Category: Uncategorized

People of South Sudan craving for good leadership in South Sudan

BY: SINDANI IRENEOUS SEBIT, NAIROBI, KENYA, NOV. 2/2012, SSN;
*I can hear them saying, I can hear them murmuring but their voice fail to become loud because of fear, intimidation, harassment, banishment, torture or imprisonment but they talk in their corners.*

South Sudan became independent on the 9th July 2012 following a long protracted war that claimed nearly 2 million lives. The declaration of the independence was welcome by all and was thought to usher in a long anticipated period of peace, tranquility, democracy, socio-economic development, transparency and accountability in addition to respect for individual rights.

However, the people of South Sudan are yet to begin reaping these products of independence. Instead what has emerged in the infant but resourceful country is unfortunate state of misrule, disunity, socio-economic stagnation and political upheavals. This is attributed to none other than the SPLM party that took the ruins of power following the rigged elections before the independence.

It is dreadful that in a young country like South Sudan, where the struggle for freedom took 23 years and claimed nearly 2 million lives, democracy and human rights, natural values and dignity have been stifled; corruption has become the order of the day creating few millionaires in Juba while the majority of the South Sudanese are wallowing in adjunct poverty.

Failure of the ruling SPLM party to lay good foundation for the progressive future of this young nation has left the people of South Sudan craving for good leadership; a leadership that can champion the future development of a united democratic South Sudan. It does not really matter where this salvation leadership comes from; be it SPLM itself, the opposition, the generals in the army, the civil society or the people themselves, it would be a welcome change.

The leadership the people are craving for is that which can bring unity and justice to the country and the people. The basic aim is to initiate reconciliation and harmony among the various tribes in South Sudan and to usher in democratic rule based on rule of law, transparency and accountability.

The people crave for leadership that can wrestle back South Sudan from the few elite and bourgeoisie in Juba who have used corruption, tribalism, nepotism and personal greed to exploit the vast resources of the country to enrich themselves while the socio-economic development of the country has stagnated.

The leadership that can give to the people of South Sudan the rights and voice to claim what is truthfully and rightly theirs and express themselves on issues affecting them and their society so that a country founded on democratic principles of unity, justice, equity, equality, transparency and accountability is firmly established and fostered.

It is my crystal ball strong perception that the overall motive of creating a leadership in a country lies on the belief that leadership should strive to foster socio-economic development of the people leading to material change in the lives of the people. This means the leadership must put in place and nurture policies that can raise the standards of the people of South Sudan instead of few individuals enjoying the resources.

As a result the people should then enjoy better living working conditions, better health and nutrition levels, good educational standards, reasonable income, more jobs and greater life expectancy. More so leadership should aim at expanding the range of economic and social services in South Sudan for the benefit of the poor and the entire population.

Due to the ineptitude of the government in South Sudan to realize these leadership qualities and attributes, the people have all inherent rights to crave for leadership that can focus on reduction and eventual elimination of poverty by equitably distributing the resources in South Sudan to meet the needs of all. A leadership that strives to provide health care for all, improve literacy levels in South Sudan and can spare no effort to make South Sudan a solidly united nation where insecurity becomes a thing of the past, freedom of ideas and expression is not suppressed.

Where strong self sustaining devolved government exists to serve the people, where the health system is strengthened to avoid the current health tourism practiced by the elite in Juba, where educational system is overhauled to ensure educational standards are improved and schools are properly managed to produce the much needed human resource of the future, where road, river and air infrastructure are built to facilitate fast movement of people and goods that can foster rapid economic development.

Where government is elected by the people, is for the people and managed by the people and where the parliament is not only independent but also works, judiciary is free from the executive manipulation and its independence is under the principles of checks and balances and indeed the separation of powers among the three arms of government is not perceived to exists but really exists and exercised.

This leadership that can usher in a peoples government that trusts the people, responds positively and promptly to their needs and cannot discriminate citizens according to tribe, race, gender, religion, age or political orientation; a leadership that lays emphasis on South Sudan nationalism, South Sudanese dignity, and their rights. These include the rights of the farmers, workers, the poor and the unemployed.

A leadership that can also focus on affirmative action to ensure equality and equity; a leadership that can work steadfastly to accelerate socio-economic growth that can be sustained and ensure that human resource development is sustained.

The people crave for leadership which is committed to guarantee freedom of expression, movement and right to live anywhere within the Republic and to own property legally; a leadership that can protect every South Sudanese and foreign national living within the borders of South Sudan.

Above all, the people crave for a leadership that can be inclusive, consultative, honest, transparent, accountable, progressive, open and accommodating.

The question is therefore, for how long can the people continue craving for this kind of leadership without realizing that they themselves can bring the leadership that they want? The time to stop craving is now and not tomorrow.

I think the coming elections should present the best opportune time for the people to bring a change in the country as you did during the referendum in South Sudan. Indeed your own destiny and that of the country is in your hands when you exercise your democratic right to choose the new leadership come the next elections.
(The views expressed above are solely those of the author and not of the website)

Sindani Ireneaus Sebit
Vosskaro2005@yahoo.com
Nairobi; Kenya

The first anniversary of Peter Sule’s indefinite imprisonment

BY: ELHAG PAUL, RSS, NOV. 02/2012, SSN; 3rd November 2012 marks the first anniversary of Peter Sules capture in Moruland. I am using the word anniversary here loosely to cover everything negative and positive. For those who are affected and those who are not, let them put it in their own context as they wish since the fact remains that he has been in detention for 12 months.

Peter was alleged to have rebelled against the government of South Sudan. At that time Sudan Tribune broke the news on 4th November 2011 by reporting that *SPLM spokesperson Philip Aguer said Peter Abdul Rahman Sule, the leader of opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) was arrested in Jambu payam, Mundri East County of Western Equatoria state, after a brief exchange of fire between his forces and the army*.

So far Peter remains in detention having reportedly been severely abused initially by the security forces. Presently there is no information about his health and general well being from credible independent sources.

At about this time last year the media was saturated with the story of Peters attempted rebellion. Most of the articles printed in newspapers, exchanges in the various internet discussion forums, exchanges in informal verbal discussions between friends and groups across the board had very unpleasant things to say about Peter. Peter basically became a punch bag for those who for one reason or another had something to vent their frustrations on. There was no rationality in relation to Peters case. It was believed that most of the vocal critics of Peter were people who grabbed the opportunity to pitch job application to GoSS by shredding him.

Peter was called a fool and stupid. He was not spared and assessed holistically as a human being with multifaceted personality. All of us have different sides to our characters and we are conditioned by the way we are brought up, by our cultures and the environment in which we live. Our different sides of character come out to play by events in our environment.

Against such a background, talking about Peter demands examination of all the factors that have led to him resorting to rebellion. That is another huge topic for another day and I will not delve into it. But to start with, we need to know (though I will not explain): who is Peter? What is his contribution to the liberation of South Sudan? What is Peters personality? What are his values in life? What is his political belief? What prompted him to take that route? Was he justified to take that action? Who would have been the losers and beneficiaries had he succeeded in his endeavors?

Such questions are important to ask in order to know something about the person and what motivates him. With such knowledge making comments can be within context and also fair rather than the spewing of venom we saw last year at the heat of the moment. Nobody is perfect and we are all fallible and thus we need to be considerate and fair of others in our assessments and comments.

Peter has now been in detention for twelve months allegedly for rebellion. During this period there have been many rebellions against the government of South Sudan. For example, David Yau Yau in Jonglei state declared war on the government of South Sudan. While violence is unacceptable, it seems many groups are gravitating towards that end.

Why? The fact that the government is controlled by one party, the SPLM serving interest of a specific group of people is not helping the situation, especially given that the SPLM is bent on enriching its members at the expense of the people of South Sudan.

Internally, agents of the state are taking a different non-democratic route in their attempt to change the system. Since July there have been a number of failed coups in Juba. Prominent among them was the one of 26th July 2012 allegedly spearheaded by the Bor group under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Paul Mach and the recent one allegedly led by Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec. The former was very serious and it nearly brought the government down. Most of the coup plotters were arrested and detained in Yei garrison. However, due to tribal politics in the name of unity of the rulers, the culprits were swiftly released with some rewarded by being sent as representatives of the government to the talks in Addis Ababa.

This act is a blatant violation of the constitution of South Sudan.

The latter attempt which forced the president to return to Juba from a summit in Kampala/Uganda in the middle of October 2012 is reportedly not as serious as the earlier one but has the potential even now to snowball into something. It is still viewed as a smoldering gun. The alleged leader of the coup, Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec, is now in detention in Juba.

Maj. Gen. Paul Mach and his group (unlike Peter Sule) and Maj. Gen. Gatwec appear to have received a lenient and favourable treatment from the government of South Sudan. For a group which is alleged to have attempted to overthrow the government violently to be rewarded is a new phenomenon in African politics and this can only be in RSS. The politics of tribalism in South Sudan may eventually destroy it.

For the president to ignore the constitution and *Fi ainak ya tajir* (meaning deliberate deceit in your face or what can you do?), he rubbishes the constitution in order to preserve the interest of his social group is breathtaking. Sadly, the president appears to have no idea that he is representing something bigger than all the tribes of South Sudan combined and the behaviour he is exhibiting amounts to negligence of duty.

What is amazing is that no politician or member of the parliament has raised a finger on this unfortunate and unacceptable discriminatory and repressive act thereby making themselves complicit. It is clear, one group, the rulers and only the rulers, are above the law while the rest are subject to harsh treatment.

Maj. Gen. Gatwec unlike Peter has the weight and unconditional support of his people in the form of the Nuer Youth behind him. Right from the time of his arrest the Nuer Youth beat the drums of notice so loud that everybody heard their message. It is most likely that Maj. Gen. Gatwec case may now be handled sensitively because he comes from a community that can protect their own in a country that fails to protect all its citizens as per constitution. It is also possible that Maj. Gen. Gatwec could follow Peters fate for the simple fact that not all the Nuer political actors have been protected by their community. Something that is puzzling but a reality.

The reason for this anomaly may lie in internal politics of Nuer community. An example can be drawn from the case of George Tang and others. Since their arrest their cases have been of low profile. To date nothing has been heard about them in terms of justice.

Peter comes last in the pecking order of political things in RSS and with it his own personal worth. The manner in which the people of his own region went silent on his rights and security buoyed the rulers and ensured that Peter is thrown to the wolves. But it is important to note that whatever is happening to Peter is not the first and the last and it is not the end of the story.

Any emerging effective and popular leader from Peters region from now on can be a fair game in RSS politics. Such a leader can be entrapped, framed and trashed in similar manner as Peter and nobody will raise their head in his/her support. For Peters experience will always be the precedent and point of reference to go by in the eyes of the tribal victors.

Equatoria subjugation The leaders of SPLM/A from its inception in 1983 have always sought to pacify and subjugate parts of South Sudan, especially Equatoria. Leaders from that part of the country have been targeted in many ways. The techniques mostly applied to subjugate Equatoria and its leaders include *divide and rule*, *isolate and kill* with terrorisation of the population. Now, it seems they may have succeeded.

For the majority of those who stood out thumping their chests in condemnation of Peter (a jurist of wide experience in life) were mostly short sighted Equatorians conditioned psychologically by SPLM terror.

The humiliation of Peter through Machiavellian intrigues and machinations is not only Peters problem. Peter is only an individual and for that matter a drop in an ocean. The humiliation carries a big political picture spanning four decades of internal politics of South Sudan. It is about vicious control of an entire region and its people.

The symbolism of Peters forgotten detention tells a lot about his region and its people. It depicts the disempowerment of a once proud and stout people whose dignity has been lowered to nothing. It is a statement that what Peter represents in terms of his identity, culture and freedom can be trodden upon with impunity by the tribal victors.

The basic acts portraying this reality in South Sudan can be found in the illegal but condoned practice of land grab, assaults on innocent men and women by tribal security force, marginalisation in civil service, denial of passports etc.

In contrast to this appalling situation is the fact that the crimes of the victors are at worst ignored or at best legitimised. Take for example, Arthur Akuen Chol who stole hundreds of millions from the government. When he was arrested and detained, his people (armed thugs) went to the prison and violently released him from detention. What followed is stuff of Alice in Wonderland.

No investigation on a prisoner breaking out from prison with help of relatives. No inquiry on the attack on state institution. No action taken against the escapee and culprits who stormed state property although they are known. All these violations and crimes are shrugged off and capped by Arthur being rewarded by a parliamentary appointment by the president. Wow!

Any wonder why RSS is a failed state? Just compare and contrast the actions of this administration to get the jest of what I am trying to say here in terms of oppression, discrimination and abuse of state power by the so-called heroes or should I say villains.

Maj. Gen. Paul Mach and group can violate the law and yet gain their freedom to move freely with rewards from the government while others like Peter are indefinitely incarcerated with the media unleashed to demonise them. President Kiir needs to be fair. During the independence of South Sudan he swore to uphold the constitution.

Now that he has broken it to free the *Machs* of this world, he needs to extend the same treatment to all the other political detainees. Granting amnesty to those languishing in the detention centres will help calm the political atmosphere. Bring fresh hope to the country and possibly lead to a new direction.

Things are not improving in our country. Everyday the sun rises and sets the situation gets worse. Corruption grows, insecurity spreads engulfing the cities, tribalism spreads like cancer, the leaders make blunders, no provision of services to the people etc. The rebellions we are facing and talking about here all started because of these very ills. The result now is that South Sudan has become a fertile ground for germination of rebels with coups popping up like mushrooms on wet ground. We can not go on like this. Some sense needs to prevail.

First and foremost, SPLM needs to reflect and accept that the country belongs to all the people of South Sudan and so the people have a stake in how it is managed. Currently, the direction the country is heading into is not good for anybody including the SPLM itself. Thus SPLM needs to take a proper democratic step by:

1) Granting general amnesty to all political prisoners, armed groups and opposition figures to equalise his release of the Machs so we start afresh.
2) arranging a conference where all the political parties, civil societies and independent stake holders are represented to deliberate on the issues afflicting the country.
3) forming a government of national unity to govern the country during an interim period and for that government to create a conducive atmosphere for general elections.

If president Kiir really wants to have a memorable legacy it will only have to be on his courage and confidence if he has any to pull back our country from the brink of disaster. He drove it to this dangerous position and he now needs to act like a real statesman to save what is left of it by initiating the proposed democratic actions. By acting he will end the unnecessary sufferings and divisions in the country and recover his name.

As stated, Peters humiliation symbolises something big. That something instead of it being destructive and divisive, it should bring us all together and here I want to end this article by quoting president Kiir himself.

*This is the time that we must cement the unity of South Sudan so that we are one country,* Gurtong 26th November 2011. Let us then cement the unity of South Sudan by treating every citizen equally as mandated in the constitution and preached by our church leaders.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and not of the website)
Elhag Paul
RSS
elhagpaul@aol.com

A Reply to an open letter by Kuir e Garang from ‘whimsical’ Dr. Lam

From: DR. LAM AKOL, OCT. 31/2012, SSN;

The Son of my Brother, Kuir E Garang,

Since you addressed me in your open letter as *uncle*, allow me to take the liberty of calling you the *son of my brother.* This is one of our good African traditions in contrast to Afronomy you mentioned in your letter. That is one necessary point to explain. The other is that it is not in my habit to respond to all what is written about me in the press, and there are many nasty such writings, but your presentation is different. Despite my disagreement with most of what you wrote about, as it will become clear in the following lines, your arguments are presented intellectually without being unduly abusive. This is why I believe engaging you in an honest debate would be useful both to you as a motivated young man, and to all and sundry who are interested in finding out the truth.

It is not a waste of time to respond as many will hasten to advise me. Our nation will not move forward by building walls between us but rather by opening bridges for communication between and among us. I assume that was your intention, otherwise, you would not have taken the trouble to put pen to paper.

I will overlook your description of me to be whimsical as the term is obviously an oxymoron in this case, for everything you said about me in the letter is antithetical to that epithet.

The Son of my Brother,

From the outset, I would like to point out that I will here only respond to those parts of your letter addressed to me personally or to both of us together. I believe Dr Riek Machar is capable of speaking for himself despite the aspersions that come out from time to time in your letter and elsewhere that he was just *used* in the Nasir Move in 1991.

Let me begin with your reference to what you call the *unfortunate, yet incoherent split of SPLA/M in 1991.* This characterization contradicts your assertion that you were *paraphrasing* the reasons behind the split which come out as a coherent stuff. In fact, you go further to say this: I have to confess, for those who have read the policy paper of the two of you in 1991; the paper was appealing on face value. If all the things narrated in the policy position were implemented in the manner they were documented, South Sudan could be a different place now; a peaceful, prosperous place.

Therefore, the split might have been unfortunate for some of its unforeseen consequences, but was never incoherent by your own admission. This is a central point to your argument and indeed to the current discourse.

In the same vein, in addressing Dr Riek Machar, you had this to say: *So Dr Riek Machar, your vision for South Sudan was thwarted by your disagreement with Dr Akol, your eventual split and your consequential tribalization of the national agenda*. This is an unequivocal admission that Dr Riek had a vision for South Sudan which got thwarted because of the reasons you gave. One, then, wonders where that accolade has gone when you said on addressing Dr Riek Machar again that *it appears to me that 1991 was orchestrated by Dr Lam Akol in its entirety and that you had nothing absolutely to do with the split. You were just used by Dr Lam as a question of numbers advantage*.

Are you not unwittingly risking sliding into the same pit of those who have been unscrupulously parroting such untruth without weighing their words? Dr Riek Machar is an intellectual on his own right and a capable SPLA/M Commander, and the people who say such things either do not know what they are talking about or are trying to be too clever to pass the buck to others. I am disinclined to describe you as such.

On being *the brain behind the 1991*, this is an honour I do not claim alone. There were many brains behind the Nasir Move far beyond the three SPLM/A Political-Military High Command members who made the announcement on the 28th of August 1991 in Nasir. If some people, for one reason or the other, are today afraid to admit so, this does not change the historical fact. I played my role and others did theirs. It is inconceivable that such a momentous event could be a work of one brain!

The Son of my Brother,

On my assignment as Sudan Minister of Foreign Affairs, you seem to be unaware of several obvious facts. You say: *you accepted the ministerial post knowing that you had to present the Sudanese position to the world; and that position was not for the interest of South Sudanese people.* This is the balderdash we hear on the streets.

In the first place, why should you assume that the Sudanese position was not for the interest of South Sudanese people? Be informed that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) stipulates that the SPLM and the National Congress were in partnership to implement the agreement. They were not enemies as some who entertained hidden agendas misled a good number of South Sudanese to believe. We were in a coalition government known as the Government of National Unity (GONU) that came about as a result of the CPA and whose main function it was to implement it. The SPLM was part and parcel of GONU, and not outside it, again, as some of you were made to believe.

I presume you know how coalition governments work. If so, are you saying that the CPA was *not to the interest of South Sudanese people*? The policies of that Government were formulated by the Council of Ministers with eight SPLM ministers and a Presidency where the First Vice President from South Sudan has a right of veto; the most powerful vice president in the world. If all these people cannot guarantee the interest of South Sudanese people, including in the area of foreign affairs, then perhaps it was not worth signing the CPA.

All the questions that followed in your letter are unfortunate redundancies because they were based on a wrong premise, and so is the conclusion that *It all comes down to one thing: you did it for your own political agenda; to present your face to the world. This makes me wonder if you used Dr Riek in 1991 in the same vain (sic): at the expense of the people.*

For your information, my face was well known to the world already as one of the leaders of the 1985 popular Intifadha (Uprising) that overthrew Nimeiri dictatorship, and afterwards as the SPLM/A Chief Peace Negotiator since 1988, the SPLM/A negotiator and focal point of the UN-sponsored and well publicized Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), the SPLM/A Director of Coordination and External Relations 1988-1990, the Secretary for External Affairs and Peace 1991-1994 and as Chairman of SPLM-United 1994-2003. All these assignments entailed world exposure.

In all humility, I had a high international profile already and did not need to use Dr Machar or any other person or position to enhance it. On the contrary, it was all these assignments that benefited from my high profile including the ministry of foreign affairs. I hope you are not one of the victims of the intense propaganda that was waged against me then with the only objective to get me out of the ministerial post. I will touch on some aspects of this campaign shortly.

The Son of my Brother,

Your biggest flop came when you unfortunately averred that *when you were removed from the ministry of foreign affairs, you went ahead and formed a party in a country that still has a long way to go to embrace liberal democracy. Why did you not take one ministry and make it exemplary for the rest of the country? You could have asked Kiir to give you one ministry, reform it, and make it immutable to the rest.*

First, you seem to suggest that you do not believe that the time is ripe for liberal democracy. I will return to this point later on.

Second, I did not form a political party as soon as I was removed from the ministry of foreign affairs as you appear to suggest. Let me jog your memory. I was removed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 2007 whereas my party was formed two years later in 2009. In between, I continued to be a loyal member of the SPLM. However, a number of events took place that drove me out of the party. There has always been a group in the SPLM who did not want me in the SPLM leadership since the reunification in October 2003 of the SPLM/A with the SPLM-United, which I led since I was dismissed by Riek Machar in February 1994. The group tried to influence Dr John Garang to place me in the Leadership Council as a junior to them which failed because I rejected it.

It is the same group that was unhappy because I was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs and they have been spreading falsehood against me since then including the seeming incompatibility of the interest of South Sudan with that of Sudan that you delved in. The story is long. Suffice it to mention that it is the same group which engineered the Ministerial Strike in October 2007; the first in the world. We know how coalition governments are dissolved, but, anyway, this is beside our point now. The only reason for the strike was to remove Dr Lam Akol from the Cabinet. After the walkout, Salva Kiir reshuffled the SPLM component of the Government and moved me to the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs. The new lineup was announced by the President and a date for taking the oath of office was fixed and arrangements were in place in the Republican Palace for the occasion.

At the last minute the group persuaded Salva Kiir to postpone the occasion and insisted to continue the strike. It was only when my name was dropped from the lineup that the SPLM went back to the Cabinet. I continued as a member of the Political Bureau of the SPLM and a member of National Parliament representing SPLM. Again obstacles were put on my way. For instance, in April, my car was shot at near Malakal by unknown assailants resulting in the killing of my bodyguard and the driver. In the same month, I was denied getting into Kodok town by an SPLM Commissioner using the SPLA. After that I was refused to address the public in Kaka and Wadakona by the SPLM Commissioner (who was previously an SAF intelligence Sergeant when I was commander of the area) and the SPLA commander. I raised complaints to Salva Kiir on these incidences to no avail. I still keep copies of these letters of complaint. Can you imagine junior Party members preventing a member of the Political Bureau from interacting with the public without orders from above?

Then came the SPLM convention in 2008, and my name was left out of the members Salva Kiir appointed to the Political Bureau. This was as a result of pressure from the same group. Things did not stop at that. There followed a sustained campaign of character assassination against me in the daily newspapers and even on South Sudan TV. I again raised the matter to Salva Kiir as the Chairman of the SPLM, again in vain.

I am not complaining, only pointing out facts that you rightfully requested in your open letter. Thus, it is abundantly clear that I had no choice but to leave with my dignity intact, unless you want me to be like Dr Riek Machar who you are now complaining against as an opportunist. Was not the war about our dignity?

If we were all these years complaining about the Arabs treating us as *second class* citizens why would one accept it in a party that is presumably ones choice?

Dr John Garang used to lecture to SPLA soldiers that *oppression has no particular colour*; oppressors could be white, red, black or even your own brother. I and others with me refused to accept humiliation. Such was the birth of SPLM-DC in June 2009. If our country has still a long way to go to embrace liberal democracy, it has to start somewhere, and this must be done by some people who dedicate themselves to the cause of multi-party democracy regardless of the thorny road to be traversed. Even in the West, democracy came at a huge human cost. Shortcuts in politics could sometimes be more damaging.

By now you should be in a position to answer your own question whether, even if I were to stoop down to do that, I could ask Salva Kiir to pick me a ministry that I can make exemplary for the rest of the country. That is not only beyond idealism; it is wishful thinking to believe that President Salva, who succumbed to pressures to exclude me from a cabinet position in 2007 government reshuffle, would hand me a ministry to use as a prototype.

As to my absence during the flag-raising ceremony on 9th July 2011, I have said and written a lot about it. It cannot be isolated from the reason why I was not in Juba before then. Your rhetorical question that who the hell is Kiir? is what you did not think through more realistically. For starters, he is the President of the Republic and the Commander-in-Chief of the SPLA, among his other titles. In that capacity he has the control of the institutions that monopolize the instruments of violence.

Did you not hear that the Leader of the official Opposition was beaten by the security and lost his teeth on the 7th of July 2011 for no reason other than celebrating the independence of South Sudan? So I had to talk to Salva Kiir in Nairobi, not the other way round, to give me assurances on my security in Juba. I am thankful that he did. That is what took me to Juba and spent two months there. Nevertheless, the group had the upper hand and things relapsed, but this is a matter that does not concern us here.

The Son of my Brother,

Sincerely, you confuse me in what I see as conflicting pieces of advice you are giving me. In one breath you criticize Dr Machar, and rightly so, for being unable to do something in his position, but at the same time you advise me to join the deformed SPLM and its government. If I accept such an advice, this would be where really the SPLM will be right to see me as a selfish political opportunist after his own political agenda as you put it. Without changing the structure of an institution, individuals, however gifted they may be, cannot do much. The pragmatism you are calling for, is for me synonymous with opportunism.

Far from your assertion that my brain is being wasted on theoretical propositions just like some of you, I happen to believe in the infinite capacity of our people to understand their own situation and effect change. You are unfortunately absolutely wrong to think that our people cannot or have not been sensitized enough to size up the misrule meted on them by the SPLM. You yourself admit that the self-righteousness within SPLM is suffocating and disastrous for the country.

How many South Sudanese would have reached this conclusion three years ago or even a year ago? And if they did, how many will say so publicly? A few days ago there was a popular demonstration in Juba against the giving away to Sudan of Mile 14 Area. Was that not due to awareness? Could it have come without the other point of view?

Education is a slow process but because it is worth pursuing we never tire of doing so. And it obviously needs brains too! Do not forget that it takes 16 years for a normal student to earn a University degree! Achievement can only happen under a conducive environment.

Joining a deformed and suffocating SPLM, as you correctly described the unruly ruling party or its corrupt government would be the height of opportunism. This is why it is crucially imperative to acknowledge that the brains that strive to bring about change are not being wasted. Remember, the best practice is founded on well grounded theory(ies).

Stay well, the son of my brother, and keep the books coming. Some people will definitely read them.

Thank you.

Uncle Dr Lam Akol.

The clouds of change in Republic of South Sudan

BY: ELHAG PAUL, RSS, OCT. 30/2012, SSN;
*Any leadership that will overthrow (my)… regime militarily will not be recognised by the international community,* President Kiir lectured the SPLA in Bilpham on 16th October 2012 according to Sudan Tribune. What is going on in the presidents mind? Why is he appearing desperate to ward off challenges to his regime from internal state actors? For a military president to sound so desperate does not bode well for the country. Has he lost the handle?

President Kiir should by now know that he has squandered every opportunity that has come his way right from 2005 to date. The chronology of failures is so long that even the blind now detest his leadership. Whether it is tribalism, corruption, incompetence, abuse of human rights, failure in diplomacy and you name it, president Kiir and his SPLM Oyee party excel in it. He and his party are so good in doing all the negative things in the world.

So far in only one year of independence they drove the country into a failed state, a record no country, not even Somalia has set since the emergence of nation-states in the medieval period. Thanks to SPLM and its ideology of Dinkocracy for scoring this record.

The desperation exhibited by president Kiir in his address to the SPLA is an indication that he is losing grip on power. His authority has been weakened further by the challenges his own people of Bahr El Ghazal posed to the recent co-operation agreement signed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. President Kiir is now at his lowest ebb and it is clear that he as a general and commander-in-chief has lost authority and respect of the rank-and-file of his own gangisterized army.

A similar situation his predecessor Dr Garang experienced in the Rumbek meeting of November 2004. Endless advice to president Kiir from well meaning quarters to professionalise the army, and separate it from the party fell on deaf ears. He and his party preferred to keep SPLA as the army of the RSS in its present form. It is only a matter of time before he is pushed aside by one of the strongest gang in the SPLA conglomerate.

President Kiir by waving the card of *international community* to frighten his own army of gangs holding pockets of power within the centre from overthrowing him shows that he is confused and delusional. People who have decided to overthrow a government militarily always do so after having decided to take the ultimate risk to their lives and they would not flinch from schoolboy speak.

Nevertheless, president Kiir may have a point. The world is less tolerant of military coups. This is because the institution of the army (professionally) is not meant to meddle in the affairs of state management. The remit of the army is strictly to protect the country and its citizens from harm under civilian democratic governance. Equally the international community is less tolerant of dictators and totalitarian regimes like president Kiirs one.

The era of coups and dictators is long gone with the cold war. During that period coups were rampant and the leading powers of the time (US representing the West and Russia representing communism) used to promote them a lot to gain their interests. However, with the coming down of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the triumph of the neoliberal ideology, coups have become undesirable. The various political and economic blocks of the world influenced by the changes have inserted clauses into their constitutions to outlaw it.

For example the Commonwealth countries are all agreed not to accept any of its members led by putschists. The African Union charter like the Commonwealth one prohibits coups and any of its member state involved with such behaviour may find itself isolated via sanctions or possibly AU military intervention. So in this regard, president Kiir would be right to assume that the international community will come to his rescue in an event of a coup. After all the events in Mali is a pointer. Military officers in Mali took over the government and they had to give it up within a short time following sustained pressure by the international community.

However, motivated military officers pushed to the corner by a corrupt totalitarian regime may not care of the consequences of their action in which case it is a waste of time to try to dissuade them in a manner that reflects weakness.

If president Kiir genuinely wants to stop coup taking place in RSS he needs to immediately initiate far reaching reforms throughout his failed government. Better still if he calls for formation of a government of national unity bringing all actors inside and outside the country together to a conference where the problems of the country will be deliberated upon. Such an action will remove the need for unlawful intervention by members of the SPLA.

Looking at President Kiir lecture at Bilpham from another angle it reveals the delicate political situation in RSS. Of late things have deteriorated badly and the president seems to be panicking. The manner in which he rushed from Kampala, Uganda, straight to address the SPLA at Bilpham belies the image of a popularly loved strong man. Gone are the hey days when the opportunists surrounded him and showered him with lavish praises even when they knew that the man was not up to the job.

But they had a reason, which was self enrichment which worked. The president being gullible felt loved and believed the flattery of the miscreants around him and in return he allowed them to loot the country dry with impunity. He is now fully responsible for the mess and no doubt any future administration will hold him to account. He has unknowingly thrown away the prestige and honour that came with the independence of the country.

Rather than being seen as a hero the president is now seen and rightly so as a villain and huge liability. Heroes are saviours and caring people. They are not looters, abusers of human rights and destroyers. So the self praise the SPLM/A members accord themselves as heroes and saviours has no ground anymore. Their poor governance and uncivilised behaviour have exposed their true characters and their claims to glory increasingly looks stuff of delusion.

This delusion which no doubt also infected the president appears to make him to think and believe that the international community will save him if he is overthrown by the SPLA. Neither the international community nor his rebellious SPLA will save the president. The international community is not only feed up with his poor governance but dismayed with his inability to interact with them positively. If he is removed they may not shed a tear for him. In fact they may even breath a sigh of relief.

On the other hand currently the SPLA is more disillusioned than at any other time in its history due to the growing fissures in its structure of gangs and lack of adequate leadership. The jockeying for power by the various gangs in SPLA in itself is one of the reasons for the instability and non stop rumours of coups in the country. With this development it would be surprising for the SPLA to be sympathetic to the president. This leaves the president with only one option, seeking redemption through acting wisely.

He can save himself by taking the bold decision of dissolving his government and replacing it with a government of national unity consisting of all stake holders. Anything short of such an act may not work and his rebellious army will remain a thorn in his throat.

Although the world presently discourages coups which decent people around the globe support, this phenomenon since the dawn of globalisation two decades ago has been replaced by intervention from non state actors. In a sense coups have been replaced with various types of popular uprisings. Some peaceful and others violent. All in search for genuine democracy or other forms of governance such as the current wind of change blowing through the Arab world. The fake regimes that call themselves democracies such as the SPLM led government of president Kiir are in for a shock. They can come in *sheep cloth*, they can shout all the slogans of democracy and they can lie but they will not escape the wrath of the people. This is a simple rule of life made clear by the saying, *You can fool the people for some of the time but not all the time*.

The unpleasant and toxic environment engulfing the country today is the result of president Kiir and his SPLM Oyee party misrule. Since they returned from bush and assumed power in 2005, they have indulged in unnecessary excesses in tribalism, corruption, violence and abuse of human rights. This has now motivated many people to seek ways of changing the system.

Juba, the under developed capital of this nascent state is now awash with daily stories of attempted coups. Since July 2012 hardly a day passes without talk of a failed coup. Therefore, it was not a surprise to learn from the president during his lecture to the SPLA at Bilpham about a coup. The president announced the detention of Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec as a suspect and also a collaborator (please see Sudan Tribune of 16th October 2012)

Now, the Nuer Youth have entered the fry demanding the release of Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec. The fact that the Nuer Youth are taking matters into their own hands in demanding the release of their own shows the level of distrust between the people and the GoSS.

In a normal functioning state, government agents should not be protected by their tribesmen. The constitution should be the protector of every citizen in the land. But given the glaring failures of the system in GoSS, who can blame the Nuer Youth.

The justice department and the law and order agents (who mostly come from one tribe) have consistently violated the constitution without any regard for the consequence that would emerge from their negligence and abuse of it. Take for example, the killings of innocent citizens by police as in the case of John Lewis and the execution of George Othor by the army without any due process. In both cases there have not been any enquiries to establish the truth; attempt to account to the relatives of the deceased and for the state to learn lessons from these sad incidents

Two days ago I had discussion with a Nuer friend on the subject. He was adamant that president Kiir was playing divide and rule politics by scapegoating Maj. Gen. Gatwec. According to this friend, the trick is to divide the Nuer community by making one Nuer incarcerate the other to sow seeds of bitter divisions among them. Once the Nuer are divided president Kiir can then get rid of those Nuer he does not like from the army and government by using those loyal to him with the ultimate result being a politically weakened and decimated Nuer community that poses no threat to the status quo.

There is some sense in this simple but powerful analysis. Sounds like what happened in Equatoria from 1983 to date. Equatorians could only join SPLM/A as individuals and remain isolated individuals. By being isolated they automatically become weak and vulnerable. They are not allowed to be in groups because group thinking and group action are the basis of power. The leaders of the movement themselves preached and implemented what they do not practise. They fragmented others while regrouping themselves to consolidate power and dominate the rest.

This SPLM/A Machiavellian policy is responsible for disempowering Equatorians to the extent that they are made to feel ashamed and unpatriotic to talk about their rights and interest in the system. It rings bells. SPLM/A are masters of the animalistic behaviour of isolate and kill. Watch the carnivorous groups like lions, hyenas, wild dogs in wild life films, they always single out the weakest member of the preyed herd, isolate it and then kill it.

During the reign of the late Dr Garang, he practised *isolate and kill* to devastating end to the extent of fragmenting families. He set brother against brother, son against father, sister against sister, daughter against mother, nephew against uncle, niece against aunt and so on. The ugliest scenarios are those where a brainwashed relative of the victim (executed or murdered by SPLM/A) become the justifier of the heinous act.

Today, it is a fact in RSS that the Nuer is the only group that poses threat to Jieng hegemony by virtue of their accidental numerical presence in the SPLA. It is no secret that the Jieng are perturbed by this anomaly which only happened after 2005 when the various Nuer armed groups were allowed by instruments in the CPA to come under the SPLA. Historically and this continues to date, the rivalry between these two groups has been an uneasy one laced with deep distrust.

In light of the above and the present circumstance where rumours of coup are rife it would be wise for the leadership in Juba to handle the detention of Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec with utmost care and fairness. Such care and fairness also should be extended to all those political detainees languishing in torture houses of SPLM/A. These arbitrary detentions without due processes are the very reason why this government has failed and people are looking for ways to bring it down

Finally, president Kiir can not talk his regime of failures out of removal from power by waving the international community as his protector. The clouds of change began forming out of his poor governance; the speculations of coups; the gathering discontent expressed on the outset by the Nuer Youth at home and in Diaspora; and Governor Paul Malong Awan bitter complaints about Mile 14.

These concerns are coagulating into the storm that eventually sweeps the SPLM Oyee away once and for all from the political space of RSS.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and not of the website)

Mr. Nice Guy and Mr. Whimsical: An open letter to Dr. Machar and Dr. Lam Akol

BY: KUIR E GARANG, ALBERTA, CANADA, OCT. 29/2012, SSN; So get your coffee or beer because this going to be a bumpy ride.
As someone who grew up under the enigmatic leadership of SPLM/A, and suffered through the unfortunate, yet incoherent split of SPLA/M in 1991, I think its time for me to write this piece. However, this piece is rather a policy position inquiry to our *learned* and *famed* PhDs.

For those who are prone to misunderstanding, the letter is meant to ask questions that would move the country forward. It is not to question why the SPLM split in 1991. I know the reasons presented in 1991 and the reasons that continue to be given. I am just inquiring as an inquisitive young South Sudanese poet and author.

Our country was born just over a year ago, but it is now suffering from the worlds famed ills of *Afronomy.* The chronic ailments in all African sociopolitical and socioeconomic environments are well-known so I am not going to delve into the contents of Afronomy.

To make this article sensible, I will start with some of the things our two leaders chronicled in 1991.
Chief of the complaints against Dr. John Garang was his dictatorial or one-man leadership style. SPLM under Garang was presented as an organization in which decisions were made without consulting the top leadership of the movement; people were killed anyhow (at time ritually) without any due legal procedure being followed. There was also no formalized leadership structure or coherent policy positions other than what Garang decided and instituted. For those who have read SPLM Manifesto; it is nothing but a piece out of George Orwells 1984.

The two PhDs also lamented Garangs incoherent and costly vision of *New Sudan* so they wanted to change course and fight for the total independence of South Sudan.

In short, the leaders wanted to liberalize and democratize SPLM, pitch a coherent and attainable cause and goal for the people of South Sudan and present Garang as a man who had confused his own political agenda and vision for the country, with the aspirations of South Sudanese.

Remember, I am paraphrasing, so forgive me if some points veer badly away. So that is my two cents. So what happened to the two *PhDs* since then? I will have to ask them some questions and make some comments.

So why only the two of us, you may ask?

I do believe the two of you are able to change South Sudan in a positive light. I chose the two of you because I know you had the chance to look at issues outside the SPLM circle for some times. The self-righteousness within SPLM is suffocating and disastrous for the country.

I believe if the two of you change course and start being doers not talkers, then good things can happen in South Sudan.

    Dr. Riek Machar: Mr. Nice Guy!

Dr. Riek Machar, you are the second most powerful man in South Sudan so I would assume you can now implement the agenda of 1991. I have to confess, for those who have read the policy paper of the two of you in 1991; the paper was appealing on face value. If all the things narrated in the policy position were implemented in the manner they were documented, South Sudan could be a different place now; a peaceful, prosperous place. But what happened? We know what happened.

The two of you ended up in Khartoum and back in SPLM. So Dr. Riek Machar, your vision for South Sudan was thwarted by your disagreement with Dr. Akol, your eventual split and your consequential tribalization of the national agenda. That was then.
But why are you not implementing your 1991 vision since you now have some power to do so?

Why are journalists being intimidated? Why is Kiir vested with so much power that everyone in Juba fears the Presidency? Why are the national security agents censoring newspaper articles? Why are young people not given programs to help them prosper? Why are church leaders being censored?

Why is our economy controlled by foreigners, who hardly pay taxes while our people languish in unemployment?

Why is SPLM still undemocratic? Why is the case that there is no coherent policy framework in the SPLM and the government of South Sudan? Is it not this part of what you lamented in 1991?

Why do you demean yourself in cases such as threatening to block the registration of SPLM-DC? You split with Garang, supposedly, because of such dictatorial tendencies so what in the name of the Jewish son are you doing? Why are you not presenting a clear strategic position of your government?

So when Dr. Garang did these things then they were bad but when you and Kiir do them then they are not bad. It looks like you are *Mr. Nice Guy* afraid to make mistakes. 1991 was a fundamental policy and principle differences terribly gone wrong

It appears to me that 1991 was orchestrated by Dr. Lam in its entirety and that you had nothing absolutely to do with the split. You were just used by Dr. Lam as a question of numbers advantage.

If I am wrong and that you actually had the interest of the country in heart then, why then are you quite on policy and human rights wise as the country continues to slide into uncertainty? You need to come out in force and represent your government just like you did (I think) in 1991 policy-wise, if at all you did actually contributed anything in 1991.

Young people are just wondering. You just postulate issues that make people like me wonder: Where has the brain of Dr. Riek Machar gone to? Has he attained the things he wanted so he does not care anymore about helping the country move forward? Or does he want to kowtow to Kiir for a chance to be anointed the next president? Or is he just twice shy?

Dr. Riek, I am confused and you need to come clean. I want to believe that you are not an opportunist, who has found what he wanted and does not want to ruffle feathers anymore. Speak up!

Dr. Riek Machar, many people admire your courage to come back to the SPLM after the atrocities of 1991. That was a selfless act and it shows critical minds that you at least have some interest of the people in heart (Well others might say …mmm… after what? …he had failed). But that is beside the point.

You are letting South Sudanese down and you are letting young people like me down. Those with you in the government have never seen things from the outside but you did. Speak up!

    Dr. Lam Akol: *Mr. Whimsical!*

With your savvy prose and suave political postulates (not arguments though), you have convinced (not that I did not know) someone like me that you were the brain behind 1991. From the time you were Sudans foreign minister to the time you formed SPLM-DC, to your absence during South Sudans independence celebration; all have something to tell South Sudanese. I must confess I admire your eloquence and evasive canniness.

I also admire your almost pious idealism. You have grandeur idealism that I only see with young people. What you need to know with South Sudanese though is that idealism is something they are yet to understand. As a foreign Minister, you were representing Sudan and that was what you did, efficiently. That was the ideal thing to do given your job description. However, South Sudanese wanted you to represent their voice. I just do not understand how you could represent the country abroad and talk against it! This is something South Sudanese did not grasp or did not want to grasp.

You accepted the ministerial post knowing that you had to present the Sudanese position to the world; and that position was not for the interest of South Sudanese people. This makes me wonder. Why did you accept this position with no qualm given that dilemma? Do not tell me it was Kiir because he had no idea what he was getting into. They wanted you to clean the Sudanese image abroad! Uh!

If your interest is South Sudan, then why did you represent the Sudanese position? If you were cornered by the role you had to play (Which I understand because that is the position you had to represent) then why did you accept the position? Or why did you not resign?

It all comes down to one thing: you did it for your own political agenda; to present your face to the world. This makes me wonder if you used Dr. Riek in 1991 in the same vain: at the expense of the people.

When you were removed from the ministry of foreign affairs, you went ahead and formed a party in a country that still has a long way to go to embrace liberal democracy. Why did you not take one ministry and make it exemplary for the rest of the country? You could have asked Kiir to give you one ministry, reform it, and make it immutable to the rest.

What we need now in South Sudan is not someone to tell people to do things. You have to show them how to do things. You are more than capable of changing South Sudan but your political ambitions just stand in the way of your helping our people.

If you had taken one ministry and made it exemplarily functional, you could have mocked the rest of ministers; telling them that *this is how you run a ministry!* You could have shamed them by telling them that *my ministry is almost free of tribalism, corruption and my achievements are there for the rest to see.* You can guess how South Sudanese could have regarded you. Good examples in deeds indeed!

Imagine yourself taking over ministry of Transport, take the funds allocated to the ministry and make the major roads functional; accounting for every dime. You could have been a messiah in South Sudan.

But you chose to form a party in a political landscape in which political opposition is a misunderstood phenomenon. You knew this very well but you went ahead anyway. I know you write press releases and present policy positions but SPLM is a party of despots and you know they will never listen to you. You split in 1991 and then again to form SPLM-DC. This sounds like deja vu even if it is under different circumstances.

And oh, your absence during July 9, 2011 independence celebration is selfish, unwise and detrimental to your political ambition in South Sudan. It tells me you do not put the interest of the country before anything else. Can you tell South Sudanese what, in the name of the living deities, did you not you come? So Kiir had to talk to you in Nairobi for you to come to your own country? A country for which you dodged bullets? Nice political stunt!

But who the hell is Kiir? South Sudan does not belong to Kiir. I might be young and naive but hey, Uncle Lam, you did not think that through.

Now, your brain is being wasted on theoretical propositions just like some of us. So you call sensitizing South Sudanese and an achievement? That is what the likes of us are supposed to do, Uncle Lam. Be a doer not a reminding mind of the doers!

You could have effected many changes within the deformed, to use Dr. Garang word, SPLM. Now outside, you understand this better than anyone in South Sudan; they will never take you seriously. They will always see you as a selfish political opportunist after his own political agenda. And you know they say things without any evidence. And people will indict you on those things because we are in a country in which people do not think for themselves. Cult of personalities!

Look at what your 1991 friend is doing! Whatever happened to Dr. Riek Machar in Juba beats the living logic out of me. He is just there. Now, you are outside the decision making process of South Sudan and you are just there.

Stop being an idealist and be pragmatic. The times for your kind of idealism will come with people thirty years younger; or leave it to us. Stop talking and start doing!

By the way, multi-party democracy is a necessity in our country, so do not get me wrong. Timing of such is also a necessity, and you know that.

Kuir e Garang is a South Sudanese author, poet, publisher and word artist living in Calgary, Canada. Kuir has authored four books and the upcoming nonfiction book, (Is Black Really Beautiful?) The book tackles Race, Color and Racism in a more Afro-centered manner. For more information visit Kuir webpage: www.kuirthiy.info. Or follow him twitter @kuirthiy

To Nuer Youth Executive: Why not join hands with other young people in the country?

BY: Tearz Ayuen, JUBA, OCT. 27/2012, SSN;
DEAR NUER YOUTH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: I read your press release in which you are calling for immediate release of your chairman, Peter Tut Hoth and SPLA Major General Simon Gatwec Dual, who got detained by the alleged Dinka security agents recently. In the press release, you also urge every Nuer in the government to resign from Salva Kiirs government. That is interesting!

You even *de-nuered* the SPLA Chief of General Staff, James Hoth Mai, for having not supported your cause. He must be thinking himself to death now, trying to figure out which tribe to relocate to. And whether there is any tribe willing to welcome him? Oh poor Mai!

Anyway,
What is Nuer Youth Executive?
Is it a political party?
Or is it a civil society organization?
What are its goals?
When was it formed?
Does the government recognize it?
What does it intend to achieve in the next 2 years, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years?
Where is it headquartered? – Its physical address?
Who funds your projects?

There is something I do not understand here. Your chairman was detained by the government, the very government a Nuer son is the second most powerful man. Besides, hundreds of Nuer sons are holding strategic positions in the government. So, what makes you think that the Dinka, the whole tribe of about 4 million people, is behind the arrest of Tut?

If the Dinka government was picking on Nuer youth at random, why did the military intelligence not pick Lam Tungwar or Manasseh Mathiang or any other Nuer youth? Why Peter Tut?

I am not sure if you are aware that there is a government, a democratically elected government that is running the affairs of South Sudan, with the help of a constitution. They call it South Sudan Transitional Constitution. It contains rules and regulations that guide the activities of the government and the citizens.

As a youth group of today, you cannot call for a release of an individual the government is holding over some sort of a crime. It is illegal. If you do, others will regard you as a tribal head. And you do not respect the constitution. But you can pressure the government to speed up the judicial process: trial, hearing. And that is if you are a registered institution.

Yes, threatening the authorities to release criminals is a guerrilla-war-era way of tackling issues of public concern, and is a bad idea at these critical times. Keep in mind that I am not saying Tut is guilty of whatever the government has accused him of, but I am just encouraging you to go it the proper channel.

Again, I am not saying you are an illegitimate group but I am afraid, I doubt your legitimacy. If you are a registered body of whatever kind and the government knows you, why do you tribalize the arrest of Tut to an extent of asking members of Nuer community to leave the government?

Here is a secret. You are not the only youth group that does not like the way the government is managing the affairs of South Sudan. The youth have a common enemy – the ruling SPLM party which is made up of our aunts and uncles. Do you not think it is about time every young South Sudanese ceases being a kuku, Murle or Anyuak?

Millions of youth are yearning for a change. Why can you not join hands for a bigger, stronger and smarter body that could act as a mouthpiece for all the young people in the country?

You have a beautiful name though… Nuer Youth Executive Council!
Yours sincerely,
Your brother from another tribe called South Sudan. Tearz Ayuen, a journalist based in Juba. Thanks.

Cold and hot wars: The contentious animosity between Nuer and Dinka tribes of South Sudan

BY: STEPHEN PAJOK KONG, USA, OCT. 25/2012, SSN;

Since our country officially became independent on July 9, 2011, which was our collective success, our jubilation faded away after a couple of months because there are people in South Sudan government who cling on their own tactics to fight a cold war against the people of South Sudan, or Nuer tribes, in particular. For the past seven and half years, a millions of dollar has been spent on destruction and trying to bribe others to help a few leaders build their own Empire, for some it is just a shrinking business, for many these was money that should have been better spent on building peace or on development in South Sudan.

I want to take you back to the genesis of contentious animosity between the two cousins, Nuer and Dinka. I have been thinking why there is an enormous hatred between these tribes, because I have been seen the twisted face of hatred. In 1988 we crammed on the Red Tank routed from Baydit of Manyadeng as the local people call it, to Anyidi then to Ajakger and from Ajakger to Gumuruk of Murle territory, an overweight captain three times my size, by the name of Thon Lual slapped me on the face just because I said something in Nuer language.

The only thing I remember was hearing Mr. Lual saying, *NYAGAAT CIN RAN JAM THONGE NUER.* From there on I changed. Not only because I was slapped, but because I was much disturbed by the blatant outpouring of joy from the other Dinka boys who are clearly glad because a Nuer son was humiliated.

South Sudan is a country today, it must be a good idea if we go back and seriously pondered on the worst deeds we did to ourselves. I go back on time and discover that the contentious animosity between Dinka and Nuer was a chronic disease that we needed to give some consideration before we talk about a country and development. Let us go back to what I term as Cold and Hot War: Contentious animosity between Nuer and Dinka.

Dinka Cold War against Nuer:
In the year 1839, when an Egyptian expedition flotilla which tried to discover the source of the White Nile approached a Nuer village on the east bank of Bahr Al-jabal, known today as Fangak, that was inhabited by Jagei Laak and Thiang, the villager flocked to the shore of the river to look at the new sight of large sailing vessels on the river. With the same gesture typical to the Nuer when faced with a surprise, they sacrificed an Ox before returning to their villages.

The Egyptians, however, were confused about the killing of an animal, and then their suspicious where confirmed by a Dinka soldier serving as interpreter, who maliciously and wrongly told the Egyptians that the killing of the animal by the Nuer meant that they were ready to kill you.

Next day, the Nuer villagers returned with gift of goats and tobacco to the Egyptian boat, but when the Dinka soldier again told his masters that the tobacco was poison, the Egyptian soldiers instantaneously opened fire, killing one Nuer, and wounding a few. At this point, Nuer hostility toward foreigners was pushed into high gear. This was intentionally done by the Dinka soldier who regarded Nuer as powerful enemies against Dinka. (Wilson 1903-13)

Again in 1899, the Dinka Leaders who contacted the new government with the stories of Nuer atrocities and belligerence were the same leaders who had been expulsed by Ngundeng and expelled by Deng Lakka. Since they became the government they became subjects whom the government was honor bound to protect. Their largely unfounded report against Nuer aggression forced the government to the legendary confrontation with Ngundeng. Subsequently, the governor of Upper Nile province led patrols against Lou Nuer, the most important homestead of Gun Lou Nuer which was burned and much of their livestock captured.

Despite the despoliation by government soldiers and their Dinka auxiliaries, Ngundeng and most of Lou refused to give battle, it was later confirmed by Dinka informants that Nuer give up fighting because they always felt sorry for Nyarraweng (Nuer-Bil) and Ngok Dinka whom always enjoyed good relationship with Nuer and never wanted trouble. (Wilson 1905)

Another Dinka Cold War against Nuer:
In 1983-84 the jubilation from South Sudanese to join the SPLA/M Liberation force was enormous compared to the jubilation to vote for referendum. Both are reverses by SPLA/M of it being tribalistic, and racist movement as it was and up to date. For the first time of its inception the conduct of SPLA forces was chaotic, with many murders against the civilian population. Especially against Eastern Nuer of Gajaak who had good relation with the separatist movement of Anyanya II.

From the commencement of the movement early inauguration between 1983-7, the SPLM political deployment took a sharp on the tribal line where the Twich Dinka were given significant opportunity for a reason to join and attain military strategic places, with the purpose to defend themselves against the neighboring tribes such as Nuer, Murle, Toposa and Mundari. As it was clear when John Garang gave a speech in Fugnido Refugee camp in 1989, seventy five percent of his speech was all against Late Samuel Gai Tut Yang, Nyanya I, Nyanya II, and their so-called wicked belief for South Sudan independence.

This proved my suspicions that John Garang was a tangible Arab proxy who tried to stop Southerners from achieving their goal of South-Sudan independence. As the story suggested that Garang was not part of revolution, he first tried to stop it, but when things got tough, he followed them anyway to keep his dirty secret of making sure South-Sudan independence will not be achieved.

I should say, unapologetically, in a heart-beat that his death was a blessing in disguise, for Southerners, but great tragedy to the people of Abyei, Nuba Mountains and Ingesena, who all shared his view of a secular united Sudan.

NUER HOT WAR AGAINST DINKAS
When the historic Nasir declaration was announced on August 28, 1991, by two former members of the High Command of the SPLA, Riek Machar and Lam Akol issued a radio message that called for the removal of Garang from leadership. Initially, Machar and Akol blamed their defection from the SPLA/M on the dictatorial leadership of Garang, and on the accusation that Garang committed countless human rights abuses against SPLA/M members. This announcement opened a huge door for Nyanya II rebels who had great grumbles against the SPLA/SPLM leader and his Dinka tribe.

Nyanya II rebels quickly rushed to Bor areas in great excitement for the first time in a decade, and the result was historic. Beich State commander, Simon Gatwich Dual, who is recently now arrested by Dinka conspirators in Juba, was the commander who protected Bor Dinka from being attacked by Anyanya II groups, since he became an ally who offered no resistance and the result was catastrophic.

ANOTHER DINKAS COLD WAR AGAINST NUER:
For the first time in the history of Nuer and Dinka animosity, Late George Athors army killed forty seven civilian in Fangak County in the summer of 2009, and for second time in 2011, after South Sudan referendum vote. Again late George army killed one hundred and thirty two (132) civilians in Phom Chuol Deang. Then Fangak sons and daughters in the army intervened. Now Fangak people are happy that late George Athor is too power-less to kill them again. Hey, they cannot be too sure.

SPLA/M soldiers with big guns opened fire on Fangak Nuer indiscriminately on men, women and even children after a battle with fighters belonging to their minority ethnic group, killing and wounding hundreds of civilians, according to witness accounts contained in confidential U.N. reports. A U.N. team that traveled to the Nile River village 11 days after the April 23 killings saw more than two dozen corpses and said grass-roofed mud huts clearly contained many more bodies, the team confirmed the death toll of two hundred and fifty seven (254) dead civilians.

But the number given by a local official is 389 which have not been independently verified by UN-teams. Despite all these killings, Junglei state authority never paid a visit to Fangak County. All these killings are taking place in Fangak Nuer, plus various massacres of over a thousand people in Uror, Akobo and Mayom Counties from western Nuer. If you do the math, a quarter of people who voted for the independence of South Sudan are robbed of their lives by their own government which claimed to protect them only a couple of months before they celebrated the birth of South Sudan Nation.

Inarguably, the worst part is there is no justice for their lives, and worse than this, the military prison somewhere in Equatoria is stamped with people who has been wrongfully accused of trying to assassinate Benydit Salva Kiir Mayardit. People, if SPLA/M learned anything from its extensive failure and butchery, they should recognize that Samuel Gai Tut Yang death will forever stalk the SPLM down for many years to come, unlike the death of hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese leaders who are slayed in cold blood by those fictitious to-be the leaders of our nation today, shame on them.

In conclusion, I should argue that our government violent attitude toward its own citizens would produce more militants and more crimes, but less economic stability. For example, killing of Nuer in all four counties, intimidation methods, persecution without due process, incarceration punishment, would produce public outcry.

The fact that the government claims to be a democratic government, it should act like one. It should only react to unlawful violent behavior without any repression. That means to identify the criminal and disengage the suspect from wrong doing. In short, Southerners should declare an all-out war against outlaw militants and that should eradicate the bad elements in our society.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author and not the website)
For concern, comment or question please do not hesitated to part with me @ Pajok.kong@yahoo.com; stephenpajok@yahoo.com or nuerwarrior@yahoo.com
Thank and take care!!
Pajok Kong Kulang, USA:

Who will have the final word over the *Mile 14 Area*?

By: Justin Ambago Ramba, UK, OCT. 25/2012;

Following the 27th September agreement we have all known that things in Juba deteriorated immediately making an already bad situation to become worse. Politicians and citizens went bananas, especially so the elected Governor of Northern Bahr Ghazal (Aweil) who came out openly to denounce the inclusion of the *Mile 14 Area* within the would-be demilitarized zone along the ill-defined border between South Sudan and the Sudan. This marks a new chapter in the Arab encroachment on the Black African indigenous populations lands. This is a historical phenomenon in which the Black Africans have to continuously recede from the land and allow the movement of the Arab borders further south into the interior!

In the different Media Outlets, many South Sudanese have also expressed their disappointments on the different parts of the Salva Kiir administration since it has gone both politically and socio-economically bankrupt as a result of the poor leadership and widespread corruption.

On the other hand, President Salva Kiir and his Defense Minister wasted no time and rushed to Uganda to seek a long time allys advice none other than President Musseveni of Uganda who knows too well that underneath the New Two Sudans Accord lies a disaster for the entire region.

However, at this stage the embattled Truce at its face value definitely remains a Sudanese baby (shared responsibility between Juba and Khartoum) until proved otherwise. But considering the historical bumpy relationship that has existed between the two sides which stretches for well over a century, honoring of agreements in this part of the world is a thing hard to expect.

What followed in the two countries parliaments came as no surprise to anyone. It was not and still is not a thing that warrants anyone to be a genius to know in advance the positions of those MPs when it comes to endorsement of the government-led policies or agreements. The September Cooperation Agreement was not any different and therefore, it was easily ratified by both the SPLM-dominated parliament in Juba and its counterpart in Omdurman. Both institutions are identical in their compositions and function in a similar way, for both were created to rubber-stamped the parties policies.

But what surprised people including many members of the foreign diplomatic missions is that those who took to the streets as well as those who voiced their opposition to the Agreement either in the Media or otherwise are predominantly from the country northern front-line. This came as a shock to many given the fact that almost all those who by design represent the SPLM delegation to all the talks in Addis Ababa actually hail from these areas. Things obviously went this way, because the SPLM leadership has taken to the habit of taking the citizens for granted. And the fact that until now they are unable to successfully communicate the SPLM/NCP Cooperation Agreement to their home constituencies does speak loads.

However, the worrying development is no other but Governor Paul Malong Awan of Northern Bahr Ghazal position on the embattled September Cooperation Agreement. The defiant Governor came out very strongly right from the outset against the inclusion of the *14 Mile Area* in the would be demilitarized buffer zone between the two nations. The Governor position is also supported by many citizens from the Northern Bahr al Ghazal when they demonstrated in the streets of Juba.

But now that the country parliament has ratified the Cooperation Agreement in spite of the stern opposition from MPs from Northern Bahr al Ghazal State leaves some citizens and politicians with bitter tastes in their mouths. It also proves the point that the ruling party which holds 99.9% of the MP seats has gone to widen the ethnic and regional rift within the SPLM and the country at large.

Things did not end there as Governor Paul Malong Awan came back again very strongly and I quote: *The Governor of South Sudan Northern Bahr El Ghazal on Monday said that he will *fight* anyone who tries to take from his state a contested area on the border with neighboring Sudan*. (Sudan Tribune 22/10/12)

*We will fight the person who will take our land and the person who will give our land.* Governor Malong Awan stressed.

The above strong statements from the Governor will obviously raise eyebrows worldwide, but more so in New York and Addis Ababa. This is so because the issue of *Mile 14 Area* is now an integral part of the security arrangement between the governments of the two countries. Should the Governor go ahead to implement his threats then South Sudan will be witnessing the emergence of yet another armed opposition in Northern Bahr Ghazal.

However, the coming weeks will tell the rest of the story when the September Addis Ababa Cooperation Agreement moves to the implementation stage. As for now, the political atmosphere is gravid with so many uncertainties. With the UNSC Chapter Seven firmly held over the heads of President Salva Kiir and his counterpart President Al Bashir, all must abide with the African Union High Implementation Panel (AUHIP) brokered Agreement or risk the wrath of the International Community. At least this is what the UN Security Council resolution 2046 stands for.

Whichever way things go it is now clear that the new arrangements are about to consolidate the Abyei Area and now joined by *Mile 14 Area* as political hot spots. Nonetheless, the billion dollar question is: Who will have the final word over the *Mile 14 Area* given the huge discontent in Northern Bahr Ghazal State and especially so Governor Paul Malong Awan who seems to be ready to physically or militarily resist the inclusion of *Mile 14 Area* as part of this controversial agreement?

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author and not of the website)
Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba, Secretary General of the United South Sudan Party (USSP). He can be reached at: justinramba@aol.co.uk or justinramba@doctors.net.uk

North America’s Nuer Youth call for popular uprising

Press release
Nuer Community in Canada and USA
Date: 23/10/12, SSN;
After deliberating for three days, the intellectuals of Nuer community in Canada and USA composed of Youth, women and elders, came to the conclusion that the regime in Juba does not any longer represent the interests of the people of South Sudan because it has been busy implementing policies which target non-Dinka communities. The policies of extermination the regime in Juba employed started with the massacre of Shilluks in 2010 in Upper Nile State where the entire Shilluk Kingdom was burned to ashes. Up to now, Shilluk women are subject to rape and young men are arbitrarily detained without regard to law and due process. The mistreatment of Shilluks is documented by the US State Department in Country Report and nobody can question the ordeal our Shilluk brothers and sisters are going through in the hands of the rogue SPLA army commanded by war criminals.

The human rights abuses against innocent Murle people is well documented by UNMISS and Human Rights Watch. According to our sources, more than two thousands Murle women have been raped since the SPLA started disarmament in Jonglei state in May, 2012. The SPLA commander, Lt. Gen. Kuol Diem Kuol, is on record in defending mistreatment of Murle because he was given specific orders by Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit to use tactics which do not conform to international norms in the process of disarmament.

The raping of Murle women and the mistreatment of entire Murle community came about because Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir is on record saying that Murle people have infertility problem and the only way to increase their population by treating infertility is for SPLA army to rape their women. The SPLA army, which was sent to Murleland for disarmament, was given clear mandate, that is, raping Murle women was part of the treatment of infertility. Those who want to watch Gen. Kiir position on Murles infertility should go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhsQb8UR7AQ.

On October 14, 2012, Jonglei state MP from Murle community, Judi Jonglei Boyuris, rejected what he called the South Sudan armys (SPLA) treatment of members of the Murle ethnic group *as enemies* (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article44211). There is no question that the SPLA army in Murleland committed crimes against humanity in violation of the statute of International Criminal Court (ICC).

What remains is whether the international community would indict Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against an identifiable group like Murle. The SPLA leadership sent forces to Mureland with an intention of punishing them as MP Judi Jonglei Boyuris said. Unfortunately, the international community has let down Murle and up to now, Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir has not yet been indicted of committing war crimes.

On March, 30, 2012, the Nuer community in USA and Canada condemned the indiscriminate killings of ten Bari civilians in Komeru suburb of Juba between March, 4th and 5th. After conducting an investigation of the causes of the killings, the Nuer community concluded that the Bari civilians were deliberately targeted by members of the SPLA army because of their ethnicity. The investigation discovered that the land grabbers who defied demolition order of the State of Central Equatoria were acting under the orders of some SPLA generals who built houses in the same area that was supposed to be demolished.

The SPLA army land grabbers ordered the Dinka soldiers to shoot any member of Bari community to thwart the demolition order. The rationale for killing innocent Bari civilians was to contaminate the political environment in order to make it difficult for Central Equatoria State to carry out the demolition order.

RESOLUTION ON SUPPORTING THE NUER YOUTH IN JUBA
The leadership of the Nuer community in Canada and USA pledged its allegiance to Nuer Youth in South Sudan and agreed on the followings:

1. The executive leadership came to conclusion that the government of Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit has a policy to eliminate Nuer figures. The assassination of Lt. Gen. Gatluak Gai on July, 23rd, 2011, after signing peace on July, 19, is one indication that the Dinka leadership in Juba wants to eliminate Nuer figures one by one.

2. The policy of eliminating Nuer figures is something which dated back to 1980s when the SPLM/A under the leadership of late Col. John Garang assassinated Col. Samuel Gai Tut who was the leader of Anyanya II. His successor, Col. William Chuol Deng Luoth, was also assassinated by the SPLM/A. Moreover, after 1991 Nasir Declaration, more than seven hundred Nuer officers of the SPLA/M were murdered in cold-blood in Greater Equatoria and Bahr El Ghazal by the orders of the SPLM/A leadership. One of the architects of the policy of eliminating Nuer officers after Riek Machars coup of 1991 was the current sitting President of South Sudan.

3. The policies of assassinating Nuer figures continued up to present day. In March, 2011, the government of South Sudan agreed to make peace with forces of Maj. Gen. James Gai Yoach and told them to assemble at Mayom County. After luring them to a designated area in the name of peace, the forces of Maj. Gen. James Gai Yoach were attacked. Similar tactics were employed on April, 25th, 2011 when the SPLA forces attacked Maj. Gen. Gabriel Tang at Kaldak village after signing peace with him.

4. The policy of exterminating the Nuer was also manifested in the way the SPLM/A committed serious human rights abuses against the Nuer civil population since the inception of the Movement in 1983. The Nuer were the first Southern civil population that was ethnically cleansed and massacred by the SPLA forces in 1985. The first bullets of the SPLM/A Movement were fired at Eastern Nuer of Gajaak clan where over 26 villages were burned down to ashes, while the hundreds of innocent women, children and elderly peoples were murdered between 1985 and 1987. The policy of massacring Nuer population was also implemented in Fangak and Bul Nuer areas in the same period.

5. After the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the same policy of exterminating the Nuer was also implemented. Prior to the signing of the CPA, Dinka leaders of the SPLM/A secretly met in Yei and passed what is now known as *Thirty Nine Laws against the Nuer.* Among those laws was the plan to assassinate Nuer figures and exterminating civilians. In 2006, the SPLA army embarked on putting those policies into action in Nuerland under the pretext of disarming the civilians. Hundreds of villages were burned where girls and elderly women were raped. Extermination of Nuer civil population was also manifested in Kaldak village and Mayom County this year.

6. The policy of marginalizing the Nuer and other ethnic groups of the South is something that is done in broad daylight. Despite the fact that the Vice-president is a Nuer, marginalization and mistreatment of Nuer and other Southerners continued unabated. In most occasions, Dr. Riek Machar is not consulted by the President of South Sudan, Lt. Gen. Salva Kiir, because he is being used as a symbol to mask Dinka policies of dominating South Sudan by treating other ethnic groups as second class citizens.

7. Most institutions of the government of South Sudan are being dominated by Dinka tribe despite the fact that Dinka are only 25% of South Sudan population. Recently, President Salva Kiir appointed his own clansmen from his home town as Chief Justice of South Sudan Supreme Court and Chairman of the Bank of South Sudan. In 2009, the same Salva Kiir decided that oil refinery of the South will be built in his home state of Warrap instead in Unity State where oil comes from in order to take jobs to his state.

8. The Nuer Youth in Juba shall mobilize the Nuer in the world, particularly those in South Sudan, to defend their tribe from extermination and release Maj. Gen. Simon Gatwec Dual, Maj. Gen. Gabriel Tang, Maj. Gen. Mabor Dhol and Brig. Gen. Gatwec Joak. The Nuer Youth shall mobilize the Nuer in the villages to free themselves from Kiir regime.

9. The Nuer community in North America endorsed the dismissal of Lt. Gen. James Hoth Mai from Nuer community in the world. The Nuer community in North America also calls on Nuer leadership in Juba to jettison Thomas Tut Doap, John Luk, Riek Machar, Chuol Rambang and John Kong Nyuon from Nuer community as soon as possible.

10. The Nuer community has come to realization that Thomas Tut Doap, who is a Deputy Director General of Pensions and Social Insurance in Juba, was paid by Kiir regime to mobilize some elders who are only concerned for jobs to turn against the Nuer Youth mobilization against the regime. This man has been feeding on the blood of Nuer since 1983 and is known to have killed Nuer in the SPLM/A in 1980s.

CALL FOR POPULAR UPRISING IN SOUTH SUDAN
1. The Nuer community calls upon other tribes of the South to unite with the Nuer Youth to reverse Dinka domination in South Sudan which has replaced old Sudan Arabism and Islamism. There is no solution for ongoing human rights abuses in South Sudan except through popular uprising. The Youth in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya liberated their countries by going to streets to overthrow corrupt regimes which were feeding on the blood of young people. Therefore, the Nuer community calls upon Murle Youth, Equatoria youth, Shilluk youth and Dinka youth to unite with Nuer youth to topple the regime of dictator Salva Kiir Mayardit from power.

2. After the total destruction of the regime of Dictator Salva Kiir, the South Sudan youth shall establish a democratic government which will observe freedom of speech, expression, rule of law, justice and equality of all ethnic groups. Corruption and land grabbing in South Sudan will end only when the regime of Dictator Salva Kiir is overthrown.

Signed by,
Mr. Bidit Liech,
Head of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
Tel. (780) 607 0742

Elizabeth Nyachuol Tut,
Deputy Head of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA

Mr. Gatluk Chuol Reat,
Secretary of the Committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
Tel. (226) 600 2703
Email l.chuol@yahoo.com

Lul Gatkuoth Nguth
Tel. 55877100405
Member of the committee of Nuer community in Canada and USA
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the authors and not of the website)

In reaction to Nuer Youth outrageous message on Gen. Gatwic’s detention

BY: Thomas Tut Doap, JUBA, OCT. 23/2012, SSN;
As a mature and well-informed member of the Nuer community, I would like to enlighten the public at large that what has been circulating in the media these days is unbecoming, given the fact that it promotes the tribal sentiments. I have been closely following the events from all media outlets, but failed to see and hear any meaningful response from the members of our community, who are also members of our government.

Mr. Chuol Rambang, the Chairperson of the South Sudan Peace Commissions message does not carry enough weight to dissuade the negative ramifications that would be brought about by the youth actions, following Maj-Gen. Simon Gatwec detention.

For this author, if Gen. Simon Gatwec was arrested because of being a Nuer, as those youth wanted us to believe, the negative reaction would have started in Bilpam, where the Minister of Defence, the Chief of General Staff, and many more Generals are Nuer.

Having said that, this writer has all the rights and responsibilities to address this issue as follows:

1. Those Nuer youth who are trying to mingle things up by applying wrong information that will produce disaster to all innocent people must be adviced that we are in an independent country, where things must be done systematically.

2. Nuer Youth must be told that having a big gap with their elderly community will never solve their problem. I am saying this because, if what happened to Simon Gatwec was a wrong thing, our people who are in the leadership would have approached the president and advised him accordingly. Therefore, what they are trying to preach is and will not receive any support from our grown up community which is fully aware of what happened. As such, they must not allow themselves to be lugged into a situation they do not have more details about.

3. Gen. Isaac Mabutu Mamuor was detained by the same authority, which detained Gat Dual, but there was no negative reaction from Lutuku community. Does that mean Mabutu is not being loved by his people, or Lutuku are cowards? Where is Gen Mamuor today? He was released and re-instated into the Rank and File of the same Army. By applying violent behavior to release Uncle Gat Dual is only jeopardizing his future.

4. This country is now free and independent through Youth strength, but if you misuse your strength and turn against one another, then forget about your statement which said, *As youth, we believe that a peaceful South Sudan is our priority and will benefit us more than President Kiir who is getting old. The future of South Sudan belongs to the youth and we are the last sector of Nuer community to see South Sudan on fire.*

5. If history could not be a good teacher, then what are we going to learn from it? If being a Nuer is really what matters, why did most Nuer intellectuals and military officers desert Riek Machaars Nasir faction and re-join SPLM/A main stream led by Dinka? Please be advice to think big and open-minded. Observe, analyse and see things positively and in the big picture.

6. You are now calling for other tribes to help you fight Dinka. Take it from me here that that call has fallen into deaf ears. No single tribe will ever unite with Nuer to fight Dinka, they will only be making fun of you. Other tribes could unite with you only when you call them to win a peaceful and democratically conducted election. Gone are the yester-years when physical strengths were useful. We must use our intellectual power to correct things.

7. It never happened and never will happen to any President to be intimidated by a tribal youth organization which is acting in isolation to change an executive order. NBG (Northern Bahr elgazal state) youth had tried something like that, but miserably failed. Dinka Bor Youth organization had a similar call, but nothing changed.

Therefore, Maj. Gen Simon Gatwec Dual will be released when the time comes for that and not because the Nuer youth have declared war on Dinka. You are causing tribal tensions which could be exploited by our real enemies to harm the whole nation.

As long as the earth remains, there will be no Nuer government without Dinka and vice versa. Do not show our blind side to the world because of a solvable glitch. This is one of the political hiccups that is better left for the leadership to deal with, and not at the youth level as you think.

This is my advice to you my sons and daughters. Do not lose hope on your nation. Things will get changed, peacefully.