism as sanctified by equal freedom of the powerful sovereign nations with ‘pecking-order’ for the less powerful ones. Within the trends of the nation state, Thomas Hobbes endorsed the idea of patriarchal authority in the Leviathan (1651) where he argued for necessity of absolute sovereign to enforce security and peace, to prevent “war of all against all”, and to avoid subjecting the citizens to “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” living. Also Sir Robert Filmer promoted similar thinking in the Patriarcha (1653) where he defended “divine right”of kings in the exercise of authority. But James Tyrrell wrote Patriarcha Non Monarcha (1681), John Locke wrote Two Treatises of Government (1689) and Algernon Sidney wrote Discourses Concerning Government (1698) to rebut the “divine right” theory. Their argument centered on the “natural right” and the “social contract” theories for justifying the legitimacy of any government.

I – TRACING PATRIARCHAL TRENDS IN ORIGINS OF SUDANESE STATE

Comparatively, the Sudan has been a patriarchal country since the time it was founded by Albanian-born Muhammad Ali Pasha in 1821 with objectives of extracting valuable resources (e.g., gold, ivory, ebony, ostrich feathers and strong black slaves) and expanding his political adventure internationally. Southern Sudan was laid loose when the Turkish Naval Officer, Captain Salim Pasha, crossed the tough mosquito zone of Sudd Region in 1841 to establish resources hunting posts along the Nile—Tawfiqia, Gondokoro, Rejaf, Nimule. Muhammad Ali’s successor, Khedive Ismail Ibrahim Pasha (1830 – 1895), tried to mend the sour relations of his patriarchal rule in the Sudan, especially with the ‘virgin tribes’ in Southern Sudan and Nuba Mountains who had been hunted intensely for slave trade since the Baqt era. He commissioned some European adventurers as military governors over there to help him in implementing the Anglo-Egyptian Slave Trade Convention (1877) and the Congo Act (1885)—freedom of navigation and commerce, notification in advance when appropriating newly scrambled territories for colony and suppressing slave trade.

Though the Mahdiyya uprisings (1881 – 1898) crushed the Turko-Egyptian Rule under Governor Charles Gordon Pasha in Khartoum (1885), Khalifa Abdullah al-Taishi’s Rule became marred with despotism as it regenerated into slave trade regime with forced islamization in Upper Nile, Bahr el Ghazal and Lado Enclave. The Shilluk and Azande Kingdoms were left with no option but to resist fiercely the deviated Mahdiyya Darvishes in their unethical rule. The French Congo-Nile Mission under command of Captain Jean-Baptiste Marchand found it receptive to advance into the Nile Watershed from Western Africa in 1896, defeating Mahdiyya and declaring Shilluk Kingdom as one of the French Protectorate in Africa but with autonomy to pursue its interests collaboratively.

The British had to send General Herbert Kitchener to Sudan in 1898 with heavy expedition to conquer it from Mahdiyya, to expel the French colonialists (“Fashoda Syndrome”), and to establish Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Rule (1899). Although the British Consul-General in Egypt, Lord Cromer, regarded Southern Sudan as a useless large tract of valueless land whose tribes were difficult and costly to govern fruitfully, the subsequent British Governors-General in Khartoum proceeded to apply multiple strategies—Punitive Military Patrols, Bribery Gifts to Strong Chiefs, Divide-and-Rule Rivaling, Locational Facial Identification, Closed District Ordinances, Passports and Permits Ordinances, Trade Permit Orders, Vernacular Languages and Structural Self-contained Customary Tribal Local Units with foreign Church missionaries allowed to provide catechetical services and limited literacy.

The World War I (1914 – 1918) and politics of the League of Nations; the invasion of Eritrea by Italy in 1935 and encroachment on eastern Sudan; the rapprochement of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (1936); the pressure by Northern Graduates General Congress to be involved in government with advocacy for lifting the restrictive British policies on Southern Sudan; the World War II (1939 – 1945) and politics of the United Nations; the formation of Northern Sudan Advisory Council in 1942 to bring the Sudanese elites closer to corridors of Condominium Rule; the enactment of Local Councils Ordinances in 1943 with ‘safeguards’ by the British for the uniqueness of Southern Sudan; and the Unilateral Declaration by the Penultimate King Farouk of Egypt for recognition as the Monarch of both Egypt and the Sudan, all these political developments shifted the paradigm and moved the British authorities to rethink their colonial neglect of Southern Sudan. They decided to empower the local population to stand united as unique Negroid African entity in case they got attached to Northern Sudan and Middle East, became annexed to East Africa, or remained autonomous and independent nation.

II – LEGACY OF COLONIAL TRANSITIONAL GEOPOLITICS

Unfortunately, London-Cairo-Khartoum geopolitics betrayed the expectations of Southern Sudanese for self-rule. London preferred appeasing the traditional elites in Khartoum to strike a blow on Cairo. The Egyptian Information Minister, Salah Salim who served under the Junta of Mohamed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser, shuttled frequently to Southern Sudan to promote the unity of the Nile Valley and sabotage ‘Sudanization’ of the Sudan. The Thirteen-Man Committee (chaired by Justice Stanley Baker and with Buth Diu as the only member from Southern Sudan) drafted the Sudan Self-government Statute without consideration for special status of Southern Sudan. Northern Islamist Parties (patronized by Khatimya Leader Ali al-Mirghni and Ansars Leader Abdel Rahman al-Mahdi) spat on the face of Southerners by excluding them from the negotiations on the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium exit from the Sudan on justification that the South had no political parties or matured leaders to represent it independently without Northern patriarchy.

The tense situation of the pre-independence of the Sudan in 1955 spiked the Nzara and Yambio riots, followed by Torit mutiny of Equatoria Corp and wider unrest in different parts of Southern Sudan. Khartoum blamed the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium policies of isolation, mistrust and bitterness of Southerners against the Jellaba’s ancestral involvement in slave trade. Also miscommunication, rumors, propaganda, underdevelopment, illiteracy, ignorance and backwardness were identified to be the fuelers of the unrest. The Stanley Baker’s Self-government Statute was converted into Transitional Constitution of the Sudan (1956) but without ‘due consideration’ for autonomous government (federalism) as demanded by Southerners to preserve their multi-cultural, multi-customs, multi-religious and multi-linguistic tribal societies. Nothing much was done by the succeeding ‘Sudanized’ government to implement the feasibility studies for big developmental agro-industrial schemes and mechanized farming in Southern Sudan—Nzara Cotton and Cloth, Melut and Mongalla Sugar, Aweil Rice, Wau Fruits, Tonj Kenaf, Kapoeta Cement, Upper Talanga Tea, and Malakal and Bor Fish Freezing/Drying. Also Southern Sudan was not given a fair annual budget by Khartoum to run its affairs.

The young politicians in Southern Sudan got wary with the status quo and patriarchal politics of Khartoum. They won elections overwhelmingly in their constituencies in 1957 for campaigning enthusiastically on platform of newly formed Southern Federal Party—adoption of secular federalism, repatriation of Southern schools from the North, recognition of both English and Arabic as official languages, special economic programs for the South, formation of organized armed forces for the South, redefining the Sudan as an African country rather than part of Arab world. Though their leader Ezbon Mundiri was arrested, the young Fr. Saturnino Lohure challenged in Khartoum the Constitutional Constituent Assembly (1958):

“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 continuous betrayal of aspirations of Southerners and the crises of the civil war (“Southern Problem”) contributed immensely to the collapse of subsequent patriarchal governments in Khartoum: Ismail al-Azhari’s and Abdallah Bey Khalil (1956 – 1958), General Ibrahim Abboud (1958 – 1964), Sadiq al-Mahdi and Mohamed Ahmed Maghoub (1965 – 1969), Jaafar Mohamed Nimeiry (1969 – 1985), Sadiq al-Mahdi and Mohamed al-Mirghani (1986 – 1989) and Omar al-Bashir (1989 – 2011) whose government collapsed only in South Sudan though it remained intact in the Sudan. Among these patriarchal heads of states and governments only Field Marshal Nimeiry and Field Marshal al-Bashir managed to stay longer in power, maneuvering between war and peace in the South.

III- UNIQUENESS OF PRESIDENT NIMEIRY’S PATRIARCHAL POLITICS

Immediately after assuming power in 1969, Nimeiry acknowledged the “Southern Problem” and diagnosed it as being caused by backwardness and western imperialism (similar to the findings of Qotran’s Committee of Inquiry on Southern Unrest in 1955). He prescribed the solution by un-shelving the deliberations of the 1965 Round Table Conference and Twelve-Man Committee, which recommended for recognition of unique cultural diversity and formation of special autonomous regional government for the South. He endorsed the 1972 Addis Ababa Peace Agreement with its implementation mechanisms—Relief and Resettlement Commission; Joint Ceasefire and Joint Military Commissions (12,000 integrated troops for South with 6,000 drawn from Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile on equal quota); High Executive Council and People’s Regional Assembly; and Public Service.

Juba stood firm in honor of Addis Abba Agreement when President Nimeiry started to dishonor it in favor of Khartoum’s interest on valuable resources in the South, especially by trying to annex oil and agricultural rich areas (Bentiu, Hofrat el Nehas, Kafia Kingi and Northern Upper, etc…). He awarded exploration licenses to American Chevron in 1974 and to French Total and Royal Dutch Shell in 1980 without consulting Juba. Oil refineries were planned in Khartoum to be constructed in the North with pipelines connecting oil fields in the North to Port Sudan. The digging of 360 kilometer Jonglei Canal (with involvement of Egypt) was launched with no care on the infringed community land rights and disrupted ecological setting of Sudd Region (blockage of 350,000 m2 of grassy marshes and lagoons of 30 rivers converging naturally to form an environmentally rich climatic lake and plenty of variety of fish).

After securing ‘National Reconciliation’ with Islamists in the North in late 1970s, President Nimeiry turned his political arsenals Southwards in early 1980s to exploit the politicized rifts of tribal and regional divisions (known as “kokora” in Juba). He considered the Addis Ababa Agreement as ‘Un-Qoranic’ and ‘Un-Biblical’ to be upheld sustainably. He interrupted the integration process for Anyanya forces by redeploying some of the battalions to the North against their will and with intention to keep them far from the redrawn South-North boundaries. He declared Islamic Law (Sharia) to be binding on all, including Christians and African traditionalists. Finally he decreed the dissolution of the unified regional government in Juba to replace it with disconnected fragile sub-regional administrative regions (Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal & Upper Nile).

The disappointed and angry South Sudanese were left with no option but to take up arms and organize for liberation cause, culminating in the formation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in July 1983 under leadership of Col. Dr. John Garang de Mabior and other colleagues. SPLM/A leaders defined the struggle as inherent in disadvantageous marginalization of the deprived people in the peripheries of old Sudan, not “Southern Problem” as such. Its war paralyzing the economy, caused humanitarian catastrophe and mobilized the professionals and trade unionists in Khartoum to up-rise against President Nimeiry. The armed forces sympathized with the people to overthrow him in April 1985 while he was on visit in Washington DC under the host of President Reagan and Vice President Bush Senior.

In a nutshell, President Nimeiry played both negatively and positively in his patriarchy on North-South politics of the Sudan with unpredictable bullying but courage to face tough situations head-on during his 16-years rule. He had direct links with influential and rivaling Southern political leaders (Abel Alier, Joseph Lagu, Peter Gatkuoth,, Bona Malwal, Francis Deng, Adwok Luigi, James Tambura, Mathew Obur, Clement Mboro, Hilary Logali, among others) with deep understanding of their political psychology as they were all part of the one party system of the Sudan Socialist Union. Also Nimeiry was intimately engaged with strong Kings and Chiefs of biggest tribes of Southern Sudan (Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, Azande, Bari Speakers, etc…) and could get into a helicopter to land anywhere at the grassroots localities without fear of insecurity. The ordinary people in Southern Sudan, including school children, knew Nimeiry and could sing his name in admiration (recalling the song: “Abukum Miin? Nimeiry!”—“Who is Your Father? Nimeiry!” However, it was only after President Nimeiry betrayed the Addis Ababa Agreement that he lost the trust of Southerners. The SPLM/A composed hate song against him and the parasitic bourgeoisie of his regime. His patriarchy collapsed miserably in the face of the force of the people.

IV – PRAGMATIC PATRIARCHY OF PRESIDENT AL-BASHIR

Also upon taking power in Khartoum, President al-Bashir got the support of the National Islamic Front with Dr. Hassan al-Turabi as the regime’s ideologue for “Civilizational Project” (akin to the “Civilizing Mission” of the Crusades). The declared National Salvation Government waged more aggressive Jihadist (Holy) war against the SPLM/A and all infidels in Southern Sudan. As Mengistu Haile Mariam’s Derg Regime in Ethiopia collapsed, the SPLA/M also got split into Nasir and Torit factions. But as President al-Bashir failed to defeat or crush the SPLM/A militarily, he decided to engage its factions in rounds of peace talks—Frankfurt (1992) and declaration on self-determination, Abuja I and Entebbe (1992) and Abuja II (1993) on outstanding issues of participatory secular governance and inclusive development (e.g, taking towns to the people).

The regional Intergovernmental Authority on Draught and Development (IGADD), which later was renamed as the Intergovernmental Authority on (IGAD), took upon itself the mediation of the Sudanese conflict by declaring these Principles in 1994: dialogue for reaching a just political solution, right for self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan, attractive unity in diversity of the Sudan, separation of religion from the state via secular competitive democracy, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and human rights, fair sharing of wealth and power, permanent ceasefire and interim security arrangements, and realization of sustainable peace in the Sudan.

Based on some internal peace initiatives, the SPLM/A Nasir faction signed Khartoum Peace Agreement in 1997 and Fashoda Peace Agreement in 1998 with self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan to be conducted at the end of 4-years interim period. The respite facilitated the security of oil fields in Southern Sudan where Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, Canadian, French and Swedish companies invested in petroleum business despite the international concerns about human rights violations and scorched-earth policy. Zionic Lobbyists, Churches, humanitarians NGOs, and human rights activists persuaded the U.S. Congress and President Goerge Bush Junior to intervene with “Carrot and Stick” policy based on the Sudan Peace Act (2002), especially after the Islamist terrorists who were connected to al-Bashir regime attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (9/11/2001).

With the IGAD and its friends and partners (Troika, Italy, China, Netherlands, EU, AU and UN), pressing for resumption of peace talks, the SPLM/A factions of Dr. Riak Machar and Dr. Lam Akol got merged under the leadership of Dr. John Garang in 2001 and 2002 respectively. As a result of that, the Machakos Protocol (July 2002) was signed to mark a breakthrough. Later and after rigorous detailed negotiations more agreements were signed in Naivasha—Agreement 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). The signed Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Nairobi in 2005 established the National Congress Party’s dominated Government of National Unity in Khartoum and 15 states in the North, and also the SPLM/A’s controlled Government of Southern Sudan in Juba (2005 – 2011) and 10 states in the South. The oil wealth was shared equally between South and North. The multi-donor trust fund was established in Juba for coordinate the funding of post-war peace-building projects.

Despite the hitches and hiccups between Juba and Khartoum, the 2008 Census and 2010 general elections were conducted as agreed. The incumbent SPLM/A and NCP leaders got reconfirmed to their dominant political positions in the North and South. The people of Southern Sudan were allowed to overwhelmingly vote for separation in July 2011 Referendum. The African Union, the UN and entire International Community recognized the new Republic in July 2011 and mediated between the two countries to cooperate and assist each other to resolve the outstanding political and economic issues, some of whose mitigations were designed in the expense of oil revenues of South Sudan—Transition Financial Arrangements of 3.028 billion USD paid to Khartoum and hiring its oil pipelines and other facilities for 24.5 USD per a barrel of oil passing.

But border war over Panthou (known in oil mapping as Heglig) erupted shortly in 2012 with Juba deciding to shut-down the oil production, the consequence of which partly spiked the 2013 conflict with destruction and displacement of residents of Malakal, Bentiu, Bor and others. By flunking the country and entertaining tribalism the leaders of South Sudan betrayed the required stewardship for unity, peace, justice, liberty and prosperity for the people of South Sudan. Also the failure of the Transitional Government of National Unity and the opposition groups to commit themselves to the implementation of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS) pushed the region to mandate President al-Bashir to take charge of High-Level Revitalization Forum, including reactivation of the paralyzed bilateral cooperation agreements between Juba and Khartoum in the oil and other sectors (border, trade, banking, debts/assets, labor, post-service benefits, freedoms for nationals and joint security). The slogan of “One People in Two Countries” became an adage for breakthrough in bridging the gaps in positions of the parties on outstanding issues of security and governance.

With the new approach adopted by Khartoum for mediated negotiations of the revitalization of the ARCSS, optimism was regained to put South Sudan back on the track of peace. President al-Bashir’s patriarchal pragmatic bullying and leverage on the leaders of Southern Sudan, and his declared moral responsibility for ensuring the welfare of South Sudanese as his extended family, has been seen working well for the negotiating parties to reach a final peace deal without more delays. The South Sudanese ‘oil for peace and development’ has become an attractive diplomatic policy, inducing the IGAD and its allies to entrust Khartoum with additional mandate to finalize the remaining details of the revitalized ARCSS and its implementation matrices as well as the mechanisms of funding so that peace is fully restored for general elections to take place at the end of re-scheduled transitional period of 40 months.

V – FRUITS OF PATRIARCHY OF THE SUDAN ON R-ARCSS

Will the patriarchy of the Sudan hold for longer over South Sudan and continues to be the catalyst during and after the agreed transitional period for the implementation of Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS, especially given the lessons learnt from the above-mentions historical experiences?

The success of the patriarchy of the Sudan over South Sudan, when it is utilized for peace, is expected to attract some tactical or strategic cooperation of the big international geopolitical allies (U.S, China, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, etc…). It has already created some joint political ventures, though with Cold War tendencies, by the known veteran regional heads of state (al-Bashir at North Pole and Museveni at South Pole of South Sudan). However, the fact that the major parties agreed quickly to compromise for peace as mediated by Khartoum and with oil business as part of the deal alongside border security and governance, is a strong indication that Khartoum has a real leverage on Juba and on South Sudanese opposition leaders. Juba can’t survive for longer if Khartoum decides to block the oil passage to international markets or give the armed opposition of South Sudan at its border a direct support to go for battles in the oil fields in Upper Nile or at the borders in Bahr el Ghazal. Also the business of East African countries with South Sudan, especially Uganda and Kenya, depends much on revenues generated through oil that has to pass first via Sudan so that hard currency could come next flowing into Juba’s coffers.

Thus, President Omar al-Bashir’s patriarchal role would probably continue to have impact on the needed post-war checks and balances on the revitalized transitional government of South Sudan in the four years to come or even beyond. It is given that he will pass the elections in 2020, especially with peace restored to South Sudan and cooperation agreements operationalized for the Sudanese traders and labor force to get engaged in garnering back their lost benefits from the historical neighbor considered as one of them though inhabiting a breakaway country of a united past in the Middle East geopolitics.

The success of peace process in South Sudan is seen as a rescue card for the dwindling economy of the Sudan, especially after it has lost the assistance it used to get from the Gulf Countries and when it has adopted a new trend of diplomatic rapprochement with the United States of America on advice of China. Since the restoration of peace for the good of ‘one nation in two countries’ has become so personal for President al-Bashir, it is hoped that the 8-month Pre-transitional Period will be taken seriously by the principal parties to the R-ARCSS through goodwill gestures and honest preparation of levelled ground for new peace government to get inaugurated with participation of heavy-weights politicians. It shall remain a critical litmus test and defining critical juncture for viability of both Sudan and South Sudan.

Though doubts are real yet optimism is high that sustainable security, humanitarianism, economy, rule of law, justice and electoral democratization shall become possible best news for enduring peace with good governance in South Sudan with Khartoum at the lead and region behind as checked complementarily by the sustained pressure and partnership of international community.
——————————————–
Dr. James Okuk is professor of political science in University of Juba, independent analyst and postgraduate alumnus of University of Nairobi. He is reachable at okukjimy@hotmail.com.

Kiir-Machar’s Khartoum Peace Agreement: A Looming disaster

BY: Duop Chak Wuol, South Sudanese, SEP/15/2018, SSN;

Throughout the South Sudanese peace process, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO) has been faced with serious political issues. These issues make it nearly impossible for the armed opposition to come up with a counterproposal that could force the government to accept a genuine peace.

The armed opposition failed the people of South Sudan by accepting a pro-tyrannical peace deal that will only work in favor of Salva Kiir.

This Arab Sudan-mediated so-called revitalized peace agreement is designed to empower Kiir’s brutality, keep elites in control and deny democratic reforms to take shape. This peace agreement is not just wrong; it is a looming disaster for the people of South Sudan.

Why is the Khartoum’s power-sharing deal disaster?

There are many critical issues the East African regional peace mediators have ignored.

However, the failure to address the root causes of the civil war, expansion of the government, the issue of 32 states, proposed legislative body, and the failure to replace the current National Constitutional Review Commission with an impartial and inclusive body are the main issues that the SPLM-IO should have paid close attention to.

It is good to remind people that most of the SPLM-IO’s fundamental reform provisions were deliberately rejected by the mediators in late August.

Kiir’s regime and its regional allies are working hard to make sure this pro-Juba peace deal is materialized.

For instance, during the signing process in Addis Ababa, the government, SPLM-IO, and other political parties were forced to agree that the National Constitutional Review Commission, which is currently being run by Kiir’s loyalists, will only be restructured in the fourth month of the transitional period.

The new provision stipulates that an internationally renowned constitutional entity will conduct workshops for parties to the conflict and that the parties would then use the outcome of the workshops to draft a new legislation to amend the constitution.

Why would the armed opposition and other parties accept to amend the constitution four months after the transitional period begin?

It is important to remind people that Juba’s regime consistently refused to allow the proposed constitutional review committee to study and amend the current tyrannical constitution.

There are also logical reasons to believe that four months are enough for Kiir to formulate a strategy that could impede the constitutional review process to carry out its mandates, let alone the fact that the requirement is stipulated in the final pact.

This peace was pre-determined by the incumbent Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU). Everything in it was designed by Kiir to make sure he accommodates SPLM-IO’s leaders in exchange for his cruelty to continue.

What I find baffling is that the armed opposition keeps arguing that it accepts the agreement because it wants to end the suffering of South Sudanese refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

The SPLM-IO is categorically wrong on this. Remember, the armed opposition did not cause the ongoing conflict. Its soldiers and supporters are technically living outside Juba and other government-controlled cities.

The idea that it wants to end the war by abandoning its reform agenda without giving a reasonable explanation is absurd.

The armed opposition fought for almost five years, claiming it worked for reforming the political system. It is now clear that the SPLM-IO is merely looking for ways to rejoin the very tyrannical system it once rejected. This is rather intriguing, to say the least.

There is a newly-found argument within the SPLM-IO that assertively claims that anyone who questions the viability of the peace deal is wrong or is against its doctrine.

Even some of the armed opposition supporters went too far, calling on those who questioned SPLM-IO’s peace strategy to either go to the bush or shut-up.

This is, again, one of the fallacious arguments being disseminated by clueless armed opposition supporters who seem to lack critical thinking.

For example, when Juba initially attached reopening of oil fields to Khartoum’s peace agreement, every sensible South Sudanese knew that Kiir was not working for real peace; rather, he was looking for ways to have huge financial power before the SPLM-IO and anyone who opposed his leadership to strike a deal with him.

He did this to make sure that he maintains an upper-hand, should the war resume in Juba when rebels rejoin his government.

This issue was raised by many South Sudanese political analysts—nevertheless, the supposedly democratic movement of SPLM-IO suddenly became hostile to those who questioned its political dogma.

Do you still remember when in August 2015 Kiir signed the agreement with a list of reservations?

The SPLM-IO has been committing serious violations by allowing Juba’s repressive regime to get whatever it wants.

For instance, the armed opposition released Prisoners of War (POWs) and political detainees and abided by ceasefire agreements while the government keeps prosecuting POWs and political prisoners and keeps attacking the armed opposition positions.

Kiir also refuses to accept SPLM-IO’s peace deal provisions he sees as a threat to his ruthless leadership. This systematic refusal of the armed opposition demands seems to work in Kiir’s favor.

For example, the most contentious issues in this peace agreement are the issue of 32 states, National Constitutional Review Commission, the consensus in the proposed incumbent government-dominated parliament, root causes of the civil war, security arrangements among others.

Kiir is truly a calculating dictator. After he realized in Addis Ababa that the SPLM-IO would refuse to sign the final deal, he then instructed his negotiating team to come up with a smart way to lure the armed opposition and other political leaders to accept the agreement.

He did this by downplaying that the issue of 32 states is not a big problem because a body proposed in the pact will be tasked to resolve it or the people of South Sudan will decide through elections.

Kiir also traps the SPLM-IO by claiming that constitutional amendments will be conducted four months after the transitional period began.

This is a monumental red flag that the armed opposition and other political leaders failed to examine.

The armed opposition must tell the people of South Sudan why it puts too much focus on wanting to secure a peace deal while the government is simply working hard to destroy its existence.

Is the recent peace deal really the democratic agenda the armed opposition has been singing for nearly five years?

It is increasingly becoming more evident that the SPLM-IO is prepared to sign-up for any deal if it is given its shares in any proposed transitional government.

This decision appears to be politically correct, but it can only be just if the armed opposition is simply fighting for its own viability, not on behalf of the people.

For nearly five years, the SPLM-IO vowed to either reform South Sudan’s political system or remove Kiir from power by all necessary means.

Now the very central idea the armed opposition drove its existence from is surprisingly vanishing. The SPLM-IO did not sign a good deal.

The Khartoum peace agreement is not a good deal. What the armed opposition signed is an accommodative pact — this is no different from exchanging your own freedom with an autocratic ring.

Kiir is an experienced and cunning tyrant. This peace is not a real peace, but a rather all about awarding positions to the SPLM-IO and other political parties.

Kiir wants these parties to abandon their political doctrines and rejoin this infamous Oyee’s band.

It is shameful and must be confronted by the people of South Sudan. The elites in South Sudan must be told by the people that they are working for their own bellies, not the people.

The SPLM-IO’s apparent deal with the government suggests that South Sudan’s current tyrannical leadership could probably continue ruling for years.

It must be made abundantly clear that the armed opposition has no legislative or constitutional power to amend the constitution.

Kiir rules by decree and he loves it. Any attempt to deny him such a one-man rule is doomed to failure because he will have a legislative number to overrule any attempt to democratize the constitution.

Constitutional changes are done through parliament or an established legal entity.

This peace deal is simply an empowering of the existing Kiir’s viciousness because the two important government branches, the National Constitutional Review Commission and the future transitional Parliament, will be controlled by Salva Kiir’s fanatics.

The SPLM-IO and some of its clueless supporters must stop waging a deceitful campaign to try to push people into believing that Khartoum’s power-sharing deal is the real deal.

The idea that reforms will be done after the armed opposition rejoined the government is simply a political blunder.

This seemingly twisted assumption can only be accepted by uninformed individuals. If the SPLM-IO is fully committed to this questionable deal, then it must prepare for a third political tragedy.

This is the 21st-century: the days of political cults are over.

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

BREAKING NEWS: Mabior John Garang to Riek Machar, “I reject the ‘bad’ Khartoum Peace Deal”

AUG/13/2018, SSN;

Dr. Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon: Chairman and C-in-C of the SPLM/SPLA-in-Opposition

Subject: My reservations on KPD, Date: 13/8/2018.

My Dear Chairman,

Allow me to register my reservations regarding the Khartoum Peace Declaration (KPD) signed on August 5th, 2018. When the Addis Ababa Agreement was signed in 1972, the then Captain John Garang de Mabior, my father, wrote a famous letter to Joseph Lagu, then leader of the Anya Nya Liberation Movement, outlining the weaknesses and the fundamental problems of the agreement signed in Addis Ababa. When the Addis Ababa Agreement collapsed in 1983, Dr. John Garang was free from moral guilt.

My Dear Chairman,

I want to be on record like my father in 1972 to express my views on the weaknesses and the fundamental problems of KPA. It is an illusion to expect the SPLM/SPLA (IO) to accept an agreement that would be a surrender in disguise, our civil population may not be “graduates,” but they’re not stupid, they know what a bad agreement is.

This is a people’s war, we are not the ones fighting the war and except for a just negotiated settlement, the war will not stop. The Taban/Ezekiel debacle should be a lesson.

My Dear Chairman,

The signing of any agreement even if we got all we wanted, will not change the bigoted attitudes of our elites, which is fuelling the conflict. It is also an illusion to think that someone else will solve our problems, while we remain spectators in our own affairs.

It is an illusion to expect that: “something will happen,” as if invoking Dr. John Garang sayings will solve the problem, as I see some entitled politicians doing.

Even if we are captured, killed or forced to sign a bad agreement and the root causes are not addressed, then war will continue.

If the provisions of the agreement are violated, the war will continue, if the elections at the end of the transition are rigged, the war will resume, that is if it even stops during the implementation.

My Dear Chairman,

The lessons from the last transition are still fresh in our memories and we all know the war never stopped, we shall not repeat the same mistake.

The civil populations of South Sudan did not initiate violence, it was the Kiir regime, this is an incontrovertible fact; we must always be clear of this in our minds.

Let no one be confused; the objective of ending Salva Kiir’s power to kill our people is a major tactical objective and we intend to achieve this by any means possible, whether it is through a negotiated settlement or through an armed struggle, is totally determined by the methods used by the regime, which are well documented.

The cultural revolution we envisage can’t be brought about by cooperation with the current status quo, it must be replaced.

Yours in struggle,

Capt. Mabior Garang de Mabior,
Chairman of SPLM National Committee for Information and Public Relations
————————————-
Once again, Dr. Luka Biong is on his trade mark political character, the flip flopping! All of you remember his recent article and disappointment about NAS refusal to sign the bogus Khartoum agreement and assertion that those parties that appended that deal have actually sold S. Sudan souvernity to the Jalaba government in Khartoum!

But as we have reiterated in the recent past, Dr. Biong double standard political stand is obvious and well known to most conscious citizens.

After leading the development and execution of Kiir’s regime autocratic policies against the innocent people, hence leading to the current pathetic state of affairs in the country, Dr. Biong fled the country and is now masquerading as senior political advisor and scholar on South Sudan democratic future!!!

For many of us who know Dr. Luka Biong’s activities back then in Juba, we greatly doubt very much his seemingly sugar-coated critisim of the very regime he once served wholeheartedly and still greatly admire though behind the curtains.

Dr. Luka is now stating that the activities of his cousin brother, Dr. Francis Deng, in Khartoum in reselling Abeyi area to Sudan is a noble cause and does not amount to tempering with South Sudan souvernity!!

Think about political double talking!! Dr. Francis has already been issued a Sudanese diplomatic passport probably, a preparatory plan by Khartoum to appoint him as the first Sudanese Governor to united Sudanese Abeyi region.

For sure Dr. Luka will have no problem with such recolonisation blunder!!

Change IGAD’s Peace Agreements Model for rewarding Impunity in South Sudan

By Hakim Dario, PDM Chairman,
14th August 2018, SSN;

President Salva Kiir Mayardit will go down in history as one of the worst rulers rewarded for impunity by none other than IGAD in the newly independent country, South Sudan. After a decade in power since 2008 – 2018, his ministers and many generals, Members of Parliament and politicians, as well as many communities in the country rebelled against him and fought battles to resist his authoritarian and autocratic grip on power to rule with impunity.

The rebellions by George Athor, Athurjong, David Yau Yau, Murle and Chollo communities from the fallout of the SPLM polit-bureau inspired rigging of elections in 2010 rang the alarm bells of what was in store awaiting the fate of the country under Kiir’s rule in the lead up to independence in 2011.

The weight of expectations for the once in a lifetime opportunity, after more than 50 years, to exercise the right to self-determination referendum and usher in the world’s newest 193rd independent and sovereign state of their own, has held the people to together at this historic crossroads.

On 11th April 2011, the first Equatoria Conference was convened in Juba, as if inspired by and echoing the 1947 Juba Conference, albeit at a new crossroad that was within the peoples and nation’s grasp.

The conference resolutions reminded the people of the new nation “to be” of the historic calls of the 1947, five decades earlier, for a federal constitution and governance in a new interim social contract as we celebrate our deserved and long fought for independence.

This lofty goal now or then, without much quarrel, seemed to be fully within our grasp to chart at the onset of the country’s independence. It was not to be.

The opportunity, unjustifiably, was lost to peacefully enact a Transitional Federal Constitution of South Sudan (TFCSS2011) as an interim social contract between the people in the new “to be” state. However, Salva Kiir, John Luk and SPLM caucus had other ideas and plans in store for the nation.

What we got instead was the TCSS2011 which concentrated and vested unlimited power in the hands of President Salva Kiir to make him an autocrat who ruled by decrees with impunity. The people were cheated, and had the outcome been a TFCSS in 2011, today’s war would have certainly been averted by a genuine devolution of power.

The SPLM chose otherwise, but beat a too familiar path to make Kiir another long lived African dictator.

The SPLM politbureau members too (Dr Riek Machar, Pagan Amum, Rebecca Nyandeng), not long afterwards as did Athor, Yau Yau, Dr Lam Akol, Peter Sule before them, soon found cause and reasons for rebelling against Kiir autocratic rule in 2013, which led to the nearly four years genocidal civil war in the country today.

This surely has had the effect of dashing the nation’s hopes for embracing a peaceful democratic political order in the newly independent nation.

The pattern of rebellion against Kiir’s rule with impunity has become something of a statistical normal, with some rather significant standards of deviation from the normal, in the most unlikely of Kiir-insider Generals of Paul Malong category, his former Chief of Staff, also rebelling against Kiir at the 11th hour in 2018.

How is it that there is such wide spread rebellion against Kiir’s rule all these past 10 years?

The missed opportunity of instituting a TFCSS in 2011, has now come back full circle to haunt the people and the country four years on in the ARCSS 2015, and in the yet to be concluded revitalized ARCSS 2018.

A Transitional Federal Constitution was resisted by SPLM and Kiir in 2011, furthermore in ARCSS2015, and lately in so-called Khartoum Revitalized ARCSS 2018 through the HLRF process.

This serial and persistent rejection by President Kiir of a TFCSS as an interim social contract for the people and the country, in 2011, 2015, and 2018 is now very ominous.

The very existence of South Sudan under Kiir’s and JCE rule as a country is in question. In the face and throes of the ongoing polarization and ethnic fault lines fueling the current civil war in the country, destroying what was left of the social fabric, the people are left with stark and difficult choices to make for their own future existence and governance.

In this Kiir’s business model for the country, at highly incalculable operating cost to the country, Kiir has become the law of the land and CEO, deriving his authority from a small minority of so called Jieng Council of Elders (JCE).

A clique and assembly of his section of Dinka tribesmen and women from the tiny state of Warrap, now running the government business in Juba as the clan’s owned business. This business model bears unashamedly no resemblance to that of a state.

The clan government does not forbid Salva Kiir to sell all the wealth of the country, deny or delay all justice, deny the rule of law and deny responsibility to protect villages, homes, and rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens who were either killed or displaced by Mathiang Anyor Dinka militia and army in Equatoria, Bahr al Ghazal and Upper Nile.

As recent evidence shows, Kiir’s business operating costs in the $40,000 order of magnitude per MP for car purchases, pales into insignificance, when resources are diverted as unquestionable urgent expenditure to buy Kiir’s rule tenure extension, without the least regard for austerity the country’s economy is reeling under.

To date, there is no accountability for government business profit and loss, and it is most unlikely there will ever be one with Salva Kiir as CEO, or with Dr. Riek Machar as his Deputy CEO under the regional IGAD countries’ “impunity business model” Agreements for South Sudan.

The autocrat, since 2010 quickly morphed into a kleptocrat, who didn’t hesitate to disown the interim social contract which the TCSS 2011 represented, and illegally decreed the creation of 32 states without due process nor by any legitimacy conferred by ARCSS 2015 that he was expected to implement in letter and spirit but had chosen not to.

In July 2016, Kiir without opting for peace unashamedly chose violence against his peace partner, and disowned ARCSS 2015 in its wake, sadly did so with utter impunity.

This is the unseemly peace partner to be rewarded and entrusted with heading government business to implement another revitalized ARCSS 2018 that gives Kiir the legitimacy he desperately needs to stay on in power for another three years.

Another three years for the people of Greater Equatoria Region, with half of the 64 tribes in its territory, meant continued denial of entitlement to their economic, social and cultural rights, peoples and human rights, and for them to have no say in the affairs of their governance and existence under Kiir’s kleptocratic rule.

The same is said of the people of Greater Bahr al Ghazal and Upper Nile regions. Having disowned the transitional social contract of the TCSS 2011, there is no basis of legitimacy for Salva Kiir to rule the country and to further resist the establishment of a new peoples transitional social contract for a union of peoples by an agreement under a new Transitional Federal Constitution 2019.

Salva Kiir is now without doubt an obstacle to peace in South Sudan, and he must resign and go to let the country pick up the pieces of the damaged social contract and fabric.

To stitch them back together after he completely destroyed it, requires a new people’s driven social contract and the will to affect the three autonomous regions people’s union in a Transitional Federal Constitution for a Transitional Federal Government (TFGSS).

The denial of justice and rule of law for another three years of rewarding illegitimacy and impunity by the Kiir Revitalization Agreement (KRA 2018) in Khartoum, is not what the people wanted, rather it is what IGAD wanted, it is what Sudan and Uganda wanted for SPLM and other elites to grant Kiir another lease of underserved legitimacy.

The way forward is people-centric

There is no other fairer way that the SPLM and Kiir’s tribal elites strangle hold on power in South Sudan can be broken without returning to the historical devolution of power to the people in the former three autonomous regions of Upper Nile, Equatoria and Bahr al Ghazal under a Transitional Federal Constitution.

This is with the view that the regional state governments together with the people’s union government would derive legitimacy, authority and power from the people of the three regions.

Legitimacy is shareable between peoples but is indivisible and inseparable for sharing between elites without representation and mandate. The elites-centric power sharing of the KRA 2018 rewards the elites at people’s expense.

The responsibility sharing equally between the three regions in a federal social contract offers a fairer basis on which to rebuild the country’s broken social fabric and restore the rule of law and justice under the constitution. The restoration of the ruptured social fabric, justice and the rule of law is needed to maintain the unity of South Sudan as a nation.

This will not be complete without bringing Salva Kiir to stand trial for the crimes he committed against the people and the state after independence.

Until Salva Kiir is tried before a competent court of law for crimes of state corruption and atrocities against the people under his rule and policies, the rule of law and due process in South Sudan would not be restored or established for future posterity to live in peace.

Kiir must be tried under the rule of law for the country to save and redeem itself. It’s only when the rule of law is taken for granted in South Sudan, that the human and people’s rights, their social, cultural, economic and political rights, and equality of opportunity will be protected for all citizens, communities and peoples of the 64 ethnicities.

There is no way individual accountability will be skipped by a People’s Democratic Government for crimes committed by political leaders in any public office of the state. The long arm of the law will reach near and far places to end impunity and corruption in every corner of the country. All those identifiable leaders in public office roles who are found to be associated with aiding corruption whilst in public office or were directly engaged in commission of corruption for self-interest at the expense of the public interest, will be held to account under the law. That is what the country needs in order to change and move forward.

The authority, legitimacy and power of the Government lay with the people, not with Salva Kiir, nor with SPLM factions and elites without representation and explicit mandate of the people. This premise is essential to set expectations of negotiation for a realistic and sustainable peaceful settlement to the conflict, and without conditions for rewarding sacred cows by the agreement.

Thus, in order for any current or new genuine efforts to succeed and restore peace in South Sudan, the efforts need to shift the focus away from rewarding elites-power sharing to a distinctly people-centric peace-making, one in which the people are active participants in decisions on fundamental matters of their existence and governance.

Compelling grounds both humanitarian and political now exist that impunity, in which the people and the country are trapped for perpetuity must be challenged and ended with Kiir’s rule once and for all.

The people, an entire one third of the country’s population and size, as that in Equatoria region who demanded a federal constitution and governance for the country, like those calling for the same in Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal regions, are without voice, rights or authority to freely exercise political power and decision making by legitimate constitutional mechanisms over affairs of their governance and existence.

The 64 different ethnic groups, 32 of them in one region alone are together treated as an insignificant minority whose voices through multiple peoples conferences in 2011 and 2012, are disregarded and accorded no political space so that Kiir can continue to rule with impunity.

The people in Equatoria, Upper Nile, Bahr al Ghazal must stand up to challenge Salva Kiir’s illegitimacy and demand to exercise and enjoy their economic, social, cultural and political rights, human and peoples’ rights in their region without encroachment by concentration of unlimited powers in the hands of a President who is not himself or herself subject to the rule of law.

And without this constant of the rule of law, peace in South Sudan would remain an illusion, as long as IGAD’s “impunity peace agreements” model continue to be the regional favored game plan for South Sudan.

The international community and the region could help end the war and facilitate the negotiation of a realistic and sustainable peaceful settlement by standing with the people against impunity and tyranny, and de-recognizing Salva Kiir led government as illegitimate, led by a kleptocrat who must be denied diplomatic recognition and support. END

Let’s face it: There is no DEAL, no PEACE for now.

BY: Akim Salah , Wau-South Sudan, AUG/11/2018, SSN;

The mix reactions to the Khartoum-Kampala coerced peace deal demonstrate the difference between naïve tribal opportunists and rational thinking citizens.

To begin with, the peace is all about maintaining the status quo, keeping the same failed pilot (Kiir) and co-pilot (Machar) with their respective manipulated blind followers to continue dominating the national stage/affairs regardless of contemporary history of disastrous results of epic proportion in their names.

As long as these two safeguarded the interests of the Sudanese and Ugandan demi-gods at the expense of the common people suffering in POC and refugee camps there is no problem.

M7 (Uganda’s president Museveni) turned deaf ears to testimonies of fleeing refugees in his backyard because he reaps big from aid, hence sees no reason to review relationships with Juba or at least ask his partner in crime (kiir) to change the game for the sake of the suffering people.

Yet he can afford to taunt the junior friend for failing to unite the people – What a paradox!!

Much as the old man is keen to bolster the Juba regime, economic realities back home biting hard, the Blood Dollar is no trickling in right volumes hence he has to find a way of getting back the lost trade without compromising his own regime (I will come to that latter).

While the economic meltdown in Sudan, coupled with its ambitious development plans quickly reminded El Bashir that after all, it has always been South Sudanese resources boosting Khartoum’s socio-economic development, even after the CPA, the oil dividends make more resounding proportion for development in Khartoum than Juba.

Whereas, in South Sudan itseif, looters squandered their fraction of the pie on lavish cars, properties abroad, prostitutes, and a good amount going to appease their godfathers in East Africa.

Only stupid optimists will think that the two warlords (godfathers) believe that the signed agreement will last. It was written all over their faces and eluded to only in words.

However, if one has to decode the unsaid statements “do not use these ceasefire to prepare for war” said Museveni. Yet reports indicate that he is training SPLA-IG snippers possibly in fear of a repeat of the humiliating clash in July 2016, when the meager, tactfully superior SPLA-IO forces mourned their brothers (IGs) at Jebel with a terrifying catastrophic speed – Only those who have not been in Juba/jebel can deny this fact.

Reports from credible sources intimate that if only there were 5,000 IO forces armed with artilleries, Juba would have gone, and all the same it took the better trained SPLA Units of National security to dislodge them, much like in 2013 when General Mamur had to wrestle out conquered Giada from the Nuers.

With inferences to these tragedies that cost lives of thousands of young men and women including children some of whom are still an accounted for, it’s safe to say mistrust, suspicion, the old vices of tribal hatred and vengeance have taken root to the extend of foiling any peace effort unless it’s addressed in good faith.

That brings us to the Equatoria puzzle. Relatively muted but heavily marginalized, the Equatorians’ aspirations are grossly ignored in the Khartoum deal.

That’s not because they do not have genuine stake/claim but because their forces are construed weak, not to possess real threat to Juba Regime.

These Groups found their backs against enemy friend’s wall hence logistically challenged, let alone the intelligence gathering.

More so, there is what I can call the Equatorian Phobia by both Juba and Kampala Regimes. Kampala, especially M7, knows too well semi-autonomous or independent Equatoria could pose real threat given its cultural ties with the northern Uganda and DR Congo tribes, if Idi Amin’s reign is something to go by.

It’s in Equatoria, too, that the landlocked country’s major roads linking it to the sea ports of Mombasa and Dar El Salaam are found.

Any major war with the host taking an upper hand will paralyze trade and bring the economy to its knees.

The bitter truth that the regime hates but can’t be denied is the fact that some of the Equatorian Brethren are well advanced culturally, educationally, are hardworking and development minded.

They have to be marginalized to bridge the gaps.

Of late the Equatoria phobia manifested itself in Upper Nile where the youth agitated for Equatorian employees’ expulsion from NGOs.

This was also echoed in some sections of Bhar El Ghazel and still rolling. One can be forgiven to make a guess that some of these moves are politically engineered.

The disturbing question is: will the Equatorians continue to fold their hands, endure the continuous marginalization under the watch of Wani Igga all in the name of peace?

Or will they rally behind Thomas and Bakasero to demand for a version of Federalism that suits their aspirations?

Choosing the latter means war, banditry attacks…etc, hence denying Juba to eat their looted delicacy at peace.

The Way Out:
If lasting peace is to be realized, the governance question must be renegotiated to give each region a fair share of power to run its affairs though we can still have same army, money, etc….

Summarily, mistrust, suspicion, the old vices of tribal hatred and vengeance, the Equatoria-Phobia & marginalization are set to deny lasting peace a chance.

***************Time be my Judge****************************

Revised SSOA Response to the Mediation Proposal on the Security Arrangements Outstanding Issues

JUL/08/2018, SSN;

The following is the response of the South Sudan Opposition Alliance, (SSOA).

1.Demilitarization of Civilian Centres (as per Para 1.11.4)

1.1. The parties agree principally to demilitarize all of the following:

1. The National Capital city, Juba, State Capitals and civilian populated
areas.
2. Schools, Hospitals, Business Centers, Places of worship, Houses, IDP
Camps, Villages, and other civilian populated areas must be free of all
military presence during the pre-transitional period.

3. Livelihood areas, e.g Roads, Water passages, Farms, Grazing areas.

The demilitarization process shall be accomplished within the Pre-transitional period to create a conducive atmosphere for confidence building, repatriation of refugees and return of IDPs in order to allow
humanitarian service delivery to the affected population.

2.Composition of the Joint Transitional Security Committee (as per
Para 5.12)

2.1 In the spirit of inclusivity, the Joint Transitional Security committee
shall be composed as follows:

i. TGoNU-(3 members)
ii. SPLM–IO-(3)
iii.SSOA–(3)
iv. IGAD–(1)
v. UNMISS-(1)
vi. AU-(1)
vii.TROIKA-(1)

2.2 Decisions of these committees shall be taken by consensus.

3. Time frame of Forces Unification (as per Para 7.5)

3.1 The Joint Unified Army/Joint Unified National Security shall be
established within the Pre-transitional period and shall be tasked with:

—- Protection of national borders.
—- Protection of Public installations.

3.2 The functions of the Joint National security shall be limited to data
collection, analysis and reporting the product to the relevant authorities.

3.3 A nucleus of Joint Police and other Security Forces shall be
established within the Pre-transitional period and shall be tasked with
the Protection of civilians and their properties.

3.4 The Transitional period shall begin with joint unified forces, which the
parties shall agree on its size guided by the principles of equal
representation of states/Counties and diversity of our national

4. Third proposal:

In the event that the second proposal is objected to, it is further
proposed that equal numbers of the Opposition and the TGoNU
forces be deployed as Joint Unified Forces to carry out the function
as in the Article 4.5 above.

5. Operationalization of the Khartoum Declaration of Agreement (KDA).

The Parties shall recommit to the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities,
Protection of Civilians and Humanitarian Access (2017) and shall implement
the monitoring mechanisms provided for in the Khartoum Declaration of
Agreement (KDA) signed on 27th June 2018 as follows:

5.1 Re-notification of forces by parities leadership including the issuing
of orders to cease military operations, and enforce the freezing of
forces in their locations.

5.2 Declaration of dispositions and locations of forces not previously
declared on the 21st December 2017 (CoH).

5.3 Disengagement and separation of forces in close proximity as per
priorities presented by CTSAMM.

5.4 Establishment of buffer zones and lines of control so as to delimit
possible aggression, unexpected clashes and to allow access and
delivery of humanitarian assistance and free movement of civilians.

5.5 Confirm and recommit to the mandate given to CTSAMM and
enforce the restructuring thereof immediately. END

Why Kiir is letting us down by refusing to work with rebel Machar

BY: Apioth Mayom Apioth, South Sudan, JUN/27/2018, SSN;

It is essential for our dear leader Salva Kiir to create a conducive working relationship with Riek Machar because our lives might just depend on it. Politics, unlike culture which takes an enormous amount of time to make a substantial change, is an emotional animal.

It changes from one second to the next without sending a warning signal. Riek Machar has been in this galactic political arena for over thirty years. He was first believed to be a spiritual anointed leader by Ngundeng, and now he has become the leading opposition figure in the land.

Political success just doesn’t happen by pure luck and serendipitous wishful thinking.

An intelligent political thinker must first and foremost play his/her cards of wins and losses very well; he/she must at all times know 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.

Is Salva Kiir afraid of losing the presidency to Riek Machar come the end of the transitional period?

Is that why he is refusing to share a spotlight with Riek Machar in the Transitional government?

Another essential element that an intelligent political thinker must control at all times is the political sentiment. Political sentiment is another emotional animal that must continuously be fed by consistently doing good deeds to the general populace.

Our wish is to find a way to silence all the guns and bring everyone on board to start a brand new era for South Sudan.

And for us to do that is to make sure that both Kiir Mayar and Riek Machar work together for this sentimental and chaotic period of the transitional government.

All the leading South Sudanese politicians whether they go by the name of Kiir Mayar or Riek Machar for that matter don’t give an inch about anyone; they are only in politics to make a name for themselves.

That is the main reason why you still hear them wanting to continue leading their shady and bloody political careers when in reality they should have called it a quit several decades ago.

If Kiir refuses to work with Machar, then it is possible that the war might continue unabated with consequential repercussions.

A life of a nameless South Sudanese is equal in value to Kiir’s, or Riek’s. After the end of Kiir’s political career; other political figures will rise up and take his place.

And where are these political giants going to come from after his time comes to an end? They are going to come from the very people he allows guns to continuously maim and disfigure year in and year out.

It is totally out of place for Kiir to allow his corruptible character to take over his thinking just because his obsession with the presidency won’t allow him to do what is right.

At the end of the day, being president is a position like any other occupational career. The people he pays no heed to our other people’s brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers.

They are important people in their own right. Kiir has no divine and ordained right to trample over their God-given right to live a long and bountiful life full of happiness and harmonious relationships.

As a matter of fact, he was picked by Dr. John Garang to serve the very needs of the common people he is neglecting right now.

We were lucky not to have drawn into another round of war with the Khartoum right after we signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which culminated and ushered into a fully independent nation from Sudan.

Politics doesn’t favor rigid and hard to change political figures. It needs people who are always on their toes righting their wrongs and blending their thinking with better and powerful ideologies that are susceptible to the political erosion of time.

The most conscientious and moral duty of our contemporary era rests squarely on the shoulders of Kiir and Machar to find a meaningful way to work together so we can replace the gun mentality with smiles and economic prosperity to help raise our national GDP to an astronomical level.

No one knows for sure how things might span out if Machar is not included in this peace process. Political adversaries must put aside their differences for the sake of the common citizens.

Salva Kiir is a devout Christian and in politics, people don’t have the desire to be nice to you all the time; the political game can leave a bitter taste on your mouth.

Kiir and Machar must capture the calm political sentimental environment to avoid being drawn into another full-scale war that we all so dread.

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.

Kenya and Uganda facilitating Corruption in Kiir-led South Sudan

Remarks by John Prendergast, Co-Founder, The Sentry

Press Event with Sigal Mandelker, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Nairobi | June 13, 2018;

In my short introductory remarks, I’m going to try to quickly answer six important questions:

1. WHY DOES SOUTH SUDAN MATTER TO KENYA?

The government and rebel leaders in South Sudan who are destroying their country through atrocity crimes such as village burning, mass rape, child soldier recruitment, and obstruction of humanitarian aid are the same people who have looted the world’s newest country of billions of dollars of natural resource wealth.

The Kenyan real estate and banking sectors are critically important getaway cars for this South Sudanese looting machine.

Kenyan commercial interests have facilitated the exodus of the spoils of corruption, and laundered the stolen assets of South Sudanese leaders, their family members, and their business partners. Kenya represents a key entry point into the international financial system for these elites and, along with Uganda, remains a preferred destination for them to stash their assets.

Kenya has also been connected to South Sudan through the thousands of South Sudanese refugees it has hosted, as well as being a leader in the peace processes involving South Sudan for decades, both before and after its independence.

2. WHAT RISKS DOES SOUTH SUDAN POSE TO KENYA?

The integrity of the Kenyan banking system continues to be under threat from its ongoing exploitation by those who facilitate illicit financial flows from South Sudan.

This exploitation will increasingly imperil Kenya’s economic growth and access to the international financial system, as corrupt South Sudanese leaders look across the border to stash ill-gotten assets in bank accounts and real estate, including right here in Nairobi.

If Kenya is seen by the international financial community as the regional destination for the proceeds of corruption from South Sudan, it risks serious damage to its image as a safe place for multinational banks and other companies to do business.

As shown by the U.S. Treasury’s Advisory yesterday warning banks about the connection between corrupt senior foreign political figures and their enabling of human rights abuses, regulators are increasingly concerned about the use of the U.S. and international financial systems to move or hide illicit proceeds or evade U.S. and multilateral sanctions.

We should do everything possible to ensure that Kenya is well-positioned to protect the health of its financial industry and demonstrate to multinational banks and businesses that Kenya won’t tolerate money laundering by South Sudanese elites.

Combating this perception through taking action is critical to safeguarding Kenya’s reputation as a safe and well-regulated financial system for companies around the world who are right now deciding whether or not they invest or transact in new markets like Kenya.

A recent study by the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG), the top anti-money laundering watchdog in the region, showed that the negative trend has already started.

In the study, Kenya falls near the top of the list in every category of “de-risking,” where global banks decide that some business relationships are just too risky to maintain.

This is not a problem just faced by Kenya, and the impact of de-risking can be seen elsewhere in the world. De-risking, combined with reputational damage to a country’s industry, has severe consequences for the economic growth and financial prosperity of countries that are seen to be lax in complying with international standards for anti-money laundering and financial transparency.

Furthermore, the IGAD regional mediators trying to resolve the South Sudan conflict currently lack the leverage necessary to stop violent kleptocrats from using their forces to burn, imprison, silence, torture, starve, impoverish, kill, and rape to maintain or gain power.

South Sudanese peace talks are stuck in part because President Kiir and his allies do not want to let go of their exclusive grip on the crudely-constructed looting machine masquerading as a government.

The primary point of leverage is going after the stolen assets of South Sudanese leaders and their collaborators, finally creating a long-threatened consequence for being peace spoilers and state looters.

3. WHAT IS THE CHOICE FACING KENYA?

Kenya has a fundamental choice to make. Does it want to realize the economic goals for prosperity outlined in its Vision 2030 plan, the long-term development blueprint for the country and one which will make Nairobi the banking capital of East Africa?

Or do the government and banks here want to put the positive trajectory of the economy at risk by tolerating the illicit financial flows of South Sudan’s corrupt elite that will ultimately drive away investors and international banks?

Now is the time to fix it and to act to change the trend. Kenya can’t afford for the international business community to wonder whether it has become the next illicit financial hub, exploited by people like President Kiir and his commercial enablers.

4. WHAT ACTIONS CAN KENYA TAKE?

It’s vital that Kenyan banks and their regulators lead the way in implementing strict standards for anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, and sanctions enforcement to protect the country’s financial system from abuse by the violent kleptocrats and corrupt elite in South Sudan who pump their ill-gotten gains into Kenyan bank accounts and real estate holdings.

The U.S. is ramping up its use of the policy tools of financial pressure, including the particularly effective combination of network sanctions, which target not just an individual but their support systems of frontmen, enablers, and businesses, and anti-money laundering measures, such as those that warn the financial community of the risks posed by certain kinds of transactions or that require U.S. correspondent banks to terminate their relationships with foreign financial institutions of concern.

5. WHY WOULD A KENYA-U.S. PARTNERSHIP BE TIMELY?

Kenya needs to protect its financial sector from being penetrated by illicit financial flows, and the international community should support its efforts to do so.

Today we’re talking about a war criminal’s money, but tomorrow it could be terrorists. The U.S. and Kenya can work closely together on this shared agenda to ensure that South Sudan’s war criminals, state looters, and sanctioned officials must look elsewhere in order to hide their ill-gotten gains.

6. WHY IS TODAY’S VISIT IMPORTANT?

While many of the violent kleptocrats and their commercial enablers may have thought that they’ve won and successfully clung onto power while still doing business in U.S. dollars, I have someone that I want them to meet who thinks otherwise.

Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, the top U.S. official in charge of financial sanctions, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, and protecting the U.S. financial system from a whole range of financial crimes, is making the first ever visit to Africa by someone in her position, and I’m so glad that she is here.

She’s a tough former prosecutor who led the U.S. Department of Justice’s teams in going after those responsible for committing human rights abuses, cyber crime, money laundering, and promoting U.S. national security and law enforcement priorities, and a strong advocate for using all of the legal authorities and financial tools at her disposal to impact the ability of President Kiir and his networks of commercial enablers to steal from their people.

Under Secretary Mandelker’s trip to Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo this week raises the stakes for the violent kleptocrats and their corrupt elites who don’t believe that the United States will follow through on its threats of pressure, and for that I would personally like to say, “thank you.”
# # #

For media inquiries or interview requests, please contact: Greg Hittelman, +1 310-717-0606, gh@enoughproject.org.

About THE SENTRY

The Sentry is composed of financial forensic investigators, policy analysts, and regional experts who follow the dirty money and build investigative cases focusing on the corrupt transnational networks most responsible for Africa’s deadliest conflicts.

By creating a significant financial cost to these kleptocrats through network sanctions, anti-money laundering measures, prosecutions, and other tools, The Sentry aims to disrupt the profit incentives for mass atrocities and oppression, and creates new leverage in support of peace efforts and African frontline human rights defenders.

The Sentry’s partner, the Enough Project, undertakes high-level advocacy with policy-makers around the world as well as wide-reaching education campaigns by mobilizing students, faith-based groups, celebrities, and others. Co-founded by George Clooney and John Prendergast, The Sentry is an initiative of Not On Our Watch (NOOW) and the Enough Project. The Sentry currently focuses its work in South Sudan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and the Central African Republic.

In less than two years, The Sentry has created hard-hitting reports and converted extensive research into a large volume of dossiers on individuals and entities connected to grand corruption, violence, or serious human rights abuses.

The investigative team has turned those dossiers over to government regulatory and law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and around the world, as well as to compliance officers at the world’s largest banks.

Learn more at www.TheSentry.org.

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

Riek Machar only to return to Juba WITHOUT ONE SINGLE SOLDIER: Kiir declares

From different sources, MAY/12/2018, SSN;

In the latest development, South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, has set ONE non-negotiable condition, that his arch-rival and rebel leader of the SPLM/A-IO, Dr. Riek Machar, will only be allowed to return to the country without ONE SINGLE SOLDIER OF HIS.

“Riek Machar can come back to Juba here, but without even a single soldier. If they (IGAD) say he will return with his army, I will never accept,” Kiir said at a ceremony of the army flag handover to the new army chief in Juba on Thursday, as reported by Radio Tamazuj.

The South Sudanese president said he would accept his arch-rival, Riek Machar, to return to the country ONLY as a civilian, vowing he would guarantee his protection and safety in the nation’s capital Juba.

“I told them that you people [regional leaders] Riek Machar is a South Sudanese citizen. As government of South Sudan, we have not cancelled Machar’s citizenship. So I told them to bring Riek Machar,” he said.

Kiir said during the SPLM Liberation Council in Juba recently that he wants his exiled former deputy to return to the country, saying he has FORGIVEN him.

However, it’s not clear whether president Kiir’s declared conditionality is also applicable to the other numerous armed groups in the bushes fighting his government such as Gen. Thomas Cirillo’s NAS, Dr. Lam Akol’s group, Gen. Johnson Oling’s, Gen. Paul Malong latest formed armed group and the others.

Machar fled the capital July 2016 after heavy clashes between his forces and troops allied with President Kiir.

He is being held in South Africa to prevent him from going back to his country. The decision was reportedly taken by the region in order to keep him away in the hope of preventing war in South Sudan.

“We cannot allow our chairman to return to the capital without heavily armed forces that are equal to the forces of the government in Juba,” that was the response to president Kiir’s intransigence and stringent conditionality by Mr. Peter Gatkuoth, the deputy head of Machar’s armed SPLM/A-IO opposition’s information committee to Radio Tamazuj.

The official’s remarks came days after President Salva Kiir publicly admitted he had allowed the rebel leader, currently exiled in South Africa, to return the nation he fled from after the July 2016 skirmishes.

Kiir said this during last week’s National Liberation Council (NLC) meeting of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

Also, while addressing a military parade in Bilpham, the army headquarters in Juba on Thursday, May 10, 2018, president Kiir said his call for Machar’s return comes from THE BOTTOM OF HIS HEART.

“I said it all from my heart and I told the IGAD Council of ministers that ‘DON’T FIND A PLACE ELSEWHERE FOR DR. RIEK MACHAR TO BE TAKEN TO,” Kiir stated, meaning Machar should only be brought to him in Juba.

But Gatkouth said the exiled armed opposition leader needed to be protected especially after what occurred when he returned to Juba in 2015.

“Machar will return to Juba when there is a negotiated peace agreement through the revitalization forum. We are committed to peace because we know our people are suffering,” he stressed.