Message Body:BASHIR AND WEST’S HYPOCRISY AND SELF-INTEREST ARE THE SOURCES OF SOUTH SUDANESE PROBLEMS.
By: Daniel Juol Nhomngek, KAMPALA, APR/19/2014, SSN;
When I was reading the News headlines on Sudan Tribune on April 19, 2014, I came across the following: “Western countries regret support for South Sudan’s secession: Bashir declares.” It immediately came into my mind that South Sudanese conflict has many players behind it, including Bashir and the West. These groups are out there to destroy South Sudan.
I opened the whole news which continued that the Sudanese president, Omer Hassan Al-Bashir, said that several Western countries which encouraged South Sudan’s independence have apologized for their actions and urged Khartoum to reunite with the newborn state.
How the reunion can be done, I do not know. Whether through annexation like what happened between Russia and Ukraine where Crimea was annexed to Russia, it isn’t clear; or through Western Intervention?
I have not yet up to now understand what they will do and why did many Western Countries propose that.
However, the report went on by stating that Bashir made this when he addressed a meeting of ruling party’s pastoralists and farmers’ secretariat on Thursday evening by saying that Sudan’s enemies who supported secession of the south in order to destroy the north regretted their action, noting they are now begging Khartoum to reunite with Juba.
He said, “They pushed the south to secede in order to destroy the north, however when they saw what happened in the south they secretly told us they were mistaken and wished they had listened to us and now they asked us to reunite.”
Bashir appears to have been confused here with falsity and frustration. If he had ever said this, then he was wrong and will still be wrong in the future if he made the same statement again.
I am now made to believe that the problems of South Sudan are not caused by the people of South Sudan, conspiracy, hypocrisy and self-interest of Bashir and the West, who are planning to destroy South Sudan.
What Bashir and the West must understand is that South Sudan is a sovereign state and they should not try to influence its politics in order to destroy it indirectly.
Bashir made such statement without shame because his government is also one of the causes of the problems of South Sudan because the problems of South Sudan have their origins from Sudan.
Besides, Sudan itself is not at peace and I do not know what motivated most of the Western countries to make such awful proposal to Bashir as he proudly told his crowd.
If I can ask, where will the add Sudan after adding South Sudan to Sudan if the war is the one that can make a country lose her independence?
Conspiracy and hypocrisy against South Sudan!
This underscores the fact that some of the Western Countries have been playing a destructive role since the war broke out in South Sudan as shown by the accusation South Sudanese citizens and government leveled against the UN personnel who appear to be sympathizing with the rebels more than the government.
No smoke with fire. After reading what Bashir said and his allegation that Western countries have secretly called upon him to reunite with South Sudan, I no longer doubt what my fellow South Sudanese say about the UN role in the conflict of South Sudan.
There must be a reason why the Western Countries have taken special interest in South Sudan; may be because of the oil and other resources based on the fact that South Sudan government was becoming more independent from them than they expected.
Therefore, they are playing Samson’s politics in the Bible that if the enemy has overpowered him and he is not able to fight back the enemy and what is remaining is his death then he or his enemies must die all.
Hence, he shakes the whole building that collapses on him and his enemies.
In the same way according to Bashir and western Countries, if South Sudan has not made their expectation of being a puppet government and instead it is becoming more and more independent which denies them access to resources, then South Sudan should not be allowed to exist as a country.
The statement of Bashir shows frustration that he had undergone which was caused by the inevitable break away of South Sudan from the North.
At the same time, it unearths the false hope that Bashir has been nourishing of South Sudan one reuniting with the North.
The statement indicated that Bashir and his Western Counterparts have very shallow way of reasoning because such things will never happen in our life time as South Sudan because South Sudan will never reunite with the North.
Going back to reunite with the North is worse than killing ourselves and learning from it and then in future knowing how to relate with each other.
How can reasonable people make such empty statement? If the countries are dissolved because of civil wars then the USA and other countries in the world would have been dissolved and returned to their colonial masters long time ago.
Having briefly narrated American Civil War yet America is still there as America today, I wonder what push Bashir and Western Countries to utter such statement.
If countries are returned to their colonial masters because of the problems that they face after independence, then most of the countries that have been colonized and when they got independence became embroiled in civil wars would have not remained as independent countries in the world map today.
For instance, the USA, Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Angola, Mozambique, Mali, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Ghana, Liberia (Liberia got her independence in 1847), Togo, Somalia and many other countries not only in Africa but in other parts of the world would have lost their independence.
In addition, people who are related and staying in the same house fight but no one regrets for having been born into such a family. The only thing they do is to look for a solution.
Bashir and his Western counterpart who have such unrealistic hope must stand warned that they will be held liable for continuing and destruction of lives by the war in South Sudan.
The words that Bashir utters and the West’s conspiracy against the South Sudan are an indication that Bashir and the West are responsible for the current problems facing South Sudan.
They must know that South Sudan is an independent country, which means that it is a sovereign state.
No any person or anybody has any authority to invalidate the existence of South Sudan on the ground that it is facing a civil war.
In addition, many have proposed that South Sudan should be placed under the UN Trusteeship. On what ground? I do not know.
As I can understand the term it is applicable in case of South Sudan. The United Nations Trusteeship Council (French: Le Conseil de tutelle des Nations unies), is one of the principal organs of the United Nations, which was established to help ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and security.
The trust territories, most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries.
The last was Palau, formerly part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which became a member state of the United Nations in December 1994.
Hence, the role of this body is not extended to South Sudan because South Sudan is an independent country.
To show flaw in that argument, if Countries which are faced with problems are placed under the UN Trusteeship, then Somalia, Rwanda, Congo, Syria, Libya and the Central African Republic would have been placed under the UN Trusteeship.
What is so special about South Sudan? All these are conspiracies and masterminded into order to destroy the sovereignty of South Sudan.
What Bashir and his Western friends would have done was, instead of plotting for the destruction of South Sudan, they should have come together as good countries with the welfare of South Sudanese at heart to look for all possible solutions or means to bring to a quick end of South Sudan.
What is even surprising is that although there is still a stable government, the Western countries do not see anything good in that government, which is an indication that there are special grudges by the West against the government of the Republic of South Sudan.
Somalia, for instance, operated for 20 years without any central government or TFG that was operating in the neighbouring Kenya but the West did not quickly propose it to be put under trusteeship.
There must be a special problem which the West holds against South Sudan as a country.
What the West and Bashir did not comprehend is that problems of South Sudan are not as complex as many project them but they are caused only due to the lack of diverse approach from the leadership.
Based on the foregoing point in the above paragraph, what the West and Bashir would have done was not to plan the way on how to destroy the independence of South Sudan but they would have joined with the government and rebels to direct them on how to achieve peace.
It appears that there is a paradox and conflict of interest somewhere in searching for peace in South Sudan.
Why if it is intervention to end the war and restore the stability quickly the West talk of sovereignty of the South but if they plot against it as Bashir pointed out they do not care about the sovereignty of that country.
Bashir and the Western Countries must understand that any destruction of South Sudan will not be accepted by all South Sudanese nor it will bring to an end the problems of South Sudan.
Bashir and the West should put aside their interests in South Sudan and try to find the real solution to the real South Sudanese problems not such illusive day dream.
NB// The Author is South Sudanese Student of Law in Makerere University and he can be reached through the following contacts: firstname.lastname@example.org; +256783579256.