BY: Marial Mach Aduot Mach, Australia, FEB/02/2014, SSN;
Descending from a perpetual abyss of conflicts, the independent Republic of South Sudan was destined for peace, an absolute quintessence given its historical endurances of destructions and pogroms as the results of long-lasting wars with northern Sudan and among themselves.
Internal conflicts of armed insurgency, or rebellion as it can be gently referred to should have been characterised, or grouped in obsolescence. But let face it.
In her embryonic stages, South Sudan is a nation at war with itself. Insurgencies sprung up, and spread around the country almost uncontrolled, uprooting the already ill-nourished society, and shook unstable foundation of Juba’s toddling institution.
Ordinary people who suffer in perpetuity begun to question why us, the people who lost so much as the result of war even trying to prompt another?
Without wasting any time on analysis, or perhaps, on the rational reasoning, the false prophets, disgruntled masses which are acquired by the rage of self-seeking jumped to the conclusion, declaring oppression and other dispositional introspections, such as Dinkanisation of the government and other likes as the causes of rebellion.
As I adore the importance of opinions, I wouldn’t reject any kinds of conjectures made by Gen. Bapiny Monytuil, Johnson Uliny, David Yau Yau, and many others still in our bushes. Oppression and its offspring such as marginalization may be the case, depending on their own interpretations.
But with so much at stake, distilling a great debate out of the current political flattering and lethargy in Juba requires an intrepid, dauntless individuals, or a group of people whose their rationale surpasses the instituted marginal thinking current in Juba, steaming from irrational political propositions anchored on the tribal’s foundations, or influenced by the quest of riches offered by the government.
As an anxious victim of wars, it is with without any doubt that we need peace, but not at any cost, including the peace itself. A conflict wrecked civil populace wouldn’t appreciate my assertion, but I assume a critical examination of the current bonding between the president and armed groups will convinces others.
It is very real that our people need peace, but in order to have that peace, what sacrifices can we afford to put on the altar?
With such question in mind, His Lordship, the Archbishop of Anglican churches, and the current mediator in chief, Dr. Deng Bul who finds himself in the middle of artillery barrages trying to bring peace, would be quick to resort to a divinity theory regarding how Abraham offers his son Isaac to God to receive his blessing, thus, anything may go. But what is that anything, one may asked?
Gen. Salva Kiir, on the other hand would simply revert to his usual disposition; laying down a heroic red-carpet and ushering supposedly apostates and the turncoats.
While being applauded by the worshippers of doom, the paranoid preachers of untrue peace, nostalgic, and rather not political connoisseurs residing at the president’s office on the other hand would be busy sanctioning with slithering speed those apostates to the system.
They are doing well in their team. I am apathetically convinced watching those euphoric pragmatisms on South Sudan television.
But I would say, as many others may, that Salva’s amnesty is not doing any better for the country, but to those who responded to it. That tactics is an absolute verdure of everlasting insurgency.
With this sentiment, some people would be forced to accuse me of memory lost as they may cite the resolutions of the well known cases involving Dr. Riek Machar and Lam Akol, as well as the Gen. Matip Nhial and others using the same process. They may have a point perhaps, but was amnesty involved in those cases?
The reasons for my objection to the president’s tactics resided in the variation of how to eliminate an internal security such as insurgency.
Amnesty as a tool for peace talk and rewarding of the responders to such amnesty is sending a wrong message to not so altruistic individuals still in our system and may be enticed by the lure of ranks-rise and accompanying riches.
On the other hand, offering an amnesty without scrutinizing the cause of disagreement in the first place is a medieval strategy for peace process and in essence has few more problems in my view.
Apart from its failure to solve the core problem, its shows the obsolescence of peace proceedings or mechanism within the government, as well as allowing the country to be held hostage for incentives, such as the recent promotions of militants.
Some people may embrace it, but I don’t because it is unbalanced and contemptible.
How is it even possible in the real world for the president to promote a civilian with zero military training and the rank to a fully commissioned but untrained military general as it happens to David Yau Yau?
When did the crime of treason become of such admiration to be rewarded?
What people may cite in this case is peace. Hence the president can embark on such costly initiative to secure it. The question is do we have peace?
Peace might represent a state of tranquillity, and that calmness is what we all needed, but it turns out not be the case. We are in the state of chaos in Jonglei and around the country.
That may be not a president’s fault, but with such rewarding in rebellion, both in military promotions, and even a possibility of ministerial appointment as the rumor goes, I would argue that the president is doing peace itself and our people a great harm because the war-like insurgency has just begun and the president is the drum beater and the usher at the same time.
The obvious reasons for that would be clear. I am staging the rebellion in order to be promoted like others in order to enhance by chances of wealth, since military ranks are associated to that.
In normative theory, we the human beings are prone to self-seeking behavior. If we are given a chance to fulfil that instinct of self, we will and that is what the president has just unleashed.
If the supposed crime of treason can propel you from nothing to general, people may find it enticing and their behavior, including of those heroes serving in the SPLA, wouldn’t be constrained to the larger collective purposes of society.
One or more low ranking officers in our army hypothetically speaking or even an ambitious, self-centered civilian like Yau Yau might take up arms and inflict the grievous destruction to our people in order to be rewarded.
People will judge this assertion, but Salva’s promotion of those who took the lives of civilians in pursuing of their own ego is a total mocker to the system he leads, and to his own wisdom.
Pilfering in this case seems to be a grand crime than killing. To end this, knowing that our rulers are dreadfully reactive to criticisms, I wouldn’t be surprised if this piece doesn’t go down well with them or any other parasitic guzzlers riding the back of that antiquity, but who cares?
That wouldn’t stop me from calling the recent rushing of integration and promotion of rebels into the regular army without any meticulous scrutiny as a mindless suicidal act to the society in terms of security and resources.
But, surely it’s a political gain for the president under fire. Before those intrepid adorers of delinquency take it out of context, I would like to be clear.
I am not advocating for non-integration or waging the campaign against peace, but why all these rushing?
It may turn out in different ways, but I assume these political bonding instituted the rise of hypocrisy among opposite sides who just joined and the government itself.
For instance, Gen. Bapiny Monytuil and Johnson Uliny as well other colleagues of theirs, staging the war accusing Juba of harbouring the tribal politics, and hence its system was nepotist and immensely infested with corruption and other likes.
With them rushing back into the same system without an equitable change, the question they’re supposed to answer is what changes have you seen in the government, or is it just because of the riches of ranks and personnel benefit that are more enticing?
I am not going to speak for them, but I ultimately think their main intentions of waging war was integral to the quest of personality rather than collective, therefore are true egomaniacs.
This in essence, might also have some political tactics by the seemingly power-maniac president as the 2015 is not far away.
War and militancy-like insurgency would be inevitable and president will be ready to bribe them each time to bring them to his side.
This will ultimately create an army and political leadership depending on the presidency, thus allowing him to rule in perpetuity.
Marial Mach Aduot is a Deakin University graduate with degree in Politics, and Masters in International Relations, and current under training for Masters of Politics and Policy Studies. He can be reached for comments at firstname.lastname@example.org