Category: Uncategorized

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.

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.

Backdoor Peace Deals & the collimate rise of Promising Youthful Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by South Sudanese Community Leaders in the UK on IGAD Peace Talks

To:
H.E President Paul Kagame, Chairperson of the African Union
The President, UN Security Council
IGAD-Plus, C/o H.E Abiy Ahmed Ali, Prime Minister of Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia
TROIKA (US, UK, and Norway)
H.E. Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General

05th June 2018
The South Sudanese community leaders in the UK, representing (the Equatoria region more
than 30 ethnic/tribal groups, Western Bahar el Gazal State (Fertit) more than 8 ethnic/tribal
groups and the Shiluk/Chollo) have received the “Bridging Proposal” by IGAD following the
recently concluded phase of High Level Revitalisation Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

We express our deepest disappointment of the proposal, as it does not reflect the interest of the people of South Sudan in achieving a just and sustainable peace in the country.

The IGAD’s Bridging Proposal ignored the root causes to the conflict in South Sudan.

After carefully analysing the proposal, we have concluded that IGAD ignored the views of the other parties, which it initially requested them to consult with the people.

To our surprise, the proposal had mainly reflected the views of the Government of South Sudan and it ignored the voice of the suffering people of South Sudan.

Therefore, we call upon the international community and people of goodwill to stand with the
people of South Sudan rather than the Government, which is the cause of the people’s suffering.

The above stated proposal by IGAD, has reinforced the lack of trust we have in its ability to mediate the conflict in South Sudan in order to realise a sustainable peace.

Hence, we call upon IGAD to pass the responsibility for the mediation of the conflict to the African Union, the United Nations and the Troika (The United States of America, The United Kingdom and Norway).

We also call upon the TROIKA and the international community to review its support to IGAD in relation to the peace process in South Sudan.

We request the inclusion of the diaspora in future peace talks, as we feel that our views which
we intent to channel into the peace process were not taken into account.

** Federico Awi Vuni — Chair, Equatorian Community in the UK.

** Karlo Kwol Akol, Representative, Chollo (Shilluk) Community in the UK.

** Peter Gaere, For Western Bahar El Gazal (Fertit) Community in the UK.

For correspondence: Mr. Federico Awi Vuni; Email: federicovuni58@gmail.com

Kenya’s Raila Odinga’s delicate task in mediating S. Sudanese rivals

BY: DENG Vanag, Secretary for Information, Public Relations and Spokesperson for Federal Democratic Party/South Sudan Armed Forces, FDP/SSAF. JUN/10/2018, SSN;

South Sudanese public, having been divided over the questionable role of the mediating party and subsequent mistrust the division has caused, the regional bloc IGAD that is the mediating party has evidently lost the confidence it needs to bring about meaningful peace deal to the war-torn country.

Principal cause of mistrust in the IGAD mediation is Western-backed Uganda and Kenya which previously took a militant stand favoring Kiir’s regime, while other member states recoiled under their sweeping influence.

The unwarranted influence led to IGAD’s premeditated and self-inflicted failure that resultantly ropes Raila Odinga into near impossible task to bring down the Jericho-like walls of mistrust setting the belligerent factions apart.

The herculean task eminently awaiting is without denying former Honorable Prime Minister’s natural gift of tact, optimism and patience forming the bane of any successful diplomacy.

Coupled with the need to juggle his known crashing hammer in Kenyan political scene with tender kid gloves and bulldozing ‘’Tinga’’ or tractor with caring hand hoe in his delicate new diplomatic venture.

While hardened determination to prove his worth shall serve to inject some spectacles into his twilight Presidential ambition and desired statesmanship at home and abroad respectively.

Success which will on the other hand magnify failure of IGAD whose peace efforts to end the war are at all times blighted by an obvious covert operation to prob up an ally in Kiir, lest his fall could cause contagious effects to his kind in the neighborhood.

This doesn’t however mean Raila’s new role as peace envoy is safe from what may be thorns thrown in his way as he marches to face off an evidently daunting task.

For once, Raila himself is not in the good books of the regional control freak, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni who always sees the former’s success as a potent threat to scuttle his own regional ambition.

Much as in the light of traditional diplomacy, neighbors are not the best mediators in the next-door squabble, despite knowing its internal political intricacies more than the far-off onlookers, due to its spills-over that divide them alongside warring factions.

Which makes the mediator to enter the bruising blame game with heavily laden baggage of preconceived line of thought to resolve the crisis.

With him {Raila} already being dubbed in both Kenya and South Sudan as yet another Riek Machar, Salva Kiir’s main rival, a remark which may be taken as sheer joke and allegation, but not completely out of context per se.

While Kiir is not fond of dealing with negotiations since they began in early 2014 with an open mind, but under more enduring influence of close minded tribal elite in the name of Jieng Council of Elders.

Without taking heed of crumbling economy as the result of devastating civil war that displaced half of the population from traditional habitat and another half being fed on an international goodwill.

All at the behest of hundreds of thousands the war has claimed and maimed with far reaching ethnic divisions to last beyond the leadership’s lifespan of the incumbent and that of his future immediate successors to reconcile.

While unlike Kiir, Machar is his own man except being more vulnerable in the negotiation given his incarceration whom Raila can easily move from his preconceived stand for Kiir to exploit to his own advantage.

Something not to be taken lightly by the former’s handlers still haunted by past experience of defaulted deals to the latter’s advantage of continuous state power stranglehold.

Whereas Odinga shall be hard pressed, as matter of necessity, to introduce real inclusivity into the process, previous efforts had been lacking and have led to their catastrophic failures.

That is by stepping out along the way to embrace all warring factions, including SSOA of which PDF is the constituent member than remaining decked in the closet by mediating just Kiir and Machar, as if they were the country and the country is them, both actors and observers alike have been wrongly hoodwinked to believe.

Known to be an independent minded persona when acting in personal capacity, however, the mission on which he Raila finds himself is a delegated authority by the Kenyan state that may be fraught with red lines to toe.

Moreover, the state he represents already stands accused of incidents favoring one side of conflict that saw three rebel members, namely James Gatdet, Dong Luak and Aggrey Idri, being deported to an enemy regime in handcuffs, with last two whereabouts still remaining unknown.

A position which is currently and fortunately on the minds of revitalization as Dr. Ababu Namwamba, Foreign Affairs Administrative Secretary has been quoted as saying in some sections of the Kenyan press, quoted accordingly:
‘’We are not talking about abstracts here. We are talking about human lives.
As the party to this negotiation, you cannot walk away with hundred percent wish list.’’

Deng Vanang;
Secretary for Information, Public Relations and Spokesperson for Federal Democratic Party/South Sudan Armed Forces, FDP/SSAF. He is cordially reachable at: dvanang@gmail.com

President Kiir: State of the Nation Address

By: Samuel Atabi, South Sudan, JUN/09/2018, SSN;

The Beginning:

Fellow South Sudanese, greetings. It is now 13 years since the gun went silent in our country. It is seven years since we became independent. However, I am afraid I have no good news to report. Our problems started at the beginning. Our leader, who had prepared himself for the task of nation building died tragically few months after the end of the war. His death is the cause of all these troubles we have.

While he lived, he did not tutor me and other leaders of the SPLM/A in statecraft. So at his death, I was pushed into unfamiliar territory of nation building, while completely devoid of any knowledge on how a nation is run. We had to start from the scratch.

Therefore, in order to steer this country, without the requisite knowledge, I have had to depend on advisors, both in this country and from foreign countries.

Barely two years after independence, was I advised that in order to stabilize the country, I should not allow any change in government, particularly in the presidency. But I was not told how to implement this advice.

Thus, when some other pretenders began to agitate for change of leadership in our only party, the SPLM, I became afraid that this would lead to instability that had been advised against.

I embarked on unchartered path whereby I decided to have my own militia, which you now call Mathiang Anyoor, to protect the presidency. Don’t blame me for this.

After all, the SPLA itself is a combination of many tribal militias: the Paulino Matip’s, Riek’s , Lam Akol’s, Alfred Gore’s, Obuto Mamur’s and others. But I now realize that this was an unwise move.

That is why I have strongly disagreed with Paul Malong who was the recruitment sergeant for the militia.

Despite the presence of lawyers and judges in my cabinet, no one advised me that this was against our supreme law, the constitution.

Unwise decisions:

Once you create an army, you must use it. So, my fellow citizens, I was railroaded into using Mathiang Anyoor in December 2013 to kill not only my former Vice President, but also his fellow tribe people who were resident in our capital, Juba. The consequence of this another unwise move, was a disaster.

From that time up to date, there has never been peace in our country. As if this massacre was not enough, my militia again tried to kill Riek Machar in July 2016, after he had returned, from where he ran, because of the peace agreement signed in August 2015.

This time round, my militia spanned out in the Equatorial (sic) region, burning, killing and raping women. Consequently, parts of the region have now been left vacant because the population has run away to Uganda.

Why Uganda? This confirms what we Jieng have been suspecting: Equatorial people are Ugandans. But again, it is not just Equatorians who have run away.

My own people from Northern Bahr el Ghazal have fled, would you believe it, back to the land of the Jalaba.

The Jieng have no reason to run away. There is no war in our part of the country.

It is the Equatorians and their intellectuals who are pushing propaganda against my government. As I speak, foreign governments are now conspiring with them for a regime change in our beloved country.

That, my fellow citizens, is the state of the matters in our nation; do not allow foreigners to change your elected government.

Peace and lost opportunities:

Let me now turn to the issue of peace talks. Our brothers, and all of them are men, in the Opposition are making unreasonable demands at the negotiation table.

Can you imagine they want to dissolve our lovely and gallant SPLA and replace it with their ragtag forces?

Imagine also that, I, your hero, your protector and your unifier, should vacate this seat…. another demand by the Opposition.

These, I am sorry to say, are red lines. I have instructed my delegates at the Addis Ababa peace talks not to cross them.

They can go to hell, the Opposition, and I would rather die than resign from the presidency. I am sure all of you, my fellow compatriots, agree with me on this.

Let us pose for a minute, close our eyes and think of an alternative world that is peaceful and different from what I have just described above.

Imagine there was no war in our country. Imagine too, I did not try to kill Riek Machar twice and I did not order Mathiang Anyoor to kill Nuer and Equatorial civilians.

Imagine we did not encourage mega corruption among our leaders and people.

Lastly, imagine we treated each other with respect, equality and justice in matters of employment, opportunities and freedom. Then, fellow citizens, we would be far ahead of any of our neighbors. Let me explain.

With billions of dollars accruing from our oilfields, we would have done a lot of developmental things. By this time I would be addressing you from our new centrally-placed, brand new capital of Ramchiel.

We would have built radiating roads from that capital to various compass points of our country: from Ramciel to Malakal, to Raja, to Wau, to Kuaojok, to Mundri, to Source Yubu, to Yambio, to Maridi, to Rumbek, to Yei, to Nimule, to Torit, to Nadapal, to Boma, to Nasir to Pagak, to Bentiu, to Renk etc.

All of them would be tarmacked.

To spur our industrial development and encourage inward direct foreign investments, we would have built a modern hydroelectric plant at Fulla rapids in Nimule. We would have had sufficient electricity to drive our industries and light our homes.

We would have built our own railway line, the much talked-about Standard Gauge Rail (SGR) and pipeline to the eastern African coast to ferry our export and import and to transport passengers to and from our country and transport our oil products, respectively.

Our economy would be booming (forget Lol’s claim) from development in agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

We would have mechanized our farming, introduced irrigation in places like Acholi, Aweil (for rice production) and continue to grow crops like coffee and tea in Yei, and Upper Talanga, and wheat in Nagishot.

We would have improved our livestock to produce dairy products (milk, cheese yogurt, ghee etc.), and hide and skin and of course beef. Our fisheries in the Sudd regions would be flourishing as we export fresh fish to the European Union, using refrigerated trucks and cargo aircraft.

We would have built a hospital in every county, trained doctors and paramedics to man them.

We would have built a primary school in every boma and a secondary school in every county to educate our young ones.

We would have built more universities to train our human resources for civil service, health sector, agriculture, economy and of course our culture and heritage.

We would have professionalized our army, welding them from the various ethnic groups into one, patriotic army with clear objective of protecting our hard-earned independence, instead of turning the guns against their own compatriots.

We would now be having a professional police force and national security at par with the CIA or MI5 or MI6 or Mossad. They would safeguard our security while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of our citizens.

We would have developed a secure hospitality and tourism industry based on the natural endowment of our teeming and unique wildlife and cultures.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, nothing would stop us from achieving these because we HAD the money, the human resources, and the stamina to persevere.

Didn’t we struggle for decades to gain our independence?

Lastly, I have a message to our comrades in arms. I have seen the growth of mercenary attitudes among you. No one seems ready to undertake any small task without demanding payment of money for it.

If we did not have the spirit of sacrifice, we would not have liberated this country. Show kindness and patriotism in all that you are doing.

I want you to reflect deeply on the two aspects of what our country is in now and what it would have been. After that let us have a serious conservation of the way forward.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless South Sudan.

Samuel Atabi is a South Sudanese political commentator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Benefits and Standing of Former leaders”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. LESSONS FROM SURVIVAL & COLLAPSE OF SUDANESE GOVERNMENTS

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

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

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

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

IGAD to take action against violators of cessation of hostilities (COHA)

MAY/22/2018; Statement of the Chairperson of the IGAD Council of Ministers on the Convening of an Extraordinary Session of the Council

The Council of Ministers of IGAD recalls the Communique of its 61st Extraordinary Session held in Addis Ababa on 26 March 2018, whereby it decided to take the necessary measures against violators of the Cessation of Hostilities, Protection of Civilians, and Humanitarian Access Agreement (COHA) signed on 21 December 2017, to halt the conflict in South Sudan.

In this regard, CTSAMM and JMEC have submitted reports concerning the repeated and serious violations of COHA, which calls for urgent and appropriate action against the perpetrators.

Therefore, the Chairperson of the Council has decided to convene an extraordinary session of the Council of Ministers to consider the punitive measures that should be taken against violators of the COHA. Furthermore, the Council will consider two more items namely:- the Report of the Chairperson on the shuttle diplomacy undertaken to the Parties in South Sudan in accordance with its Communique of 26 March 2018, as well as the Report of the IGAD Special Envoy to South Sudan.

22 May 2018

Addis Ababa

With best regards,

Abdullahi Busuri
Program Manager
Information and Documentation Sectiion
phone: +25321312723
mobile: +25377187679
web: www.igad.int