May 22, 2013 (SSNA) -- When the government of S. Sudan closed down oil production in late January 2012, the news was received with ululations. Those who hold S. Sudan close to their hearts thronged the dusty roads of Juba in celebration. I was no exception.

In my humble burrow, I managed throwing a couple fists in the air. Then sank the whole euphoria in with my favorite 21-years-long-war songs from the great Koryom division of Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA). For those who abhor Khartoum with her Islamic Sharia laws, religious prejudices, warmongering, and racially based discriminations, it was a perfect day. We couldn’t simply afford funding our destabilization with our own resources. Full stop.

After all, it doesn’t require big brains to comprehend that Khartoum is an anopheles mosquito that –when it bites –leaves the victim with malaria, encephalitis, and dehydration. Whether the laws of Economics defy that fact is another question. But the enemy was biting and had to be stopped.

The “economists”, as they called themselves, had other ideas. They found it wise to wait, for a few more months, until they receive the lecture notes from their Western professors, before they could decide whether to join or disjoin the party. The SPLM-DCs, on the other hand, were not to be left out. They predictably had some important message –to tell us –from their godfathers in Khartoum.

And with the two forces combined, cometh the D-Day for the SPLM, and to the amazement of celebrants like myself. Someone was stabbing another in the back! There were countless low moans all-over. The decision, all of a sudden, was branded as impotent, uninformed, and impulsive in the media. It left many scratching their heads. And others scared about their political future.

A mob of deserters is what independence gives you these days, isn’t it? They wait until it goes wrong. Then kick you right in the teeth. How can one trust Khartoum as a business partner? When did this ‘passionate’ trust start?

That was not the end of the tale though. With president Kiir and his SPLM household frightened out of their wits by the media, Al-Bashir knew the time was right to play his cards. Thanks, the “economists” and the SPLM-DCs did a great deal. So, he made his expedition to Juba to push through the last phases of the scheme. Heavens forbid if I were in the crowd that was blindly forced to get their brains baked in that scorching sun along the sides of Juba roads in honor of the bloody fugitive. Neither would I have liked to be one of those merchants who lost a heck of fortunes on the day, just because some dupes wanted them to shut their businesses down. All in the name of Bashir.......what a mediocrity that was!

As one would expect, Al-Bashir got another priceless opportunity to inspect the work of his notorious boys under the command of David Yau Yau, and flood their heads with up-to-date scorched-earth policies he has adopted in Darfur, S. Khordofan, and Blue Nile so far. Besides, he was able to tether the confused SPLM camp with the promise of oil flow. With the mob on their heels, he knew it is a temptation that president Kiir and his compatriots wouldn’t resist. He also had this superstition that the SPLM might play a crucial role in taming the no-nonsense Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) in the North. Finally, before he could get back to his palace to wait for the outcomes, he ensured the addition of a few uncertainties to the Abyei issue. And Chief Kuol Deng Kuol’s murder was coordinated to that effect.

Now as he sits in Khartoum, smiling at yet another bunch of successful tricks, and while the moneymen in Juba still contemplate on how to divide up the sales of the first few barrels of oil, comes another big rumor: the oil has stopped flowing! Whether it holds water is yet to be seen. But you wouldn’t be surprised, would you?

Only a fool would expect Bashir to hang onto an agreement after Yau Yau’s recent victory claims, Chief Kuol’s demise, and with Sudan Armed Forced (SAF) taking advanced positions in the battlefields.  Why entice Kiir and the co if his plans are working? It is a pity that Juba is too naive to see such ploys.

Meanwhile, if the closure of oil flow transpires as the prophets of doom predicted, I would expect the “economists” and the SPLM-DCs to tell us who to blame this time. Unless we accept risks and stop politically motivated criticisms, Bashir will always manipulate Juba at his convenience.

Philips Al-Ghai can be reached at alghai211@gmail.com

May 21, 2013 (SSNA) -- Regionalism has made it back into the South Sudanese politics, thanks to the leadership of the ruling SPLM that sees these as a way to grainer regional loyalties before the 2015 general elections.

So far three regional conferences have already been sponsored and held by the SPLM ruling party that brought together party leaders from the three states that comprise the Greater Equatoria Region.

But although other quarters did voice some criticism to the holding of these conferences, it’s now clear that the top leadership in the country was indeed not only directly involved in planning and executing them, but is in fact the primary beneficiary. 

We don’t need any more evidence to prove that these regional gatherings are being used by the SPLM as alternatives to the party’s national conference (or so-called convention). The resolution adopted  at the Greater Bahr el Ghazal Region’s first ever regional gathering recently held in Wau to support president Salva Kiir Mayardit’s candidacy for the forthcoming 2015 general elections has said it all and this is an extract of what it said, I quote:

“The greater Bahr el Ghazal regional leaders have adopted a resolution to fully support the leadership of President Salva Kiir Mayardit now and beyond 2015.” Gurtong 20/05/2013.

In contrast the position held by the SPLM Equatoria leadership in its last conference was to uphold some neutrality on the issue of supporting any one candidate for the party chairmanship. The assumption is that a real SPLM party convention will be held sooner or later and it will be there that they express their views on the issue. 

This position to avoid openly being seen in favour of any one presidential candidate also reflects how divided the Equatoria SPLM leadership is in its preference for the two self-declared candidates. Nowhere can this be better seen than in Hon. James Wani Igga attendance of the Wau conference as a representative to president Kiir.

So going by what has come from the Greater Bahr el Ghazal (SPLM) regional conference, should a similar regional conference be held by SPLM in Greater Upper Nile Region, the outcome will for sure have the final say on whether regionalism has finally become the way to go by in SPLM’s South Sudan politics.

None of these unraveling scenarios are far from explaining the country’s stratagems and polity.   Equally so is the much evidenced statements emanating from the SPLM top echelon as can be seen the deputy chairman, Dr. Riek Machar’s warning in Juba as it appeared in the Sudan Tribune and I quote:  

“May 19, 2013 (JUBA) – The deputy chairman of the South Sudan’s ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), Riek Machar has warmed of a possible collapse of party, unless it democratically transforms and re-focuses itself”. It went on to say.

Addressing senior officials at the party’s general secretariat that the SPLM had “lost direction and vision”, making references to reports from various state secretariats across the country, which depicts the party was largely unpopular.

Obviously a political party that is continuously dodging its National Convention and instead choses to settle major party issues in regional conferences that should have been better confined to inter-states affairs – has for sure lost direction and vision.

However the truth be said and said loud, for its no secret anymore that regionalism which many superficially minded people would want to criminalize and equally blame for being responsible for the rudimentary state of affairs in the country, is in fact ignoring the fact that this is just the symptom of yet a huge organizational defect that the people of South Sudan under SPLM rule are forced to take refuge in.

You can talk all your bla bla blab la about political parties; however the bottom line is that all these so-called political parties are more than ready to succumb to regional loyalties.  Don’t look far for a proof. It’s all there embodied in the SPLM where once everyone was referred to as comrade. Not too long when they all went back pointing fingers at one another this time as  Dinka, Nuer , Bari, Azande, Fartit, Shilluk, Murle etc  ………..name it.

Now it seems that the best that RSS can ever get to under Salva Kiir’s SPLM leadership, is to refer to people by their regions or former colonial provinces of Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal. No one needs to be ashamed of that and should we all agree on it – since we are already doing it in our daily lives, then we can go ahead to adopt it as the government structure for our so much talked about federalism – thus pleasing both the regionalists like Hon. Kiir and Hon. Wani Igga and the federalists like our prolific opinion writer none other than elder Jacob K. Lupia.

SPLM has lost both the direction and the vision; in other wards it has become blind to follow any clear direction. People can deceive themselves by pretending to resuscitate it; however for the people in the grassroots, this thing called SPLM was to some extend good until the declaration of the Independence. Thereafter believe you me; even those born after the independence are aware that this party has since become irrelevant.

In brief but to the point,  it is important to draw the attention of my dear readers to this  very important fact , and that is both president Salva Kiir Mayardit and his deputy Dr. Riek Machar Teny can only use their ethnicities and their regional (Provincial) backings to run and win the 2015. This will have nothing to do with the so-called SPLM vision – for it no longer exists.

We are all aware that these two candidates and their so-called SPLM party has since regressed into a rudimentary organisation and if anything just read what president Kiir said in his letter to the 75 senior SPLM officials who were implicated in the embezzlement of no less than $4 b dollars of the public money. Here I quote:

"We fought for freedom justice and equality," Kiir added, about the decades-long war against Khartoum. "Yet, once we got to power, we forgot what we fought for and began to enrich ourselves at the expense of our people."

Under SPLM one party system and Kiir’s totalitarian leadership, South Sudan has gone all the way to make a C- turn and embrace regionalism as the nation’s direction, vision and only way to leadership. You can agree or disagree, but the truth remains that more of these are likely be witnessed should the same leadership remain unchanged.

Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. Secretary General – United South Sudan Party [USSP]. He can be reached at: justinramba@doctors.net.uk

May 20, 2013 (SSNA) -- Africa’s Great Lakes region today has the chance to achieve something that has eluded its war-weary people for several decades. It can silence the guns, boost trust and trade between neighbours, educate millions of out-of-school children, empower women, and create economic opportunities that will help the countries forge a path to prosperity, good governance, and lasting stability.

In the coming days, we will travel to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda to meet the region’s leaders and announce a range of specific commitments to accelerate development and consolidate peace. This first-of-its-kind joint trip is rooted in a momentous new agreement: the “Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the region.” 

The pact was the fruit of a concerted effort between the United Nations, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union.  It recognizes that breaking the cycle of catastrophic conflict in eastern DRC demands a new approach. 

Managing crises and attending to the aftermath of fighting is not sufficient. We must tackle underlying causes. Signed by 11 countries, the agreement requires action by the region’s leaders, with the support of the international community, to address common security and development challenges. And because promises made should be promises kept, the agreement includes rigorous oversight mechanisms to ensure that benchmarks are met.

We believe this comprehensive new approach gives the DRC and the Great Lakes region its best chance for peace and economic development in many years. But this “framework of hope,” as it has been labelled by Mary Robinson, the UN special envoy for the Great Lakes region, will require hard work. 

An astounding 70 percent of people in the DRC live on less than $1.25 a day. More than seven million children -- one third of those who should be in school -- lack access to education. Some 2.4 million children are acutely malnourished.  Malaria, cholera and measles are a major threat due to inadequate health care, water supplies and sanitation. Roads are a mess and electricity is scarce and expensive. Basic commodities have to be imported. Some 6.3 million people require food support.

Sexual violence continues at appalling levels throughout the country, and is regularly used as a weapon of war by armed groups operating in the east. A lack of jobs and opportunities creates a breeding ground for criminality. More than three million Congolese have fled their homes for safety, including 2.6 million displaced inside DRC and 450,000 refugees in neighbouring countries. 

The leaders of the Great Lakes region will be the key drivers of peace, stability and economic growth. The United Nations, the World Bank Group, and the entire international community must support them. We pledge that our two organizations will work closely together in new and deeper ways so that implementation of the political and security aspects of the framework agreement goes hand-in-hand with the economic development that is essential to lasting peace and stability.

By restarting economic activity and improving livelihoods in border areas, by promoting cross-border trade, by steadily increasing economic interdependence, by rooting out corruption, and by ensuring that natural resources are managed for the benefit of all, we can steadily build confidence and improve well-being, income, and opportunity. 

Other countries have shown that it is possible to recover from conflict and advance towards the Millennium Development Goals. We are now looking beyond the 2015 MDG deadline to a new sustainable development agenda that will end extreme poverty.  Many countries in Africa are taking dynamic strides forward. The people of the DRC deserve their full chance for progress. 

A peace agreement must deliver a peace dividend. We owe it to the people of the Great Lakes to help fulfil their long-held vision: an end to conflict, children in school, respect for women’s rights, access to health care and sustainable energy, and income and opportunity for all. That is why we are making this visit. We see hope on the horizon for the people of the Great Lakes, and we are determined to help them every step of the way.

Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations; Jim Yong Kim is President of the World Bank Group. 

May 20, 2013 (SSNA) -- South Sudan has just attained independence from an imposed unity that had failed miserably to take into account the objective realities on the ground. In the old Sudan people did not take national unity as a project for each and every Sudanese. Greed and insensitivity preoccupied people’s minds and the result was the breakup of Sudan into two independent nations, the Republic of South Sudan and Sudan.

Probably conscious of its struggle against unpalatable unity, the newly independent Republic of South Sudan has opted for a decentralized system of governance. It was fundamental how to establish the basic patterns of governance in realizing national unity in diversity. Decentralisation is a growing trend in Africa and the Republic of South Sudan is therefore not an exception. Indeed the Transitional Constitution, 2011 recognises the need to devolve some key central government administrative and political authority to governments at the state and local levels.

In the First Governors Forum after South Sudan’s independence in July 2011, the governors of the ten states spelt out the need for further decentralisation. The governors were indeed calling for a federal system of governance in the Republic of South Sudan. However, it is very unfortunate that in some quarters federalism is negatively associated with ethnicity hence the loud cry that federalism for South Sudan is ethnic federalism. This is, nevertheless, not only blackmail but a total advertisement of profound ignorance of the essence of federalism.

Federalism in essence is envisage as an administrative and political solution to problems of underdevelopment, marginalization and to problems of the lack of active participation of people in running their affairs. Another misleading generalisation is that there is no need for federalism in South Sudan because “federalizing federalism and/or replacing federalism with federalism is unrealistic if not an illusion”. What a piece of garbage! Is there any existing federalism in South Sudan when, in fact, it has been rejected?

The Equatoria Consultative Conference which took place at Nyokuron Culture Centre in Juba under the theme; Fostering Equatoria Leadership in Building Cohesive Nation, reaffirmed the commitment of Equatoria to a federal system of governance in the Republic of South Sudan. Equatoria has spoken and is committed to objective federalism as opposed to ethnic federalism of the dependent scaremongers. Objective federalism may be defined as that federalism which addresses underdevelopment in contrast to the so-called ethnic federalism which is perceived by the lacking in confidence as putting up massive solid walls of divisions between ethnic groups that are denied interaction.

With a population of 2,628,747 which is about 32 per cent of the total population of South Sudan, the demand of Equatoria for a federal system of governance cannot be ignored. Equatoria clearly sees federalism as of benefit for all. It is therefore up to the other regions to see the benefit of federalism. People should not be put off by those of tunnel vision and lacking in confidence.

Federalism is not monolithic. It is dynamic because there is no one single definition of federalism that people may rigidly adhere to. Indian federalism is not the same as that of the United States of America. Federalism guarantees equitable sharing of power and wealth, and participation in the various aspects of running the nation and this can only be good for national unity. A system that is advocated by insensitive tunnel visionaries or pseudo revolutionaries is a sure way to doom and gloom because it will inherently be a monopoly of the tribalistic as others are treated with contempt.

South Sudan will be vibrant with federalism because national unity will be a project of each and every citizen. Development will be accelerated as major decisions are taken at the state and local level. The fear expressed that federalism divides people along ethnic and regional lines hence disunity is nothing but a mental problem. With reference to development, in federalism the regions and states will gain enormously from each other. This is by regular conferences to identify common challenges for a united effort in addressing the challenges.

In federalism expertise will be shared. I will have no problem to work in Northern Bahr el Ghazal provided I am under the governor of that state. The role of the central government should be that of a facilitator and coordinator. Implementation of projects should be the responsibility of the federal states or regions. The central government is to provide the needed assistance and a back up to realise the overall government policy for socio-economic development in the nation.

The fear of federalism that it is ethnically and regionally divisive does not hold water. South Sudanese have come of age and are mature enough that they cannot be divided by mere levels of government in federalism. It is dependency culture that seems to be the issue here. People seem to depend on Equatoria for anything that there is an exaggerated fear of losing anything that is Equatorian in federalism.

The exaggerated fear is the type of naivety the anti-federalism lobby seems to have. However, one can assert that South Sudanese will never be divided because they are not as simple as the naivety of the anti-federalism lobby seems to suggest. Didn’t South Sudanese fight as one people but of different ethnic groups, regions and states to achieve that one common terminal objective, independence? In their diversities South Sudanese were united in their struggle for freedom. What will divide them in federalism with the same diversities?

In conclusion, the anti-federalism lobby may need to rid themselves of playing games with national unity. It is possible that South Sudanese understand national unity as a project that must be achieved through each and everyone’s effort in all their diversities. Equatorians understand that the unity of South Sudan is paramount but not at the expense of any other region or state.

The author can be reached at jklupai@googlemail.com

But is the independence party too sick to heal?

By Deng Vanang

May 20, 2013 (SSNA) -- South Sudan is the country that of late gained her painstaking independence among counterparts in the community of nations with citizens stand accused by part of top leadership of being in a hurry to disentangle themselves from centuries of strangling decadence in their rat race to modernity. While on the contrary, citizens opine, it is not being too much in a hurry but leadership which is either too slow or by design refused to catch up with their well deserved payback time after along long suffering. These myriads of sky-rocketing expectations, to say the least, proved to be a breakneck litmus test for President Salva Kiir Mayardit who unexpectedly took over from Dr. John Garang, the man who in twenty one - year liberation struggle presented himself and truly so, as an enigmatic draw card to their mountain of bush war challenges. It is these rival views on governance that have reached a critical crossroad where President Kiir and his Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny - Dhurgon chose to differ and take a diametrically more opposing diversions on issues affecting their country’s men and women. With Kiir believing that his government has done a lot more within reasonably short period of time that has seen capital Juba and other peripheral towns, which before Comprehensive Peace Agreement, were mere villages in grass thatched shacks. But thanks to Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA in particular and his leadership in general according to him, are now expanded in both leaves and bonds besides teeming in business boom unprecedented in South Sudan’s troubled history.

However, this is not the case with Machar who already concurred with what South Sudan official opposition leader, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin and public majority have all along been saying in rebellion against Kiir’s government they think has done too little given the immense resources in hundreds of billions of United States Dollars from oil revenues, taxes and generous donor funds South Sudan has acquired since CPA inception eight years ago. They and Machar in part blame Kiir’s government for failing to direct an otherwise virgin economy now in its rudderless state of motion as it ensures public funds disappear into bottomless pockets of a few but powerful individuals over whom government lacks political will to drag to courts and get charged with wanton corruption drivened by many sorts of negative ‘’isms’’: sheer individualism, opportunism, cronyism, clan and ethnic favoritism.

Kiir began on a clean slate of good will and indeed united political and armed rival factions once partly caused by his predecessor, Dr. Garang’s heavy handed hold on power coupled with lack of clear vision over what South Sudan wanted from the dominantly Arabs north. However, shortly along the way many hurdles seem to be too high President Kiir looks like unable to surmount. These hurdles are as varied as they are many in the forms that follow. Marauding negative ethnicity and financial Corruption resulted in lack of development in basic services. The basic services being his government declared free primary education and health care without teaching staff and schools, health personnel and medicines respectively, neglected agriculture causing neighboring countries to spoon - feed South Sudanese, non-existing roads networks that have made  people and government different worlds apart; with Eritreans and Ethiopians reduced to water tapes substitutes supplying Juba residents with already polluted river Nile water through water tanks mounted trucks while other foreign traders serving as electric grids that light most parts of the city through the sales of portable Chinese made generators to the locals.

His government is more over accused of casting a blind eye to strengthen weak oversight institutions in order to rein in corruption as there are no checks and balances since those institutions like Anti-corruption Commission, Audit-General chambers, and parliamentary Public Accounts Committee which are traditionally run by opposition or independent bureaucrats are brought under suffocating ambit of the ruling SPLM, that cannot certainly mark or guard itself against both fiscal and administrative excesses it is virtually committing.

Too, the media is not purely free as there are no laws guiding or protecting journalists and rights activists always on deadly receiving end of highly militarized - undisciplined security forces. With adverse ethnicity and nepotism played out prominently in an employment, academic and investment opportunities.

Lack of political will to implement government’s socio-economic and political programs, transitional constitution key provisions or controversial debates about Presidential term limit and which system of governance be it presidential or parliamentary, federalism or unitary system presently inform of what Kiir calls decentralization/devolution also dance to the tune of a long list of unmet popular demands.

While insecurity taking tolls of the country and Land grabbing, especially in Juba have brought to the fore calls for National Reconciliation to deal with matters of historical injustices such as divisive policies that caused poor governance and restless David Yau Yau – Johnson Olony’s twin armed rebellions triggered by 2010 landmark but rigged general elections on the one hand and on the other, ethnic divisions at the grassroots which manifest themselves in a changing face of traditional cattle rustling into a politicized one, sparking communal violence incidents. All the above predicaments facing Kiir have ironically turned into opportunities or heavenly manna Machar and other competitors desperately want to grab with both hands and topple him from SPLM’s leadership and country’s presidency.

SPLM’S Political Bureau

In recent meeting of Political bureau, top decision-making of the ruling SPLM, Machar threw barbs and tirades at Kiir as an irredeemable failure in everything except successfully facilitating the attainment of the independence. And as if that was not enough to kill his spirit, asked him not just to step down honorably for him but also support his party Chairmanship and Presidential candidatures. Then, Machar presented his vision for the future of both party and the country that includes to tackle, if he became President, negative ethnicity, endemic corruption, heal the country of divisions through National Reconciliation he started and among other host of issues. Chairman Kiir responded with his scornful opinion on any candidate including Machar that dares challenge him over the leadership. As alleged, he termed all candidates who offered themselves for his party post to fall vacant in the soon to be held SPLM 3^rd National Convention as rabble-rousers who will divide the country further due to their backgrounds of political violence past if one of whom becomes President. A veiled criticism of Machar who spearheaded SPLM/A split back in 1991 that turned ethnic between Nuer and Dinka, causing trials of deaths and untold destruction. Some weeks later Kiir sent allies in multi-prong diplomacy all in vain to convince Machar to forego 2015 for 2020 when he shall voluntarily relinquish power for him. His {Machar} allies saw it as a political gimmick that will be used to slap presidential age limit on relatively young but bulky Machar who will look more older than his actual age at that time. Kiir’s group fears Machar, the man credited with democratizing SPLM and delivering independence, will change SPLM and country’s history to that of his historic ‘’Nasir Creeping Revolution’’ if he takes over. But some of Machar’s supporters prefer him to quit than take over, reform and sustain a party whose political agenda has all a long been the promotion of a tribal legacy, that is both oppressive and exploitative.

After exhausting his triumph cards, Kiir upped his response a notch higher to Machar’s burning quest for power with Presidential decrees which withdrew powers he delegated to him but stopped short of crossing the redline of sacking the latter many agree is an indispensable Vice President behind whom fanatically second largest and battle hardened Nuer tribe stand. In the same decrees he also removed Machar from presiding over National Reconciliation Conference he accused him of using as an image marketing and money spinning firm to advance presidential ambitions but allegedly donors suspended multi-million dollars they promised earlier citing credibility of the process following the latter’s ouster as lead facilitator. Such strings of doubled edged decrees followed last year’s demobilization of Machar’s allied senior military generals as Kiir clamped down hard on his bastion in the national army, SPLA. From that fateful night when Machar’s wings were clipped until then, the country remains on a tinderbox ready to explode which the two political supremos are not prepared for at least for now. Whereas the duo work around the clock to calm storm from sweeping into an overt violence, their allies dived into a frenzy of underground political mobilization antics including suddenly cropped up regional consultative conferences many believe are Kiir sponsored in readiness for a convention whose fate is not only unknown but the cricket {party convention} held in his closed palm and up to him to determine whether dead or alive with far reaching nock - on - effects against 2015 general elections.

As he weighs that option of last resort, Kiir has more additional sophisticated weapons in his armory such as ruthlessly rigging Machar out of leadership contest through both carrot and stick if convention is convened, indefinitely delaying it until his much feared rival Machar quits in frustration or taking the boldest decision of his life time by sacking Machar whose harden supporters have already placed fingers firmly on the trigger to reverse that and takeover the government by hooks or crooks.

Machar equally has a host of available options measuring up to Kiir’s ill plans if he has to maintain the Vice Presidency but loses the trophy: that is chairmanship of the ruling party that can likely propel him to the desired goal of country’s Presidency. He can stay put and deny Kiir his desires of seeing him leave voluntarily so as highly expectant Right Honorable Speaker James Wani Igga and SPLM’s party Secretary-General Pagan Amum Okech benefit from his departure. By staying put, Machar too wants to obstruct Kiir from repositioning himself and reorganizing the party for the next election in which he will be likely serious opponent to Kiir in an alternative party’s ticket. If that happens, the contest will lead to a replay of 1991 split in which separatist Nasir faction led by Machar shall face unionist late Garang’s led Torit faction whose prominent former members are now Kiir, Wani and Amum.  

So far SPLM’s chair has attracted theses three SPLM’s top-notch officials including Mama Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior, widow of the late SPLM founder Dr. John Garang De Mabior and Machar himself. But as the battle gears up in shape and form day and night, it seems it will be a two - horse race between the incumbent Kiir and aspiring Machar. Since the other three who already declared intentions look like they are bargaining for an upward movement short of top most prize, being the party chairmanship that is hoped will eventually deliver the Presidency of the Republic to the winner. Members of the public have already graded these candidates based on their past and present performances as well as the veracity of their political support across political spectrums.

Public grading of each candidate

As for the Right Honorable James Wani Igga, who is also second deputy chairman in the SPLM is viewed by many as the battle shy general who is always supportive of the status quo. With the opportunistic side that only associates him with the winning team never minds of its creed, ideology and programs. His recent public declaration that he will only vie for top seat if Kiir doesn’t already vindicates the above mentioned popular assertion as the man of status quo. His position in Bari ethnic community, Central Equatoria State and Equatoria in general is already threatened by his fellow Bari politician who is none other than Machar leaning and more popular Alfred Lado Gore. The national Minister Gore is widely rumored to be Machar’s regional point man and possible running mate. But Wani who is fondly referred to by his Bari ethnic group as ‘’matat’’ or wise one and ‘’hukuma’ bitaana’’ in Arabic language meaning our government when referring to SPLM/A back in the bush is known to many as South Sudan greatest political survivor and comedian of all times so far Gore will not find easier to floor.

Amum is the party Secretary – General and one of the pioneered South Sudan filthy rich men in US Dollars cumulatively dubbed ‘’The Naivasha Millionaires’’. The name is fashioned after Kenya tourist resort town of Naivasha where CPA was negotiated and on whose sidelines the said millionaires minted some of their current millions. With consummate mobilizing oratory skills and faith in past SPLM/A’s vision of united, secular and democratic new Sudan make Amum arguably the true carbon copy of Dr. John Garang. But several keen observers see his political approach to issues as too intransigently confrontational and one who can ruthlessly crash peaceful voice of descend threatening his position if he becomes country’s President.  He has so far cast himself as the middle - of - the - road contestant in the political fray. Though he had a brief stint in the government as Minister of Peace and Reconciliation, that position to him distances him from the government publicly accused of all evils bedeviling the country since the inception of CPA. However, some SPLM’s members, especially those closer to Kiir, cannot allow him to run away from the crime scene as they blame him for a host of political transgressions. They blamed him for flagrant failure to administer the party general - Secretariat which supposes to formulate policies that should have run the government and entire country, a claim which his allies rubbished as untrue since the President and his Rek clans have rendered secretariat in particular and party in general irrelevant in the country’s governance. His airborne status and the alleged misappropriation of 30 millions United States Dollars given to SPLM through his personal bank account by former GoSS Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Arthur Akuen Chol are more bouquets of thorns laid on his path to Presidency he has to clear. He of course denied that and the South Sudan supreme court acquitted him of the charge in the controversially mind-boggling ruling. Another bottleneck to break in his quest for Chairmanship and Presidency is lack of grassroots support in his ethnic Colo kingdom backyard where SPLM-DC’s Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin calls the final firing shots. His move is widely seen as an attempt to eclipse Lam’s fanatic support in that region if he takes SPLM’s Chair and eventual prize of the presidency or any other towering position in the government far above that of Lam. In fact Amum is not contesting against Kiir or anybody else but Lam in SPLM, keen observers believe.

Mama Nyandeng as creative business woman and fire breathing female politician with an informal education background is also the current Presidential Advisor on Gender and Human Rights. Popularly known as mother of the nation she has been faulted for her dismal performance back in 2006 as the GoSS Minister of Transport, Roads and Bridges where hundreds of millions of Dollars in budgetary allocation were allegedly lost to World Food Programs, WFP which she contracted to build Roads and Bridges infrastructure on behalf of the government. She is also accused of exploiting Garang’s dazzling legacy to the detriment of the needy and the poor for whom she purportedly provides numerous charitable services such as schools they direly need but cannot afford to pay for. In some sections of the press she is alleged to be foregoing her candidature for that of Machar’s with the hope of becoming Deputy Chairperson and Vice President both as Dinka Bor community and women affirmative action representative, a move indicative of Machar’s lone ranger apologies to Dinka Bor community in late 2011 over 1991 atrocities paying off.

As for Machar, lest his financial privileges and personal security are compromised, he will likely remain in SPLM as Vice President until few months to the elections. While buying time, he will ensure he leaves behind him for an alternative party an SPLM mentally disorganized, confused and too crippled physically to stand for any meaningful presidential contest. Secondly, he could order his close lieutenants to join an alternative party of his choice like Front-Forum family parties he helped form during his Khartoum Peace Agreement such as UDSF of Joseph Malual Lual, UDSF – Main stream of Gabriel Changson Chang, UDF of the detained Justice Peter Abdul Rahman Sule and SSDF of Dr. Martin Elia Lumuro. He can as well unite all of them into one formidable election juggernaut behind his presidential bid. Although Kiir will most likely encounter this move by bringing on board his home - based allied political parties such as George Kongor Arop’s African National Congress, ANC and late William Deng Nhial’s South Sudan African National Union, SSANU.

Machar can also bank on his scholarly grasp of issues that affect people, friendly relations with the most common in the society, his forgiving nature, his love for all and sundry, his peace-making skills, his Mr. clean image financial wise as his name is not appearing on the black lists of people that have robbed the country of billions of dollars including the infamous 75 officials and above all his democratic credentials for free media and judiciary as well as stable country since many believe he will deal with insecurity brought about by ethnic hatred. 

Despite all those glamorous attributes, his critics are yet to be convinced that he is up to the job. They think  he is not the right Presidential candidate that embodies the change SPLM, government and South Sudan have been waiting for given his knack in surrounding himself with semi-literate and individual elements unpopular with the masses, keeping enemies closest to his bosoms and friends at an arm length, populist, laicizes fair, know it all and assumptive leadership approach to issues that once failed his popular leadership contest with Garang following SPLM/A split in 1991 as well as his 1997-2000 Khartoum Peace Agreement that produced South Sudan Coo-ordination Council he led as the Chairman while simultaneously becoming Assistant President to Omar Al- bashir in Sudan Federal government in Khartoum. And whether or not he should not be held hostage by the same forces of corruption in SPLM some of whom have currently hijacked once popular leadership of a man he wants to remove. To them, his populist policy of appeasement shall not certainly put on the shoving board those who may stick their hands in the cookie jar but considers as strong and indispensable allies to help him win elections. If anything, his leadership shall only transform and nationalize corruption from the present ethnic one as he will involve and fairly treat people of all ethnic backgrounds but stop short of checkmating them against excesses of cancerous disease, critics drive the point home in their trenches.

His allies like Taban Deng Gai, Governor of oil rich Unity state, also home to Vice President Machar, do not buy such pessimistic feelings about their future Presidential flag bearer. Instead harbor dire options in bolstering Machar in winning upcoming 2015 general elections several analysts agree shall be the hardest fought not only by sheer political mobilization skills and blackmails, but also threats of violence, money and guns shall be part of the wider determining factors. These hardening positions had however, shown how deep and widening the schism between Kiir and Machar has cut and thrown Greater Equatoria leaders in their recent Political Consultative Conference into an hasty retreat. With Equatorians accepting their vulnerability as grasses to be trodden, given the fact that it is their own region that hosts the capital city Juba and main supplies route to Uganda, under mightiest feet of wrestling bulls, have resigned themselves to the mediating role for a peaceful competition so as to ameliorate if not quell the expected clash of the gigantic impact that was unequivocally conveyed through some of Machar’s spin doctors’ statements. They intoned, if Kiir rigs the election, Nuer dominated Greater oil rich Upper Nile region comprising of Unity, Upper Nile and Jonglei states to be curved out of the rest of the country as another new Republic in the making with far reaching ramifications. Gone with it will be oil that provides 98% in national revenue of the newest country’s fledgling economy. Of strategic importance to go with the black gold will be Ethiopia and all its lucrative politically strategic and economic frontiers. And South Sudan will have no economic and neither diplomatic value item to relate her to global community, putting at grave stake her new found sovereignty. Juba government will be deprived of legitimacy to rule as it will fail to feed and protect the best interests of citizens it still rules. Unceremonious departure of Greater Upper Nile region shall instead further consolidate Greater Equatoria region’s resolve to be left alone by what it may consider Greater Bhar-Elgazal oppressive and equally exploitative political clique. And there and then, the Balkans will be let loose in the streets each demanding their own piece of the fallen, dead and dismembered elephant called South Sudan. Then comes to stark realization will be ‘’failed state’’ long foreseen by both local and foreign critics. These fever pitch political moves and overtones on both sides far remove sickly and dying SPLM from getting healed as it is heading for an inevitable split if not ultimate demise.

Deng Vanang is a Journalist, Author of the upcoming book: ‘’South Sudan Contested Legacies’’ and Executive member of South Sudan’s leading official opposition party, the SPLM-DC. He can be reached at:dvanang@yahoo.com

Dear Dr Barnaba Marial;

May 20, 2013 (SSNA) -- The birth of the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS); ought to have heralded in the flourishing of communitarian and prudential politics. Communitarian in the sense that; the RoSS is the comprehensive territorial and socio-cultural and political crucible in which, all of us, in South Sudan; in our myriads of tribes and customs belong; and where, we would love to be buried in; with the glory of belonging. Prudential in the sense  that; the RoSS ought to be guided by polity, politics, and policies, which are all aimed at achieving positive cumulative and comprehensive as well as integrated results, in which; harmful effects are greatly minimised in the interest of us all in the RoSS. I strongly believe that, we, in the RoSS, are politically mature to the extent that; we are very conscious of what we actually want in a government which is in power in the RoSS. I do not think that, we, in the RoSS, need some political baby-sitting, especially on issues that touch our everyday lives.  

We in the RoSS do not need political monitors; to daily monitor our political behaviours, including our political allegiances, vis-à-vis political parties. We are politically mature to the extent that, we know what is best for us as individuals and as members of various religious, social, professional and political groups. It is extremely misleading, to portray us, the discerning peoples of the RoSS, as needing some political lectures; by some political manipulators, on the highways and byways, of belonging to the RoSS. It is also fitting to strongly argue that; we, in the RoSS, know our duties; rights; obligations; and privileges. Therefore, for constructively communitarian politics to flourish in the RoSS; our freedoms of consciences must be respected and honoured by all those saddled with the responsibilities of managing the RoSS. The government of the RoSS must protect us from some political groups which appear to believe that, they alone monopolise the political freedom of association.

In the free and sovereign RoSS, while there is nothing like absolute freedom anywhere in the whole wide world, the relative freedom allowable by societal laws and rules of law in the RoSS, for the human society to function effectively and efficiently herein, there ought not to be others in the RoSS, who illegally arrogate to themselves, some authority to regulate the context within which, we must associate with, or become members of various political parties in the country. This regulatory and oversight powers assumed by those others, and to control the political development in South Sudan, verge on political ownership of our political consciences. We reject being considered as political and intellectual property of some self-serving political groups. These are the kinds of individuals who like to entrench the culture which appears to mean that; the only claim to political representation in South Sudan is predicated on the barrel of the AK47.

Dear Dr Barnaba Marial;

I strongly believe that; all citizens of the RoSS are free to belong to any political party in the country, as long as these political parties operate within socio-political and legal norms of the RoSS. It is unconstitutional to victimise some of us, who refused to belong to some armed groups; but yet; would like to voice our opinion in a peaceful fashion, through writing, as being pro-South Sudanese enemies, and thus, we have no right to live, work, and share in the general welfare and happiness of our brethrens and sisters, in the RoSS. Prudential leadership ought not to be premised on the argument that; some South Sudanese are more nationalistic than others; and thus, those more nationalistic South Sudanese are deemed as being peoples of the leadership; and those others are the enemies of the said leadership. These kinds of political taxonomies are dangerous precedents, and they do not serve the comprehensive interests of the RoSS and its honourable peoples.  

The prudential leadership meant here is that type of leadership which has the human capacity to joyfully celebrate the multiplicity of tribes and cultures in the RoSS, and thus, embrace all sons and daughters of the RoSS in their totalities. Any leadership which does not have the capacity to embrace all of us as its peoples, without any discrimination and exclusionist tendencies; must not be allowed by us the peoples, to be our leadership. It is an anathema and sinful for us to murder ourselves just because, we belong to different political parties. Communitarian politics demand that; the essence of politics is the welfare of the community; in this case; all of us in the RoSS. We, the peoples of the RoSS, ought to celebrate multi-parties system of governance, because, it is the only guarantee against party-political tyrannies. On the other hand; our tolerance of one another, within the remit of various political parties, is indicative of a mature polity, which we aspire to achieve. 

As long as various political parties have no ill feelings or harmful agenda against the peoples of South Sudan; these political parties ought not to be vilified by the very sons and daughters of the RoSS.  Allegiance to political parties, just like respect at the individual level, must be earned. You cannot coerce highly educated people to follow you even if you will murder them in the process, should they disagree with you. Many highly educated South Sudanese have lost their lives because they dare question some political logic of some political parties during this tortured short history of the RoSS.

For example; some of us must not be vilified for refusing to belong or follow political parties that are instruments of tribalism, nepotism, ethnic control and degradation of human dignity. On the other hand; we must not follow political parties whose leaders appear to be politically unstable to the extent that, their objectives in life appear to be leadership positions at all costs. We must not allow ourselves to become political pawns in the hands of those who want to have all their political eggs and eat them at same time.

Political times in this great country of the RoSS are changing, and we must be free to join any political party as long as it is not based on tribal, sectarian and dubious socio-cultural ideology. It is obvious to all enlightened minds and eyes that, current quest for peace and stability in the RoSS is being premised on the Unity, Independence, Sovereignty, and Integrity of this nation. That being the case, it is right and fitting that, this unity, independence, sovereignty and integrity must be sealed by all of us working together. Nobody is going to privatise the RoSS politically, so that, he alone has the political access card. We do not need any more bloodshed in the country. All South Sudanese of goodwill must come together in one solid march towards love and stability with themselves; and with all international neighbours; because; our peace and harmony as well as socio-economic development, within the RoSS, depend on peaceful coexistence among ourselves, and with our neighbours from all geographical directions of this nation.

In conclusion Dr Barnaba Marial;

The time has come for us in the RoSS to make precise cost-benefit-analysis in terms of all economic sectors; and in terms of all substantive and philosophical paradigms. The carnage being inflicted upon various communities in the RoSS; in the name of political disagreements; and therefore declarations of military confrontations to resolve hitherto civil and political misunderstandings are costing us in the RoSS too much. From the outset; there are no military issues to be resolved by any nation within national political parlance.

There are always political issues. Therefore; political issues must always find their rightful resolution places on negotiation tables. The rest are clear writings on the political walls; which any political and military baby can read and understand. We are sick and tired of wars. We refuse to be dragged into unnecessary wars against ourselves, and against neighbours with whom we should be consolidating other beneficial relationships instead of killing ourselves; for no good reasons whatsoever. We want our government to be asking itself questions like:-

I can go on infinitum in terms of issues which the peoples of the RoSS want their government to be involved in, and concerned with.

The author is Professor of Social and Rural Development and Lecturer in Laws. He can be contacted via wani.lako@yahoo.com

May 17, 2013 (SSNA) -- The hedonistic, unholy and belligerent three decades old sacred cow named Oyee has become haunted. Demons of divisions and greed have taken over its psyche and it has also infected the hearts of the two top shepherds. The cow’s behaviour has become erratic. It is confused and keeps wondering aimlessly. Things are no longer good. To save the animal and the Luak (cow shed), the shepherds have agreed to recruit the representatives of God on earth to exorcise the ghosts before the cow destroys itself.

The shepherds since the birth of this particular cow have not believed in modern methods of animal husbandry. The rules of good animal management were frowned at and despised. This cow was allowed to forage freely through people’s fields and whoever complained got the stick. As is the norm in life, living things get socialised to a certain way of doing things and once these habits take hold it is not easy to forsake them. Little did the shepherds know that the unruly behaviour of their beloved cow one day will create a huge problem among them in the luak. So long as the cow grazed on other people’s fields and produced milk, they were content on reaping the benefits without thinking about the destruction that this cow caused on people’s fields and lives.

I remember way back at home when my mother used to tell us (my siblings and I) stories in the evening around the fire place (colourful stories about the ‘fox’, the ‘hare’and the like). I always looked forward to evening time for these enjoyable funny stories. With hindsight now I know that my mother was doing a great job of educating us and preparing us for life as adults in the community. These fire place stories serve a number of purposes, they equip the mind with essential knowledge necessary for survival, they build loyalty in relationship, they strengthen love between children and parents and shape lives making people to think in a responsible way towards the well-being of the community. Those unfortunate ones in the community who did not benefit from such exercises lost important aspects of good upbringing. The reason why societies have delinquents may be traced to lack of appropriate socialisation.

Each culture has a way of imparting essential and desirable norms and values on its members from an early age. Some cultures are good and others are wanting. Those with wanting cultures often are the source of problems in some societies and it becomes necessary that the wider society must take responsibility to rescue such groups from themselves by re-educating them for the greater good lest the whole society self-destructs.

Which of-course means animal breeding too involves a similar process to enable the cowboys and cowgirls to adequately manage them properly in their farms for better profits. In the advanced countries, even pets are reared in such a way as to inculcate acceptable norms in them. For instance, the owners of dogs and cats in advanced countries communicate with their animals and the latter in turn respond to the former to keep the peace. Otherwise, without good rearing, dogs and cats would be causing havoc by biting people all the time. Rarely except in the wild, can one find an animal in the community behaving as it wants without control and here is where the cow named Oyee comes in. It is exactly, the prototype of the poorly bred and uncouth animal with inbuilt traits of self-destruction.

Soon after its birth three decades ago, the owners instead of imparting acceptable norms and values on it, they relentlessly conditioned it to be aggressive and thoughtless. It was taught not to respect rules. It was taught to be ruthless. “Inshalla abuk wadi talaga”translating into ‘shoot anything regardless including your own father’. It was only nurtured as a killing machine and indeed it has turned out to be exactly so. It is very easy to talk or inculcate killing into things. Pulling a trigger or slaughtering a human being like the sad case of Banyjioth Matoat Tap may be an act of few minutes, but the consequence lasts with the dehumanised brute for life. A life that gets taken over with nightmares and mental disturbance often silently nursed by this dead soul living. If bravery means foolery, self-destruction and dehumanisation (the return to the world of savagery), then perhaps the‘cowards’ have won the battle of the day as the future looks certain to be bright for them.

Now, Oyee afflicted by this terrible disease is even unable to manage or care for itself. The concept of ‘care’ is totally alien to it. Since it achieves pleasure by hurting and destroying its own, it gets confused when told to be considerate of the sanctity of life. As far as it is concerned, pleasure is achieved from usurping power, robbing, looting, and killing.

At this crucial juncture, only weeks away from its thirtieth birthday, the shepherds have called in the men of God for help. The cow is going crazy and the two top shepherds are at each other’s throats. The blames are mounting with each shepherd lamenting the state of the cow. Even at this late stage, neither of the shepherds can see that approaching the vets may be the solution. They are convinced the cow is haunted and the panacea is with the men of God.

Approaching the vets is not a preferable option for the shepherds because the panacea may involve modern prescription involving unpalatable medications, restrictions on the cow and possible re-arrangement of the ‘Luak’ with change of the shepherds themselves. As the cow is now mentally affected, it would not be difficult for the vet to see that the shepherds themselves are contributors to its predicament and if so they should not be allowed to perpetuate the conditions that have driven this supposed sacred cow to this unfortunate situation.

The shepherds aware of such a possible diagnosis from the vets decided the best course of action is to let things as they are. Neither of them wants to lose the cow. For life without milk is unthinkable. So they resort to profusely blaming each other for the way the cow was brought up. Both have become irrational in that they are incapable of seeing that they are actually responsible for the state of the cow and neither of them has any knowledge and skills of cow management. Yet, like 2 year olds self centred egotistical children oblivious of their environment, they just want to carry on inflicting more damage. Unbelievable but that is the reality in the Luak.

As the story about the cow’s health and the division between the shepherds spreads like wild fire in the Luak, and the inhabitants of the Luak get concerned, the shepherds have now approached the representatives of God on earth to intervene. As expected, the spiritual leaders being wise men and tactful knowing that both shepherds are hopeless and that the cow itself being old and ill, there is nothing to be salvaged here. They would have preferred to recommend‘starting from scratch’ which would entail the humane putting down of this terminally ill cow. Nevertheless, knowing the atrocious behaviour and the unpredictable temper of the shepherds and the importance of preserving life, they engage in philosophical talk praising both shepherds highly - calling them men of peace and referring to the cow as healthy and the Luak as calm, stable and prosperous. These praises are dished out with razzmatazz even when the shepherds are snarling at each other with frightening display of anger.

Wittily, the spiritual leaders steer clear of exorcising the cow. It is not important and it is unworthy given it’s old age and the nature of its possession by the demons. The economics of saving a possessed slow dying cow in spiritual terms is not worth the work involved. Therefore, it is silently and intriguingly with sweet praises left to perish alone as its days are numbered. The demon initially manifesting itself as mental disturbance in the cow and now that the men of God are out of the way, it has comfortably taken full possession of the cow and fiendishly attached itself to the shepherds. As enemy of peace in the Luak it is speeding up the whole process of atrophy. Although this seems dire, for those who fear God this is the beginning of the good news because it signifies the coming of the saviour (the Messiah).

Knowing the dire situation prevailing in this difficult last days, the representatives of God on earth are now profusely on daily basis praying for the ‘Luak’ to ensure that when the end comes to this possessed unsalvageable cow the demons go along with it leaving the ‘Luak’ cleansed for coming of the Messiah with people of peace singing hallelujah loudly.

The shepherds now possessed like the cow itself are bickering with each other with their supporters fragmenting themselves with accusations and counter accusations of betrayal. Determined not to lose the milk in the interim period prior to death of the cow, each has resorted to consulting the powers of the dark to outwit the other for total control of the cow’s management (The very evil powers that has possessed them).

In the far corner of the Luak, another interesting development takes place. Three mini shepherds equally possessed assigned the responsibility of rearing three of the 10 goats in the Luak are agitated and like the three witches of Macbeth (Shakespeare) are meeting bemoaning the murky weather conditions. They warn the ‘Luakians’ forecasting horrendous weather in the days to come. They prophesy that their goats may be trampled-on in the big fight of the beasts unless something is done. The bickering shepherds each knowing that they through their cow had plundered the luak just like General Macbeth had done with the demise of Duncan the day of reckoning is about to come.

Perturbed, and besieged by the thoughts of the impending catastrophe, the shepherds reluctantly and desperately are courting the three mini shepherds of the three goats as the only hope. Without support of these midgets once considered useless beings in the Luak, neither of these competing shepherds can survive in the interim period. Whichever one of the shepherds that wins the support of these midgets will emerge as the victor in the meantime to manage the cow and also milk it without any accountability.

Ironically, the fortunes of these oppressed and supposedly coward mini shepherds of the three goats suddenly have become extremely important in the survival of anyone of the possessed ‘brave’ shepherds. One wonders whether these midgets are aware of this accidentally pivotal position of powers? If they are, will they extract maximum benefits for themselves before the death of the cow? Since the cow has foraged freely in their pens with impunity depriving the goats of pasture, will they now trade their support for maximum benefit of the goats by strictly demanding for: 1) properly demarcated pens where they are the masters to ensure that the cow does not return to forage freely. 2) de-restriction of their abused brother. 3) equitable distribution of the milk in the Luak. If the shepherds refuse to these demands, will the midgets withhold their support to both and instead vie for management of the cow itself in the interim period? After all, the three goats exactly make a third of the Luak. Mathematically they stand equal chances in a contest. Such an act will expose the fallacy of numbers but will the midgets detect this?

In the meantime, with the murky weather building up, let us together with the representatives of God on earth pray for coming of the Messiah. Oh! God save the Luak. Amen

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

The Author lives in the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at elhagpaul@aol.com

May 16, 2013 (SSNA) -- In the late 70s when for the first time oil was discovered in Southern Sudan there was euphoria that poverty would be a thing of the past, replaced by a high standard of living. After all when oil was discovered in the Arabian Peninsula the Arabs made gigantic strides in development and the economic boom raised the standards of living. However, although the oil was discovered in Southern Sudan, the South was not to become the major beneficiary. The central government with focus on the interest of Northern Sudan had other plans to deny Southern Sudan development opportunities.

To exploit the oil resources of Southern Sudan, the central government made sure the refinery was sited in Northern Sudan. In addition, the oil from wells in Southern Sudan was to be transported to international markets through Northern Sudan. Siting the refinery in Northern Sudan and the subsequent transportation of the oil to international markets deprived enormously Southern Sudanese of employment opportunities and income to reduce poverty. Also, lack of revenues to Southern Sudan for vital development projects, as a result of siting the refinery in the North, was obvious. Arguably, the discovery of oil was hardly a blessing in Southern Sudan when it was an integral part of old Sudan.

One would expect oil as a blessing in independent South Sudan. Between 2005 and 2011 Southern Sudan became self-governing and with it got a better deal on wealth sharing with Northern Sudan with reference to oil revenues. This was an arrangement in a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) between Northern and Southern Sudan in 2005. In the arrangement Northern and Southern Sudan agreed that 2 per cent of oil revenue derived from oil producing wells in Southern Sudan should be allocated to the oil producing states in proportion to output produced in such states. It was also agreed that 50 per cent of net oil revenue derived from oil producing wells in Southern Sudan should be allocated to the Government of Southern Sudan.

In the CPA the wealth sharing arrangement was indeed a relief in light of acute underdevelopment and poverty in Southern Sudan. In independent South Sudan oil production indeed would be a blessing because South Sudan would have 100 per cent of revenue from its own oil. However, the extent to which oil revenues will be used for an impact on living standards will indicate whether oil is a curse or a blessing in independent South Sudan.

Indicators of especial interest to be used are poverty and insecurity. This is because when oil is a blessing there shouldn’t be a high prevalence of poverty and insecurity because of the expected adequate budgetary allocations. Naturally oil is seen to produce substantial revenues that can be used to eradicate poverty and insecurity. Nevertheless, others may argue that it is not oil that may be a curse but corruption. On the other hand a counter argument can be made, though simplistic, that when oil creates corruption then oil is a curse. However, oil in itself may neither be a curse nor a blessing as when it is underground but then it depends on how it is managed above ground.

Unity State in South Sudan was the lead oil producer which should have been getting 2 per cent of oil revenue from its wells according to the CPA. However, its consumption per capita per month was lower than non oil producing state like Western Bahr el Ghazal. Similarly Upper Nile was the lead region in oil production but its consumption per capita per month was low in contrast to consumption per capita per month in non oil producing Equatoria.

On poverty Unity State as oil producing has 68 per cent of its population living below the poverty line while the population of non oil producing Western Bahr el Ghazal is 43 per cent below the poverty line. This seems to suggest that oil is not everything. With or without oil a state or region can still flourish. So there is no way an oil producing state or region should boast.

On services oil seems to have no impact. Salaries were not received promptly. Insecurity was rampant when people were murdered by armed gangs who were nowhere to face justice, and this happened when the budget for security was one of the largest. There was hardly any running clean drinking water in the majority of residential areas and availability of electricity was a joke. People depended and are still depending on food items imported from the neighbouring countries even when the oil was flowing. Roads in cities and towns were of little difference with roads in remote rural areas. The list of poor services could be long in a country that was oil producing.

What guarantee is there that the resumption of oil flow will make any difference as a blessing in reducing poverty and insecurity? With or without oil life will be as usual with people who have experienced life in South Sudan since 2005. What may rid people of poverty and insecurity are radical reforms and a thorough cleaning up of the system of incapability otherwise the number of millionaires will grow up spectacularly with the resumed flow of oil. Sugar-coated lies and naked intimidation to silence genuine dissent will not work because people are already alert and may have been fed up with words without concrete action since 2005.

In conclusion, hopefully South Sudan will not enter the Guinness Book of Records as a failed state barely within two years of gaining independence because when oil revenues are mismanaged and with insecurity so rampant; oil becomes more of a liability than an asset or rather more of a curse than a blessing. The religious may need to offer a prayer for divine intervention and the secular may need to use all their mental faculties for a decent and peaceful way out.

The author can be reached at jklupai@googlemail.com

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- South Sudan as a young nation that has just attained her independent seems to be following a path once followed by Kenyans in their post independent politics. The author wants to bring this to the eyes of the citizens in order for them to avoid the pitfalls made by Kenyans. From the current Kenyan politic, South Sudan should learn how hurtful tribal politics is and how it can derail the process of nation building. As the saying goes, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” should Kenyan meat be a South Sudanese poison or South Sudanese meat a Kenyan poison. Let’s cast a quick glance at the Kenyan politic of ethnicity and juxtapose it to our own.

In Kenya, Kikuyu are the majority and they are the one possessing the riches of the nation. KANU was dominated by Kikuyu except for some few junior politicians among which include a young skilled secretary of the party Tom Mboya, a Luo by ethnicity who used all his talents in managing the party regardless of manipulation by the Kikuyu. In 1961 election, there was a split in KANU; those who felt oppressed left the party. Ronald Ngala, Masinde Muliro formed KADU, and James Gichuru remains the chairman of KANU. When Jomo Kenyatta was released from prison, James Gichuru handed over the chairmanship to his fellow tribe man. They campaigned for other Bantu and it became a Bantu against Nilotes. Oginga Odinga, R. Ngala and M. Muliro, regardless of the outline clear objectives of their party, agreed to join KANU again after defection for the sake of liberating the nation. Kenya came under one party KANU. This led to the attainment of independent in 1963. Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu man became the first President of the Republic of Kenya and Jaramongi Odinga Oginga, a Luo man was made the vice president, a tacit of equality manifested itself but feebly died down.

Once in power Kenyatta swerved from radical nationalism to conservative bourgeois politics. The plantations formerly owned by white settlers were broken up and given to farmers, with the Kikuyu the favored recipients, along with their allies the Embu and the Meru. By 1978 most of the country's wealth and power was in the hands of the organization which grouped these three tribes: the Gikuyu-Embu-Meru Association (GEMA), together comprising 30% of the population of Kenya. At the same time the Kikuyu, with Kenyatta's support, spread beyond their traditional territorial homelands and repossessed lands "stolen by the whites" - even when these had previously belonged to other groups. The government of the United Kingdom donated billions of pounds to buy the land from the white settlers and redistribute it to the all Kenyans, but instead, Kenyatta distributed this land to Kikuyu and his closest friends.The other groups, a 70% majority, were outraged, setting up long-term ethnic animosities—the seed of tribalism was planted—and Kenyan began to develop tribal attitude and national oneness diminished.

The minority party, the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU), representing a coalition of small tribes that had feared dominance by larger ones, dissolved itself voluntarily in 1964 and former members joined KANU. KANU was the only party 1964-1966 when a faction broke away as the Kenya People's Union (KPU). It was led by Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, a former vice president and Luo elder. KPU advocated a more "scientific" route to socialism—criticizing the slow progress in land redistribution and employment opportunities—as well as a realignment of foreign policy in favor of the Soviet Union. In June 1969 Tom Mboya, a Luo member of the government considered a potential successor to Kenyatta, was assassinated. Hostility between Kikuyu and Luo was heightened, and after riots broke out in Luo country KPU was banned by the Kenyatta’s government. The government used a variety of political and economic measures to harass the KPU and its prospective and actual members. KPU branches were unable to register, KPU meetings were prevented, and civil servants and politicians suffered severe economic and political consequences for joining the KPU. Kenya thereby became a one-party state under KANU.

Ignoring his suppression of the opposition and continued factionalism within KANU the imposition of one-party rule allowed Mzee ("Old Man") Kenyatta, who had led the country since independence, claimed he achieved "political stability." Underlying social tensions were evident, however. Kenya's very rapid population growth rate and considerable rural to urban migration were in large part responsible for high unemployment and disorder in the cities. There also was much resentment by blacks at the privileged economic position in the country of Asians and Europeans.

At Kenyatta's death (August 22, 1978), Vice President Daniel arap Moi became interim President. On October 14, Moi became President formally after he was elected head of KANU and designated its sole nominee. In June 1982, the National Assembly amended the constitution, making Kenya officially a one-party state. On August 1 members of the Kenyan Air Force launched an attempted coup, which was quickly suppressed by Loyalist forces led by the Army, the General Service Unit (GSU) — paramilitary wing of the police — and later the regular police, but not without civilian casualties.

The leadership of Daniel Arap Moi was embrace by all Kenyans with hope and high expectations that he will change the then existing ethnic politic but to their surprise, Moi introduce the what so called “Nyayo” a Swahili term meaning “foot step”. Moi stated clearly that he is going to follow the footsteps of Kenyatta which granted the expectation of the citizens futile. The grievances of the citizens remained so high but who dare response? In Arap Moi’s leadership, things remained the same. The 1992 assassination of Robert Ouko, a great Luo politician who was by then a minister for Foreign Affairs was another brutality witnessed by the luo under Moi’s leadership. This happened in 1992 election when Kenyatta was nearly depeated in the contest by his rival J.O. Oginga. Robert was a strong key politician in siding with Odinga.

What should south Sudan learn from this story?

South Sudan in it two-decades struggle had had a similar situation as to that of Kenya which I would not want to squeak any syllable about because all of us know it. The similarities are that the nation’s wealth, goes to, if not one, few tribes, the land is being grabbed from the weaker tribes by the powerful majority tribes who also hold high positions in the government, employment in all private sector has almost 50% going to one, or few tribes, the composition of the government is 45% by one tribe giving the other minor tribe 55% of the share in the ministerial positions. Companies and big businesses are owned by one tribe. Assassination is a custom here because we have also witnessed some few. I have been reading some comments on the internet which I purely regarded as hate speeches, these look like, “this tribe is brave” “this tribe is coward” “this tribe will never rule” “we are born to rule forever” “this tribe is weak” and so on. What do we understand about a nation if we are still citing these jeopardizing messages?  Did we not fought in the war all of us and did we not shed blood together? Remember no matter how big a tree is, it can’t be called a forest, likewise to our cases, no matter how big a tribe is, it will never be called a nation. Why are we so obese with tribalism?

Let me take this opportunity to advise those whose legs are swift to shed blood, your blood is awaiting too. As the Bible said, “those who kills with sword, with sword shall they be killed”.

The writer can be reached through kuach444@gmail.com

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- The wonderful readers may agree with me that the problems of the nascent state of South Sudan is not confined to issues to do with the constitution, be that the current transitional constitution or the much publicized permanent constitution which is in the making.

This is not in any way to belittle the role of the constitution here, but rather to bring to light that these constitutions are subject to manipulations and violations under the current ruling clique. They [Kiir & company] can easily do it at any stage of the process from the point of inception to the point of adoption, and the current transitional constitution is a living example of that.

Another important issue is the national healing and reconciliation process which has already exposed   the current leadership’s incapability to oversee such a grant national exercise especially when it has spectacularly failed to initiate an internal reconciliation within the same ruling party. The bishops, yes they have been brought in.

But how are they [bishops] going to instill the needed will into these former rebel commanders  turn politicians starting with the top man himself to accept to go back to apologize to their victims or their  living relatives. That is the South African way and that’s only how it can work in South Sudan. The perpetuators and the victims must come face to face!

On the other hand many people have been subjected to arbitrarily arrests throughout Salva Kiir and the SPLM intelligentsia’s tenure in office since they last stopped being rebels. Not surprising of course it has been the Press Community which has so far suffered the most as they continue to expose the wrong doers, however many other victims have as well included people from every section of the South Sudanese society. Many too were extrajudicial killed in the hands of government’s secret agents.

Sadly enough, if that is the right expression, all these violations to the basic human rights of the victims had taken place and continue to do so in the presence of the country’s transitional constitution. This is a constitution that approves the freedom of expression, but also provides every citizen the right to a fair hearing in a court of law.

So where have we the citizens gone wrong to be victimized this much? And is it an issue about having a constitution when we already have one or is it about a bunch of people in office who prefer to violate the constitution?

With the above introduction we can now delve into the core issue no other than the ingrained attitude by President Salva Kiir Mayardit and his inner circles to run the country in a way that only serves their groups interest.

This leadership’s history in office over the last eight years or so is more than enough to justify every statement that portrays Kiir Mayardit’s leadership as non-visionary.

We know that president Salva Kiir still has a handful supporters of fainthearted opportunists who have themselves out preformed their boss on several occasions,  in as far as the abuse of power is concerned.  Is it not the case when the president went ballistic in his speech to his cabinet and senior officials accusing them of back stabbing the government in which they serve?

This is what he said:  Sudan Tribune (01/05/ 2013): and I quote:

“They talk as if they are not part of it [government] but if you follow them, you find they are the same people who are the ones involved in corruption. They are the ones involved in arbitrary arrest, but they come out in the day and say they are not part of it”, he said.

Given the president’s above acknowledgment that his ministers are behind those heinous crimes committed the nationwide, much of his statement can go all the way to not only unravel the mystery surrounding the death of the 25-year-old former traffic officer from Mayom County of the Unity State (the Western Upper Nile).

According to the relatives' story in the public media, the deceased young man had gone to a nearby shop on the 28 March, where he went missing and never to return home.  Two days later his body was found dumped behind Hon. Salva Mathok, the RSS deputy minister of Interior’s house, with traces of blood also leading to the deputy minister’s house now suspected by the relatives to be the likely
crime scene.

He [president] also acknowledged the many arbitrary arrests taking place all across the country at the directives of his cabinet ministers and government senior officials as highlighted in his quoted speech.

If you didn't know yet - then better know now that two well-known journalists in Juba, Michael Koma and Alfred Taban have been harassed, detained, and repeatedly interrogated on the directives of the deputy minister of interior in spite of the fact that he [Mathok}  stands very tall in the centre of this barbaric crime.

Don’t you agree with me my  dear reader - that any sound minded individual would have seen the relevancy of the office of the prosecutor-general handling this murder case, completely on its own without having to involve the ministry of interior so as to avoid any conflicts of interest?  This is a very important point if we are to talk of justice in the true sense of the word.

In this case injustice is already in the making since Hon. Salva Mathok is considered as the prime suspect by the relatives of the deceased young man and still he refuses to resign his position so as to allow for an impartial investigation. By so doing he has already compromised the position of the government department [ministry of Interior] that he continues to supervise.  And add to it his subsequent actions towards these journalists; you can NEVER miss to see the obstruction of Justice being committed in a broad day light.

Of course no one out there is too naïve not to understand that officials like Salva Mathok have all the approval to not only enjoy impunity in a case as big as this murder crime now at hand, but he can as well go on unquestioned by the president to further abuse his position by detaining those journalists for publishing articles presented to them by the relatives of the deceased.

Hon. Salva Mathok is a classic example of President Kiir’s loyalists who enjoy the unlimited freedom to corrupt with impunity as long as they fulfill the boss’s criteria of being good members of the cabinet i.e. ministers who acknowledge that the freedom allowing them to commit all sorts of corruption and immoralities has been availed to them by the president who in turn expects them to remain loyal to his person as much as possible.

And as long as these loyal ministers and senior officials stick to the president’s terms, they will continue to enjoy their ministerial positions and be protected by the government and the president. This is a president whose sole concern is how to remain in power regardless of all the living hell his leadership is delivering on the poor masses, day and night.

A leadership that has ruthlessly presided over one of the most corrupt regimes in human history throughout its eight years in office should only be told that enough is enough.

Furthermore it’s no longer any secret how some people lose their position in Salva Kiir’s government while others who are indeed true embodiments of corruption and theft remain to serve. This is not difficult to decipher, for the whole thing is all about whether a corrupted official eats alone or shares his/her loot with the boss.  What that means is everybody’s guess.

Here we are in front of a leadership that has no respect for any form of constitution or institution. We are all witness to how the Interim constitution was repeatedly violated all through the six years that followed the CPA.

Again from 9th July 2011 following the declaration of Independence to date the so-called transitional constitution although meticulously tailored to slim fit the President – yet he too has failed to honour it.

Thus those who wrongly assume that the way out of RSS mess can be found in the coming permanent constitution while retaining the same visionless and grossly incompetent leadership are in fact trying to  indefinitely postpone any hopes of the country  to change for the better.

They too are playing against the basic rule which says he or she who fails to do well in small thing cannot handle big things. South Sudan’s future in what is now the 21st century – the digital age - is no domain for the current crude leadership style!

If you have been told that there are no other people in the whole of South Sudan who can better rule the country besides the current leadership on top of them president Salva Kiir Mayardit and his deputy Dr. Riek Machar and you happen to believe that, then my fellow you must have been exposed to the worse type of “brainwashing” – that’s if of course if I thought you actually have the brain to be washed in the first place!

The monstrous nature of the current totalitarian government that is on its final march to become a “One Man Rule” will continue to multiply with each and every day Salva Kiir Mayardit remains in office.

Evidence after evidence has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that president Salva Kiir’s has developed an uncontrollable tendency to over-ride all the country’s constitutions and institutions, a fact only made easier by the transitional constitution specially cooked for him by his co-conspirator Hon.  John Luk Jok [his current minister for Legal Affairs] in return for a foothold in the president’s inner circles and of course a ministerial position that is likely to extend as far as Kiir remains in office.

“Many agreements dishonoured”, is a familiar impression that an average citizen of South Sudan holds against the subsequent Jallaba governments that ruled and continue to rule in the republic of Sudan. However not very long following our independence, we now have a leader who stands for nothing but “Many Promises dishonoured”.

And the fact that even after nearly a decade in office president Salva Kiir is still looking forward for yet another term in office is a clear evidence of his political and power greediness which is going to be a frank obstacle to the peaceful transfer of power in the nascent country.

A leader with this kind of attitude is also likely to do everything he can to remain in office even if that means dropping whole chapters or articles from the country’s constitution at its best - or can even go to length arresting or   liquidating opponents and those perceived as potential enemies while doing way with the constitution all together.

These are some of the core issues for you to consider my fellow compatriots. The earlier we acknowledge it today and move to eliminate it from taking root the better - before it is too late to salvage anything.

In other wards we can go all the way and write the most wonderful permanent constitution in the whole universe, but as long as we are still ruled by the current leadership or any of its kind, the constitution may not even be worth the paper or the ink used!

Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. Secretary General – United South Sudan Party [USSP]. He can be reached at: justinramba@doctors.net.uk

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- The South Sudanese town of Boma in Pibor County had fallen to South Sudan Democratic Army, SSDA, a gubernatorial rebellion led by David Yau. The same month, May 2013, South Sudanese army at the frontline in Pibor demonstrated uncharacteristic display by abandoning positions at the frontline and going on a looting spree in Pibor itself as many reports propose. Other incidences of civil disorder staged by the retreating army from Pibor have been reported on the outskirts of Bor town, the state capital.

Although the army behaviour could not be delinked from poor performance in service delivery and logistical negligence, the fall of Boma plateau is remarkably atypical. It is possibly the very first time that a military incursion into the SPLA/M Boma had merely lasted for minutes, if not hours, after which her inhabitants are sent helter-skelter into the merciless Tingily semi-desert. It is implausibly difficult to put thoughts together in determining the underlying circumstances that led to easy slip of Boma into the hands of the militia. The South Sudanese media and the military seemed to have also resigned to the fall of Boma. No one knows if Boma has been abandoned only for a season or for eternity.

This raised questions whether the softly captured and eerily whispered Boma in the news was the same Boma that served as the spring board into Eastern Equatoria by East Equatoria Axis in 1980s? Was this the Boma so known to Major Nyachigak Nyachiluk, Lt Colonel Martin Manyiel Ayuel, commander Kuol Amum, Commander Gilario Modi Hurnyang and Bol Madut or the Kiswahili ‘boma’ the homestead? South Sudanese who wandered the bush are perhaps asking these questions. One convincing answer rests in the reasoning that the mentality about the importance of Boma has increasingly became illusive to leaders and the military. Boma of today is not synonymous anymore to Boma of yore.

The Boma of today, the Boma of South Sudanese regular and paid army, the Boma that could be captured and the course of history would never change, the liberated and outlandish Boma of logistical clumsiness and of command and control debacles was probably the Boma that fell. This is the Boma that nobody cares if it is overran a thousandth fold, for it will forever be in South Sudan. Welcome then to Jebel Buma, the Upper and Lower Boma, ‘Boma Up and Boma Down,’ the SPLA and SSDA Berlin divided by ridges.

Boma of old was a different bush town, too daring to meddle with and too comfortable to hold on to it. It became the recuperating point for recruits and refugees crossing Sahara Tingily either way between Ethiopia and South Sudan. Incarcerated SPLA/M political prisoners like Arok Thon Arok, Karubino Kuanyin Bol and others had their home on Upper Boma. At an elevation of about 1100 meters above sea level, anyone defending it had an eye view on the attackers and wielding a demigod power to rain munitions on them. During the dry season, her surrounding semi-desert was always a deeply cracked and waterless alluvial soil; a hell of a place not only to thirsty humans but also to animals. Boma was undeniably impermeable to alien forces. The SPLA forces stormed it once and battled for its defence countable times. 

It was Major Bior Ajak, famous as Tahir Bior Abdala Ajak who commanded the Neran battalion that forcefully entered Boma for the first time in early 1980s and established a command base for Eastern Equatoria Axis. The SPLA/M Movement was at the time arching out military operational fronts throughout Southern Sudan. Since that time, Boma never fell to Jellaba and their allies. One proven historical wartime reality had for years stood unremittingly opposed to quick fall of the area to external invasion after its initial capture: elevation of Boma itself. The town or a post had always served as a defensive armoury to her inhabitants throughout the twenty-one years of war, particularly where there was a will to defend it. That willpower is unquestionably dwindling much to the forgetfulness of the eminence of the area as a national heritage.

The prominence of Boma plateau and its national importance in South Sudan is as historical as it is strategically significant. Boma is the hub of wildlife diversity in South Sudan, expanding in area to about 2300000ha, probably followed by Chelkou. It is an area of vast resources that a nation could tap into for economic gains and progress. Little known to many is the botanical implication of Boma. Boma has a profusion of Coffee Arabica which grows in its rain forest ecosystem as a wild plant. This is a rare gift of nature that ought to keep Boma within the government’s arm’s length for resources mobilisation and development in the country. It was first noticed in the colonial Sudan in 1930s by a botanist, Dr. A.S. Thomas. He later wrote an academic paper in 1942 entitled: “The wild Arabica coffee on the Boma Plateau, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.” After that, Boma slipped into the Sudanese negligence of her multiple marginalities. So if anyone feels the compulsion to tabulate the regions of national importance in South Sudan, Boma will, for reason to be defended, jostle in the second place after oil fields.

There are veritable corollaries of the fall of Boma to Yau Yau rebel forces but one is of a particular concern: the Potentiality for the expansion of broad based rebellion that might recruit, not only from Murle but also from other local population in the area. Boma is home to Murle, Kishipo/Suri and Anyuak. It is therefore indispensable to worry for invariable reasons since ethnic composition of Boma is that of a people who have never been friends, but may find a unifying factor in Yau Yau. He could use Murle pastoralists to forcefully recruit sedentary agriculturalists Kishipo and Anyuak. A biblical maxim states that a prophet is not accepted in his hometown. Yau Yau’s testimonial of seriousness in South Sudan would likely be felt when he exerts control over Murle’s adjacent communities. The probable outcome would be an establishment of a base - the Al Qaeda of the rebellion. If this happens, Juba might not have to worry about Boma but Pachalla, Jebel Raid and Pakok/Korchum without forgetting the support Yau Yau might get among the Taposas. Effectively, Juba would be cut off from the Ethiopian and Kenyan Borders closest to it. This move could completely turn the tables on summary ‘amnesties’ that the government is fond of extending. Ever since, such amnesties have only served to build personalities than to provide credible solutions. There is proven belief going around that ‘if you want to be a Major-General in the South Sudanese army, first be a rebel.’ Well, a rebel one might be and Major General one might win, but certainly what angers a civilian to take up arms in the first instance may get him into the woods again al beit heavily laden with military titles. Yau Yau is a case in point.

From Gumuruk, the village town of one blue mountain, Yau Yau the pastoralist and theologian is presently in the mountains of ‘Boma Up’ Plateau. Opposite to his theological training as a preserver of souls, he is slaying people up there. South Sudanese army must do a lot more to bring him to ‘Boma Down’ and out of town.

Martin Garang is a South Sudanese living in Australia. He can be reached at garangaher@hotmail.com

May 15, 2013 (SSNA) -- With the murder of Chief Kuol Deng Kuol as the latest in the series of Sudan’s continued aggression against S. Sudan, it is time that Juba draws curtain on soft stances, and develops relevant countermeasures against Khartoum –even if it means another war. It is worrying that S. Sudan might not stand a chance of getting fair justice with the current status quo within the United Nations and the African Union.  The approach employed by both organizations over the last few years, in an effort to forge peaceful solutions between the two countries, seems to fortify this.

In the progression of events since the independence of S. Sudan, the position of UN and AU has been hypocritical, and inherently redundant. Customarily, both have been [and still continue to] turning a blind eye to Sudan Army’s aerial bombings and ground assault deep within S. Sudan. However, when SPLA seized Panthou (Heglig) in April last year, they abruptly found guts to ‘condemn it with the strongest terms possible’. Outraged, they swamped the media barely a few hours after the incident.  Interestingly, capture of Panthou was a continuation of Sudan Army’s prior attack on SPLA positions in Unity State, but neither the UN nor the AU was keen to acknowledge that. Ban Ki Moon was lightening-quick to describe it as “an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act.” Assuming that Heglig is part of Sudan, the UN Chief simply implied that only SAF’s attack within S. Sudan territory is deemed ‘legal’. As if that was not enough, he went on to give ‘an order’ to the president of a sovereign state! Make no illusion that he’d take such crap to Bashir. He has never done, and will never do. Never.

Moreover, the same UN had been whining around, speculating that S. Sudan supports Sudan rebels; a scapegoat currently used by the bloody warmongers in the North to justify their destabilization campaigns in the South. Yet they were lip-tied when the whole proxy militia unit, used by Khartoum, returned to the South in a broad daylight! Didn’t they hear what they were doing in the North? I doubt.

The AU, on the other hand, looks comfortable with the hide-and-seek games that Khartoum has been playing throughout the negotiations. Khartoum has been breaching agreements on their faces, one after another, and Chief Kuol’s murder being the latest attempt to re-derail the Abyei referendum. Still they are as meek as lambs about it. As usual, Khartoum, intriguingly, is allowed to go scot-free. Why don’t they transfer the dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration if they are a bunch of gutless cowards who can’t afford seeing Bashir in the eye? Perhaps they are waiting for the breaking point when S. Sudan wouldn’t be able to influence any outcome, one is tempted to think. When that will be is another question.

Regrettably, both organizations have again and again proved too critical toward Juba yet they, blatantly, fail to hold Khartoum accountable for its incessant aggression and breach of agreements. This only portrays them as inadmissible, absurd, and void of impartiality. It suggests that S. Sudan’s perceived military and economic inferiority is being used as a potential fault-line that can be exploited to solve the problem.  This can only be seen as betrayal against S. Sudan.

It is also astounding that, even in the presence of United Nations Interim Force for Abyei [in Abyei], people still lose lives to SAF and their Misseriya arab militias. The UN and the AU once again pretend not to know anything about it. Apparently, if you give it a closer look, the lines between the UN, the AU, and the bloodthirsty Jihadists in the North have blurred. Their credibility has waned drastically. S. Sudan’s complains are reduced to a toothless-cobra’s hiss. One wonders whether S. Sudan will ever get fair justice with the current set up within the UN and the AU.

This leaves the government of S. Sudan with only one option: take a stern stance on Abyei and other disputed areas; negotiate when everyone is ready to, and leave the negotiation table when everyone else leaves. It is also necessary that corresponding echoes be unequivocally sent out when Sudan blows war or peace trumpets. That would balance the equation. Otherwise, S. Sudan’s sovereignty is at stake if it is left in the hands of the Bashir-shy UN and AU.

Philips Al-Ghai can be reached at alghai211@gmail.com

May 14, 2013 (SSNA) -- The newly independent state of South Sudan is faced with enormous challenges of nation-building particularly the need to set up a democratic political system. Since it became independent in July 2011, the political parties have been locked in an argument about the right political system that would work for the new nation. Some argue that a decentralized political system is better than a federal system. Others contend that the ethnic diversity of the South would be better served under federal model. Currently, a committee is set up to work on drafting a permanent constitution because since July, 2011, the newly independent country has been operating under a provisional constitution.

The argument of this paper is that federal system should be the best political system that would work for South Sudan. A decentralized unitary system in which the executive has an absolute power over territorial governments would be in conflict with the aspiration of the people of South Sudan. The paper explores the ideas of Western philosophers like Plato, John Lock and Machiavelli.

Each country all over the world chooses a form of government which meets the needs of its citizens. Most people prefer democratic system which gives people rights and freedom of expression, equal opportunities and liberty. The Republic of South Sudan, like any other newly created country in any other parts of the world, is struggling as to what system of governance to adopt and why. Federalism is the best governance option for the new Republic of South Sudan because the country has diverse social settings; traditions or religious norms; tribal differences; as well as some other cultural divide. Since independence, there have been many controversial political issues which faced the Republic of South Sudan (RSS). One such controversy is its transitional constitution which was drafted two months prior to independence in order to serve as a provisional document to run the country until the permanent constitution is drafted. During the drafting of the provisional constitution, the general public, along with South Sudan opposition parties, had rejected the idea of “decentralized system” which was stated in article 1.2 of the constitution, 2011. Instead, the public and various political parties called for a federal system—arguing that it is the best system they believed would foster peace and stability in the country.

The civil society, and all the opposition parties of South Sudan, as well as the general public discussed, asked the mythic question: What kind of political system would be appropriate for the South? The answer to this question will be discussed and debated with the use of three authors: Plato, John Locke, and Machiavelli. Like South Sudan opposition parties, Plato would likely agree with the idea of federalism, as he noted that “we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State” (Plato 360 B.C.E, book II). Although Machiavelli would possibly disagree with the federal system because he believed in a special relationship between moral goodness and legitimate authority, John Locke who believed in “state of nature” would agree with those calling for adoption of a federal system. Locke’s support for federal system could be observed from his statement in which he argued that “man being born, as has been proved with a title to perfect freedom and an unrestricted enjoyment of all rights and privileges of the law of nature equally with any other man...... in the world” (Locke 1632-1704, 69-73). Using ideas from these three authors we can see that federalism is the best governance option for the new Republic of South Sudan, based on the following qualities: division of power and properties, equal opportunities for all citizens, and member unit representatives have veto power on central decisions.

Before debating the political system that would be appropriate for South Sudan, it is important to know beforehand what federalism and decentralized democratic systems are in order to avoid ambiguity. Federalism in the free online dictionary is “a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” (Webster Dictionary). There is no single definition of the decentralized democratic system, but decentralized system is “a form of government with its top-level decision-making processes dispersed throughout the system rather than concentrated in one person, place or legislative body” (Babylon’s free dictionary). With these definitions, it is clear that in federalism, power is devolved between a central authority and constituent political units, whereas in a decentralized system, the decision is made from the top-level and then distributed throughout the system rather than concentrated in one place or legislative body.

One could argue that federalism would be the best political system for the Republic of South Sudan. When it comes to the mythic question “whom should I imitate”, the South Sudan opposition parties and the general public argue that the federal system is the only option that the government of South Sudan must adopt. Here are some of the qualities which make the federal system the best option: (1), division of power and properties (2) equal opportunities for all citizens (3) member unit representatives have veto power on central decisions. First, the division of power between central authority and constituent political units would help minimize problems between local citizens and the central government. Every citizen, including small tribes, would have more autonomy in local governments than they would have in central government. For example, in South Sudan, some states are more developed than the others in terms of basic services like roads, healthcare centers, schools and clean water. And these differences are caused by imbalance of power and unequal distribution of resources.

Second, equal opportunities for all citizens would be guaranteed under the federal system than any other system. Federalism would address ethnic tensions in South Sudan by empowering local governments to deal with local matters. Since the interim period until the independence of South Sudan, minority tribes believe that the government is dominated by the largest tribes even though they fought side by side during the civil war with the largest tribes. For example, in the current government, some of the small tribes in South Sudan have few or no representatives in the government of South Sudan. Therefore, the frustrations in those communities and the feeling of marginalization have created hatred and the ethnic tensions between Southerners have become so intense and amounted in mass killings between tribes. The evidence of such conflicts is clearly underscored by the March 2012 attack of Lou Nuer cattle camps by the Murle tribe which left over 1,500 people dead and other hundreds wounded.

Although critics of federalism in South Sudan argue that as the domination of small tribes is concerned, South Sudan needs a governing system which gives the citizens equal rights, freedom of expressions and so forth to deal with diversity. However, the opposition parties and the civil society argue that one of the major weaknesses in the current unitary system is the huge gap in social, political, economic and civic standards between those who run the governments and the ordinary people, particularly minority groups.

Third, the importance of federalism is that member unit representatives have veto power over central decisions, that is, federal system gives member unit representatives veto rights on central decision. Like any country governed under the federal system, the people of South Sudan would be given full rights to elect their representatives in both lower and upper levels of governments if the only system adopted is federalism. In Canada for example, every province is freely allowed by law to elect some members from their provinces to represent them in both provincial and federal governments.

The critics of centralized system in South Sudan argue that as the domination of small tribes is concerned, South Sudan needs a governing system which gives the citizens equal rights, freedom of expressions and more autonomy. Another argument the proponents of federalism put forth is that the Republic of South Sudan should choose federalism because for the last seven year interim periods, the region faced a lot of social problems which caused social unrest in the country such as cattle rustling between tribes, and rebellions against the current government. For instance, “the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for South Sudan last year expressed fears of more ethnic violence in South Sudan’s Jonglei state, after it emerged that tribal militias could have seemed to have acquired modern weapons, communications equipment and appear well organized”  (Sudan Tribune, March 15, 2012). The South Sudan opposition parties argued that to prevent such violence from happening, the transitional constitution must adopt federalism and give each region a full autonomy. Furthermore, implementing a federal system would give each citizen a sense of responsibility, freedom, and nationalism.  Therefore, each tribe in Southern Sudan would be equally represented in both central and local governments.

On the other hand, the Republic of South Sudan transitional constitution, 2011, which is based on decentralized democratic system, stated that one of the strategic objectives that democratic decentralization serves is to broaden legitimacy, transparency and accountability within the political system of the Republic of South Sudan. In the current South Sudanese transitional constitution, it is mentioned that decentralized democratic system is the best option because of the following reasons. First, it makes the relationships between central and local governments and between local governments and citizens durable in terms of distribution of power. The national and state governments may share functions and collaborate on major national resources like oil. For example, the current transitional constitution stated that any state of the ten states South Sudan with oil will get 2% of the oil revenue.

Second, the decentralized democratic system is the extension of democratic processes to lower levels of government. For example, in the transitional constitution, 2011, it is stated that decentralized democratic system increases local government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. For instance, the anti - corruption committee must be formed in state governments, as it was formed in the central government. Any person accuses of corruption must be investigated without delay.

Third, democratic decentralization incorporates both decentralization and democratic local governance. The most and the last important argument made in the transitional constitution is that South Sudan is a diverse country which has a long history of tribal conflicts, so it needs a governing system with tough laws and order, a system which works for all individual citizens. Therefore, the transitional constitution is based on decentralized democratic system.

One may contend that John Locke’s view on the function “Of Civil government” is evidence that he would favor federalism which gives state governments more autonomy. Like federal system which is highlighted above, Locke explained the function of a genuine government and distinguished it from undemocratic government. With no doubt, Locke would certainly support the idea of federalism for the Republic of South Sudan, as he stated that “government should rest on the consent of the governed and be limited in its powers” (Locke 1632-1704, 68). Furthermore, Locke who believed in democracy would also agree with the idea that member unit representatives should have veto power on central decisions. That means all ten South Sudan states in the federal system of government could have independent powers in terms of decision-makings. Therefore, the above quote of John Locke could be related to the argument made by South Sudan opposition parties that the transitional constitution of South Sudan has given the central government more powers than powers given to the states.

Locke’s statement that “man being born, as has been proved with a title to perfect freedom and an unrestricted enjoyment of all rights and privileges of the law of nature equally with any other man...... in the world” (Locke 1632-1704, 71-72) would mean that power between central and state governments must be equally divided. Yet, unlike South Sudan opposition parties, when choosing which system to adopt, Locke would support a system that follows the state of natural laws as he stressed that “to understand political power correctly, and derive it from its origins, we must consider what state all men are naturally in; a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking permission or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 1632-1704, 69).

Since the Republic of South Sudan is so diverse, with different traditions or religious norms, tribal differences, and other cultural divides, John Locke would undoubtedly agree on autonomy for South Sudan states. On the other hand, John Locke, who also believed in property rights, would certainly agree with the current transitional constitution of the Republic of South Sudan transitional constitution, 2011 which gives 2% of oil revenues to the state governments which produce oil. As a country with a history of tribal conflicts, Locke would support the application of the toughest law in the new Republic of South Sudan, because in “Of the civil government”, he stressed that the state of nature vests each reasonable individual with an independent right and responsibility to enforce the natural law by punishing those few individuals who irrationally choose to violate it. Furthermore, Locke concludes that “in breaking the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule that of reason and justice” (Locke 1632-1704, 70).

Plato would likely agree that the federal system is the best option for the new Republic of South Sudan as he stated in the Allegory of the cave:“And if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall see the justice and injustice of the State in process of creation…” (Plato 360 B.C.E, book II). Plato is right in the above quote because it is exactly what is happening in South Sudan. Fifty plus years of civil war in Sudan have completely changed the way people behave; therefore, adapting the democratic way of life, might take South Sudanese sometimes. In addition, it is stated earlier, under the federal system the division of power between central authority and constituent political units would help minimize problems between local citizens and the central government. By emphasizing the “the creation of new state” Plato stressed that “A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined?”

Nevertheless, Plato would likely agree with John Locke in supporting the Federal System for the Republic of South Sudan. In his dialogue with Socrates- GLAUCON, Plato stresses that “as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State” (Plato 360 B.C.E, book II). Like those who believe in full democracy, Plato in the above quotation implies that a country cannot be built by a few people, so, each individual has a role to play in state building.  In comparison with Plato who stresses that state is consists of different kinds of people with a variety of skills, federal system focuses on power sharing and autonomy of the state. For example, Plato in Allegory of the Cave states that ‘I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations. The point Plato is trying to make is that every citizen is important because each individual makes the state better off, in terms of contribution. For instance, in every country there are many people who specialized in different kinds of things, such as engineers, doctors, teachers, merchants and so forth.  Because all views are based on either the Republic of South Sudan should choose a federal system or a decentralized democratic system, it is very clear that Plato supports the federal system.

Although a federal system has been practiced effectively in places like Canada, USA, Germany, and so forth, Machiavelli’s view on federal systems would most likely differ from those countries’ standpoints and from the views of John Locke and Plato. Machiavelli’s view and methods of governing, is different from others in a sense that he believes that the head of a state should not be too hard or too soft to its people. Machiavelli would most likely reject the idea of federalism for the new Republic of South Sudan, because in his message to the Lorenzo, he emphasizes “I say that all men and especially princes because they are situated higher, exhibit certain qualities which bring them either blame or praise. It is necessary for a prince to know very well the methods of both animal and man. He should choose the natures of the fox and lion” (Machiavelli, 1469-1527, CWT: Vol. II, pp. 282-283, 285).

Based on the above quotes, Machiavelli would probably support the argument made in the transitional constitution that South Sudan is a diverse country which has a long history of tribal conflicts and needs a governing system like the decentralized democratic system with tough laws and order which work for all individual citizens. This sort of conflicts between tribes would have direct contrast with Machiavelli’s argument about what a prince should do. “It is therefore necessary for him to have the ability to change his mind according to the way the winds of fortune and conditions required” (Machiavelli, 1469-1527, CWT: Vol. II, 288). This statement implied that in light of the foregoing debate, a decentralized democratic system with guarantees of regional or local autonomy would be much more appropriate for the Republic of South Sudan.

Even before the independence, South Sudanese debated which system to choose from and why? However, the current transitional constitution surprised a lot of Southerners because most people from South Sudan favored federal system.  Base on the critical analysis of this paper, it is very clear that Plato and John Locke would favor the federal system for the African’s newest nation South Sudan. According to their democratic perspective, Plato and John Locke would consider a system of government in which power is divided between a central government and constituent political units.

For Plato, a state is built through contribution of each individual, as he stated “we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State” (Plato 360 B.C.E, book II); whereas Locke believed in freedom and equality for all. In Machiavelli’s viewpoint, government should be flexible, as he stated “it is therefore necessary for him to have the ability to change his mind according to the way the winds of fortune and conditions required” (Machiavelli, 1469-1527, CWT: Vol. II, 288). Machiavelli’s argument for the right of the majority is the hypothetical groundwork for the distinction between duty to society and to government.

In conclusion, federalism would be the best system considering the local realities and history of South Sudan. Division of powers and properties, equal opportunities for all citizens which are found in the federal system would work well with South Sudan ethnic diversity. In the context of decentralization, transitional constitution must often be reshaped in order to perform a new set of duties efficiently, equitably, and effectively. People like Plato and John Locke consider a system of government in which power is divided between a central government and constituent political units.

The author is a concerned citizen of South Sudan living in Canada. He can be reached at jamestot20032003@yahoo.ca .

References

Locke, John. (1632-1704). Of the Civil Government. (Two treatises of government 1690) In Margo Husby (Ed) General Studies 300 Textbook. (Pp. 68-69, 71-78).

Plato. (360 B.C.E). The Republic: Book II, Translated by Jowett, Benjamin. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from https://blackboard.ucalgary.ca .

Machiavelli, Niccolo’. (1469-1527). The Prince. In Dr. Margo Husby (Ed) General Studies 300bTextbook, Vol. II. ( p. 282-283, 285-88).

Republic of South Sudan Transitional constitution (2011). Decentralized Democratic System. (n.d ed) Retrieved February 20, 2012, from https://www.google.com/southsudan/transitionalconstitution

May 14, 2013 (SSNA) -- Lately, I have been monitoring the political development in South Sudan and I am in awe of how fast the situation is deteriorating and how fast the SPLM lost and will continue to lose grounds as a national political party!!!   Things may get worse for the South and the SPLM, unless miracles happen.

There have been a lot of talks lately on how best to govern South Sudan, some are calling for Federalism  others are calling for centralism and few are for I don’t care party!?  Without taking sides on which is the best way to govern the South, one can only be concern on the way the debate is being carryout. For example last week in Juba the greater Equatoria region, on their extraordinary conference calls for federal system of governance. Today we learn that the greater Bhar el Ghazal is due to hold their extraordinary conference in Wau from the 15^th to 20^th of May this year and who knows?  Greater Upper Nile may hold it conference soon (who’s better than who).

Now here are the questions

1- Is it best to tackle the problems of politics and governing the country by going regional? Did we try that before? Where did we end up in the past by going regional on the issues of national interest? “Those who fail to learn from the history are doomed to repeat it” or “He who lives to forget his past lives to die of his past. Knowing the past and keeping the past helps us to shape the future, and may avoid the reoccurrences of past disasters”.

2- One can’t help but to noticed that all the leaders of so call regional conferences are all seniors SPLM members? That begs the question; did the SPLM fail as a party to hold these kinds of conferences? Why can the SPLM organize the conference that have nothing to do with who should or shouldn’t  be the Chairmen but rather  debate and came out with the solutions on how best to run the country, keeping in mind the SPLM had been the ruling party for the last 8 years? 

3- Others may say that, they try all the above within the ruling party and fail for one reason or another!!!  I don’t have any inside information to agree or disagree with them, but I can’t imagine that their failure is due to where they hail from or which region they came from, in such a case the problem of how to govern South Sudan shouldn’t be regionalized, but rather nationalized in terms of Political parties, in short if the SPLM fails you, you quit and form a party that call for federation in the South and I bet you will find a lot of supporters from all corner of the nation.

4- Some may ask why worry about the regional driven politics? To be candid, it doesn’t worry me when a  region gets together to address problems in the region such as insecurity in the area, because of the tribal and intertribal conflicts, or tackles the issues of developments in private sector , or agriculture improvement , most of you will agree how urgent the South is in need of such conferences!!?  I only worry when we try to use the region to score political points at the national level for these reasons:

A-Although the intention may be good, there is always few who will try to hijack the situation and misuse it to further their self interest wish can result in dividing the Country on the regional line and tribal politic.       

B-With all due respect, our people are still young, when it come to politic that include, the so called intellectuals (the roots of most problems in RSS) therefore if we base our political demands on the region instead of party platform, we are risking further divisions among our people, and the words of our national anthem “Land of great abundance, Uphold us united in peace and harmony” will be things of the past.   

C-Let’s all assume that Bahr el-Ghazal call for centralism in their upcoming conference? And the Upper Nile calls for either? Are we not setting up the country to the paths of civil war base on regionalism?   But if we do it base on the parties platforms then each party will have supporters in every town city or region of the nation, and that can lead us towards more unification of our nation.

Finally, it is my hope that when it comes to discussing the national issues we should always try to keep our emotion away from it, and have some intelligence deliberations.

Lastly but not least, on my open letter to Mr. President Kiir  Mayardit, publish on August 3, 2011 I asked him the following question: Are we going to be the beacon of light and hope in Africa, or a laughing Stock of the World?  Fellow citizens of Republic of South Sudan, I’m appealing to your better nature to try your level best in answering this questions, and ask ourselves what kind of Country did we really fight for and dreams of??

May almighty God guide us towards being a peaceful and democratic Nation, so God bless South Sudan.

The Author is a former Secretary General of the SPLM Chapter in Arizona State, USA; he can be reached at chol.ajak@gmail.com.

Human Rights violators must be alerted that the days of non-accountability (Revolutionary bush days), where one can slaughter group of people without questions are over. Human rights are not a matter of domestic concern. These human rights discourses are elevated to a matter of international level. The international community is well aware that those dictators who fail to protect their own people from murdering and crime against humanity must be put on trail for justice to prevail one day.

May 13, 2013 (SSNA) -- In the wake of series man-made disasters, and the hopes to live in a peaceful society of non-political oppressive environment; South Sudanese citizens have been calling for viable solutions of insecurity and genuine policy of preventive measures that will allow individuals to live free from injustice. South Sudan is experiencing the culture of impunity and the nation has been internationally known to have been in an incredible state of chaos where tribal conflicts, corruption, nepotism, tribalism and racism is sculpted and embedded into the minds of the people through regionalism lenses since August 2005. These regional perceptions had resulted into regional cleavage among the very people that fought shoulder by shoulder during the revolutionary struggle (Jɛn tää ɛ jiäk ɛmɛ däkɛ nɛi ti ca kööri ti bɛ̈c bɛ̈ɛ̈c tɛ̈r kɛl).

The focus that the government supposed to do as to protect its population is fading away in the minds of civilians, and it is not longer expected in Juba since people whose their aim, are to eliminate the citizens of the country, are strategically advancing forward. Killing and disappearance of individuals in South Sudan is continuing until these days in the hands of “unknown armed officers.” Thus, it worth saying that sustainable peace that we were expecting in the country, and viable security system that should aims to protect the citizens within the country, will take time to effect in Juba where the “unknown killers” under the shadow of unknown murderous individuals are still advancing and pursuing their ambitious strategies with impunity.

The journey through the growth of human rights protection, the development of cardinal rules that could prevent the repeatedly occurrence of heinous murdering and slaughtering of individuals is yet to be realized here in Juba; due to the lack of preventive policy measures that may have obviate the needs for coercion, mass slaughtering and night murdering reference to Juba Jebel Market and Jebel Kunjur Areas. “Responsibility to protect the citizens” on streets, residences or in their dwelling centers always falls into the hands of laws enforcement agencies or National Military Intelligent Police Army Units. The issue of protection is a matter of concern in Juba, South Sudan, mi̱ laa pën Naath niën kɛ Wäär kɛ̈liw ni ciaŋ and not only the national citizens that are facing such an insecurity nightmare but also foreign citizens are driven behind the night garbage battle. They are repeatedly undergoing severe maltreatment under “the unknown people” and most of the cases of killing and brutal acts, gone uninvestigated for some reasons until these days.  

The responsibility to protect the citizens is a phrase that “was coined by the international commission on intervention and state Sovereignty.” It literally became an international norm, which set forth that the State has “the primary responsibility to protect their population” from criminals, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. And when the State fails to protect her citizens, the R2P always falls into the hand of international community; for example, the acknowledged failure of the government in Somalia prior to 90s.

In this sense, the principle of state sovereignty is well recognized under the United Nation Charter, in article 2(1) and (7) and under customary International Law. The State as a subject of international Law is “recognized as a sovereignty with power of control over its territorial jurisdiction” without interference from United Nation or other states (“I am not under your command” reference to the recognition!). This power is well vested and recognized when the state become an independent or recognized internationally by UN General Assembly.

The background of Responsibility to protect (R2P) the citizens

The phrase “responsibility to protect the citizens known as R2P” refers to the fundamental duty of the State, imposed by its sovereignty rights to protect its people and its population from killing, murdering, disappearance and other grave harms within its national responsibility. If the State fail to protect its citizens reference to systemic and organized crime or international border dispute, “the coercive intervention for human protection” and prevention of international conflict escalation purpose, including the ultimate military interventions by others in the international community may be warranted in extreme cases.

Provision 138 of the United Nations 2005 World submit outcomes, states that “each individual State has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, murdering, mass slaughtering, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crime against humanity.” This provision entails the prevention of such a crime including their incitement through appropriate and necessarily means. Further more, provision 139 of UN Charter add that “international community, through United Nation body also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with the UN Chapters VI and VII of the charter to help protect population from crime against humanity, murdering, disappearance, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

This United Nation doctrine is always based on the principle that the Sovereignty implies responsibility. The State always has the primary responsibility for the protection of its people, animals and the associates. Where the population is suffering a serious harm, as a result of insurgency, bandits, repression, the principle of non-intervention must yield to the international responsibility to protect the people. This measure is taken base on inherent obligation of the state “according to the principle of sovereignty under article 24 of the UN Charter in regards to maintenance of international peace.”

The Principle and Elements of Responsibility to protect the Citizens

Responsibility to protect the population entails the element of prevention before the worse occurs, responding to the situation and rebuilding or restoring peace. The responsibility to prevent human suffering is always “the first priorities which confers the duty on the national government to address both the root cause and immediate cause of disturbance or internal conflict/death and other man-made crisis that put the population at risks.”

On the other hand, the responsibility to react responds to the situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measure like sanction, international prosecution and in extreme case, military intervention. In this regard, responsibility to protect the citizens justifies the principle of Jus ad bellum - the right to wage war and when to wage it in the name of fulfilling the responsibility to protect individuals in a sovereign State. The doctrine does not prohibit force, but rather recognize just war or action to rescue the suffering of the people, and in exercising to their responsibility, the State or regional community must first pursue a peaceful measure before resorting to military intervention.

The current insecurity issue at night in Juba, South Sudan

Contemporary insecurity sometime confuses people as well as appalling them. Juba bandits, criminals and murderous individuals had been killing people in Jebel Market, Jebel Kujur and associated areas while nothing much has been done in the House of Common as to deploy police forces/platoon or recruit a trusted night curfew forces, mixed with different ethnic origin officers to protect the residence of Juba at night. One may wonder why the death of the people who die in the periphery does matter much then the death of the people who die in the Capital city in present of foreigners, international ambassadors and top officials of the country. Since I came here, I never see any drinkers or alcoholic persons sleeping or staying awake on the streets of Juba.

It would be a logical argument if one chooses to argue that all heavy drinkers always stay awake on streets in any countries only when there is a positive peace in the environment, and the availability of trusted law enforcements agent around. Although it may seem like a joke to individuals, the present or sign of alcoholic people on streets meant the availability of protection in peaceful environment.  The drinkers in Juba usually push their ways home before the sun set- fearing for the death or attacks from unknown groups who take the law into their hands. They fear that one may shut them down to death or slaughtering them while unconscious. The bar or restaurants in Juba are always deserted before 9:30PM, fearing for invisible consequences.

The Republic of South Sudan government should take a serious specific preventive measure to prevent and protect civilians from unknown guns men in their dwelling centers in Juba. The great pain or killing done unto civilians/families may quickly surface to the international standard as the worse news ever if not contained well. This may unknowingly reflect something different to international community and the foreigners that live with us in the capital City. Juba is a capital city, inhabited by different people of colors and nationalities. It must be cleaned and reclaims back quickly from criminals and bandits whose aim is to spoil the name of the government in present of international foreigners. The recent killings in Jebel Market sends a very strong message that something needs to be done quickly, either to do a second round of disarmament in Juba city or deploy a heavy trusted forces, lead by trusted and mixed officers within the insecure areas.

Notwithstanding though that the Juba Residents always have a very great expectation that the Friday Council of Ministers’ meeting or legislative assembly’s meeting in the parliament should address the ongoing killing of the innocent citizens here in Juba; however, Friday after Friday comes and go without any major announcement to what will be done in order to safe the lives of innocent population. The innocent population of Juba, and foreigners at large are wondering about what are the ministers actually discussing in the Friday Council of Minister’s meeting or highest decision-making panel without addressing the insecurity agenda that supposed to be the first item in the high-level political discussion menu?

The responsibility to protect (R2P) the citizens can, therefore, be the first items to be endorsed by the highest legislative branch or in the Council of Ministers’ meeting (Highest decision-making level). Unfortunately, our government is leaning much on the rumors of ethnic political turmoil, racism and tribalism that would never effect on positive development. The endorsement and decisions that we were expecting since the start of insecurity in Juba; must reflect national consensus at least in abstract, that the resident should get the supreme protection from criminals and bandits who had an hidden agenda while in the system.

Although the government emphasize the need to protect the civilian though in low taken theoretically, the criminals are known to challenge the government system indirectly through the lens of crime, and this issue should have been the first item in the political high panel discussion rather than focusing on ethnic politics that is thriving under the cover of impossibilities. To the extent that the voices of the victims are not heard publicly; we must unite and stand together at least to pressure the policy makers to remedy the human disaster and assassination of our fellow citizens within the town. Let hope that our government deal urgently with the current insecurity issue that engulfed the lives of innocent citizens in Juba before we dwell much on 2015 unimaginable election.

The author of this article is a member of Jonglei Community and in the same time a member of international human rights groups. He holds a Master degree in International Law and Human Rights in United Nation University of Peace. Mr. Pitɔr Gatkuɔth is planning to release an observatory note and the reflection of his experience in South Sudan comes late summer. Please do not hesitate to visit his commentaries website at www.peterreat.blogspot.ca or contact him through peterreat@yahoo.com.

May 13, 2013 (SSNA) -- Africa, south of the Sahara, is urbanizing faster than ever in the history of the region. Many of the youth and able-bodied citizens are piling into the only urban centres available leaving the rural areas vacant. This is putting negative strains on our economies. Rural areas are not realizing their high potential in agricultural productivity and, at the same time, the demand for shelter, food, medical services and educational facilities in urban areas is becoming more intense. As regards shelter, rural-standard housing is being transferred to cities, making our cities extensions of the rural sector but that is not the worry. If there are worries elsewhere in the region, in Juba such worries are multiplied. Everyone in Juba aspires to own a city plot whether or not it makes sense. Each and everyone wants to have a plot of his or her own regardless whether it will be developed according to city standards in the next few years or not. But, on the positive end, as people pour into urban areas leaving vacant spaces in the rural areas, government can design a perfect programme to put the vacant land to agricultural use.

This is a topic for another article. It is the influx into cities that is the topic today. It is a problem. At this current rate or expansion, the peripheries of Juba will soon touch Mundri in Western Equatoria by the year 2040 if we do not do something quick to reverse the trend. What’s the quick solution? In the rest of the region as urbanisation is happening at an uncontrollable rate, cities like Nairobi, Kampala and Kigali are condensing, concentrating their people into the smallest space possible. They are going for high-rise apartments and town houses for residences and sky-scrappers for office buildings. Juba should do the same. Unfortunately, Juba does not know its geology so well to allow for such condensation. In the first instance, and geologically speaking, what came first: the Nile or Jebel Kujur? This is a pertinent question. If the Nile was here first it means the whole area ranging from west of Jebel Kujur, all the way to Jebel Bungu, and the present position of the Nile is all alluvial ground – too soft to take high-rises. Even if the area west of the mountain is slated to hold the new Juba, the ground there is a former Nile basin – too weak to take the condensed building. And, if Jebel Kujur was here first then it is only the area east of the mountain, the current position of Juba is the soft area incapable of carrying a real modern city. That means Juba is in the wrong place.

Juba is in the wrong place for two other reasons. In the first place, the elevation of the Nile vis-à-vis Juba is wrong. The Nile at Lologo is 2º higher than the city. Another problem is that the Nile makes a 90º angle at Kassafa. These two factors expose the city to possible flooding once the velocity of the Nile waters surges. This could easily happen since the only ‘artificial’ structure restraining Lake Victoria is the Owen Falls Dam at Jinja in Uganda. That dam is decades only, too old to hold back the lake any longer. If it gives there is nothing between Jinja and Juba that would save the latter. The two degree angle of elevation would allow the river water to splash way above the city and beyond. The Kassafa turn would allow the river water to take a straight line through the town taking anything from Jebel Kujur east-wards downstream. These are the dangers facing Juba if nothing to safeguard the city is done soon. First, we need our geologists to study the Juba basement before we start toying with the devil building city high-rises to accommodate our urban population. This then will indicate to us which side of Juba is suitable for modern development.

It is unfortunate many of us will take this as whimsical fantasies but it is better to listen to warning voices as voices of reason and not interpret them as evil messengers. I have come across arguments of this kind, where explanations of this kind that require our concerted effort to dig up the real facts and act according to them are considered ‘theories’/’non-facts’. At the end of the day it is those who act according to these gestures that reap positive results, or avoid calamities. We need to avoid; or, at the very least, respond to voices of reason and stem such calamities in the future. This is what they call pro-active living. Unfortunately, we are averse to that as a nation.

The Author is an environmental economist, international trade specialist, and private sector development consultant based in Juba, South Sudan.

May 12, 2013 (SSNA) -- As the SPLM politics in South Sudan starts to get terribly tribal, the three states of Greater Equatoria have since then held three conferences. Undeniably these high level regional conferences  went on  to  raise concerns among some quarters and especially so among South Sudanese hailing from the other two regions of the Greater Bahr el Ghazal and the Greater Upper Nile.

Nonetheless the “Three Equatoria Conferences”, so far held in Juba have squarely centered on finding solutions to issues of: combating corruption, promotion of good governance, food security through agriculture, accountability and the like.  And it isn't in anyway fair for people to take negative positions against these conferences the way some people have already done so in the press.

Rushing to label these regional conferences as yet another “Kokora” in the making is totally outrageous, and those who continue to harbor such negative feelings can only be described as a people who have become mentally imprisoned in their own past.  It’s time that people make every effort to reconcile their past, while knowing that  “Kokora” which is another term for the ‘re-division’ of the Southern Region into three during Jaafar Nimeri’s rule of the united old Sudan is  likely to haunt this nascent country for more years to come.

Why not call things by their names and anyone who doesn’t like it can comfortably go and drink from the Nile. In a nutshell the central idea of the “Kokora” or Re-division or Decentralization of what was a unitary region of the semi-autonomous Southern Sudan, was in fact a political move spearheaded by politicians from Equatoria province aimed to rid the many small  tribes of South Sudan from what was then rightly perceived as the political hegemony  by one big tribe.

Tribal politics is not new to South Sudan and as such it shouldn't surprise anyone when tribal sentiments are expressed here and there. After all South Sudan is a part of Africa, isn't it?  Yet that is not the point. It’s not about tribal politics being practiced in the country, but rather it’s the sad fact that tribalistic politicians who are clearly seen all over the place boasting of their tribal numerical advantage are still unable to see that what they are actually involved with is a tribal driven politics.

And over the years it has perfectly become a common practice for South Sudanese politicians, academicians, and civil servants alike to stand up and criticize tribalism and every bad thing that is   associated with it. Isn't it a great thing to celebrate in the midst of what is a chaos by design?   

Yet any celebration unfortunately  is likely to be short lived as the real problem arises when it comes for politicians to translate these supposedly patriotic positions into actions. It is here that the true nature of these well-spoken people makes way for the actual monsters that hide behind their artificial patriotism. It is common to see people, who until a short while ago would have been considered as die-hard opponents of tribalism based on their rhetoric, suddenly becoming the ring leaders who not only champion it but are ready to go at length to involve whole communities in inter-tribal wars. 

Of course it won’t be right to lump everything on the colonialists or the Arab imperialism, nor is anyone safe enough to navigate this long route before they come to realize how these two tribes show a great sentiment to the numerical size of their respective tribes to the extent that any other roles assigned to outsiders are only considered when it serves their interest.

Ethnic politics is flourishing perfectly well under the SPLM’s one party state and it is no longer a secret that politics as based on the numerical sizes of tribes have already hatched its first two polarizing political camps not only in the country, but also within the ruling SPLM party itself. One group has   identified itself  with the incumbent president Salva Kiir Mayardit while the other rallies behind Vice President Riek Machar Teny. 

There could still be other surprises to be expected but not at this early stages of events for it is not unlikely for a third camp to have its eyes on the presidency come the 2015 elections. However till now the talk remains confined to the SPLMs “BIG FIVE”.  

Regionalism as a political structure of governance was first introduced officially in the Sudan by President Jaafar Nimeri following the Addis Ababa Agreement. As a result of that arrangement Southern Sudan’s three provinces were brought together into what became the semi-autonomous region.  At the same time the other six Northern provinces also became six regions with certain degrees of autonomy as well.

While most of the discussion is likely to revolve around regionalism and federalism it will be good if we find out what each of these stands to mean to the political laity – the non-scholars of political science! In short regionalism was that sort of government structure of lesser status than federalism, although both represent a varying degree of political devolution of power.   

However when discussing the politics of South Sudan, a country which not too long was a part of the old Sudan, it is absolutely  necessary to take into consideration  that  the greed to cling to power has always modified the way how regionalism and federalism were conceived and applied. There is now the fear that the same might also come to be the case in the nascent state of South Sudan for under the current SPLM rule the same greed remains alive, active and kicking.

It is everybody’s knowledge that the federal system of government exists in the constitutions of both countries of Sudan and South Sudan and yet the governments of the day in these countries are afraid to implement it. In the neighbouring Sudan the National Congress Party (NCP) struggling to reconcile between heaven and earth through its outdated Islamic philosophy remains scared to allow for democracy and true federalism in that country in spite of the so many political turmoil all across its territories.

Unfortunately it is also true that the same scenario is being replicated in the nascent country of RSS by none but the very SPLM that not too long fought Africa’s longest civil war under the banner to provide democracy, federalism and good governance. It truly represents the highest level of irony to see the SPLM party being incapacitated by the political greed at its highest echelon, as it struggles to find   the political will it so much needs in order to deliver on any of those promises that once formed its core manifesto throughout the two decades of war.

Historically the South Sudanese representatives were the first to demand for federalism in the 1947 Juba Conference, although the subsequent governments in Khartoum failed to honour their promise towards that demand, and instead resorted to regionalism – when it granted Southern Sudan a regional autonomy within a united Sudan. That was undoubtedly too little and too late and it only increased the people’s quest for greater autonomy, and eventually self-determination.

Regionalism was adopted following the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement and soon it gave birth to regional consciousness and created many regional loyalties and competitions. Worth mentioning here is that this was well received and appreciated by South Sudanese as to them it represented a great political achievement following the seventeen years of the Anya Nya war.

This was also true in as far as most of the Anya Nya fighters were concerned, as at least it was one step towards the great goal of independence. However it didn't go all well as certain groups saw in that regional autonomy government a rare opportunity for their tribesmen to dominated and rule the Southern region of the old Sudan to the exclusion of others.  

However Nimeri was more keen to deter any rivalry over the country’s presidency,  than anything else.  And under what typically mirrors today’s South Sudan - the Sudan under Nimeri’s rule was a one party state with the Sudanese Socialist Union (SSU) as the sole and only political organisation.

He [Nimeri] thus used the SSU to push the politicians of that day to fully embrace regional politics and as if to relief the pressure from Khartoum many politicians were paid to redirected their political ambitions inwards and to the confines of their respective regions, of course with the exception of the few who belonged to the political classification of “Awlad al Balad”.

In so doing many politicians during Nimeri’s days became practically alienated from any politics that questioned the leadership in the center.  Coupled with this was the total ban declared on all the other political parties leaving the SSU to played  the role of the national melting pot for politics and ideas, typical of any totalitarian regime. Although all these were later undone following the 6th of  April Popular Uprising in 1985, the worry now is how far has the SPLM party under Salva Kiir’s leadership about to re-invent all these nightmare?!

And again resembling  the state of affairs in today’s South Sudan , was the widespread corruption that existed within Nimeri's SSU ruling party and equally so in the rest of the  institutions. If SPLM is the prototype of SSU of those days [much slogans,  little or no action] , no wonder that all kinds of corruption have always flourished well under these kinds of totalitarian regimes. As it happened in those days we are also now witnessing another round of state sponsored tribalism, nepotism and favourtism all across the country.  

Had the Sudan implemented true federalism as it is practiced today in USA way back in 1955, we probably would  be  now talking about some very civilized politics and never about  the so-called “Southern Problem” or “The Southern Regional Government”  and never  of course about any “Kokora”  for that matter.

Even today well beyond two years since our people voted for independence, we still live under a leadership that continue to lack the political will when it comes to the issue of true federalism – democracy – multiparty politics – accountability – transparency – human rights – basic freedoms …..etc.

The above propositions are vital for the understanding of  how the past has undoubtedly shaped the present.  It also shows how  important it is  to look back and learn lessons from the history. And regardless of whether there are people out there who think that they can continue to behave intolerantly  towards  any Equatoria conference because they see it as the reincarnation of “Kokora” in the independent republic of South Sudan, nonetheless neither can they succeed in  breaking  the will of the people nor can they dictate on them what to do!!  

The real reasons behind all this fuss about Equatoria coming together as a region  is rooted in the fact that some people driven by their own agendas would better have  an Equatoria that is divided not only into three states, but preferably even into its so many small tribes so that those who pride themselves of their tribal numerical sizes can have an easy ride in what is now clearly “The Politics of Numbers”.

This can be referred to as the “Preferential KOKORA”. In other wards they would oppose KOKORA on regional basis as it is likely to weaken what they can achieve using their  numerically sizable tribes, while on the other hand they would support what could amount to the same "Kokora" but  on tribal basis thus alienating the so-called numerically small tribes from the top positions in the state.

Should there be a question like, “Why is Equatoria reviving regional politics in the post-independence RSS”?  Here is the answer to this question which is quite obvious. For in the face of the massive tribal built up to politics in the immediate post-independence South Sudan where qualifications have long been sacrificed for tribal origins – with the numerical sizes determining a tribes position in the cake sharing process, it is only common sense for the many small tribes that hail from Equatoria to come together and form a block that can be reckoned with.

Today Equatoria is again leading the call for federalism in South Sudan. And here we mean real federalism - the USA type and not some kind of adulterated quasi-quasi things! The show currently being displayed by the so-called numerically big tribes is in fact to talk federalism and act centralism. This if anything - it is hypocrisy of the highest level.

It won’t be long before South Sudan ends up with three political camps instead of political parties: the Equatorians and other non Dinka (Dor) political camp, the Dinka (Jeing) political camp and the Nuer (Naath) political camp. However all of these are already operating as legitimate functional units of the one party (SPLM) since only few people in South Sudan are interested in creating other political parties outside the SPLM. Is it not good that sometimes it is nice to see ourselves in the mirror?!!

On the other hand it is to be considered as absurd for any member of the ruling SPLM party to criticize the adoption regionalism because it is already an open secret that even the current SPLM leadership hierarchy stands for regional representation - especially the top three officials: President Salva Kiir (Bahr el Ghazal), Vice President Dr. Riek Machar (UPPER Nile) and the Speaker of the National Assembly James Wani Igga (Equatoria).  There is really nothing bad about this regional representation, if only it could have been extended the whole way to include all the national institutions.

While it is undeniable that the Greater Upper Nile is now in a very bad shape and although it is a home to many tribes as well, it is only unfortunate that the Dinka vs. Nuer type of politics with its spill over is not allowing for the region’s unity. First they will have to talk David Yau Yau into peace before any true regional unity can be achieved - not just in Jonglei state, but all across the Greater Upper Nile.

The bottom line is that the people of Equatoria are well aware that they will not be able to survive the politics of tribal numeracy as the way it stands now, hence their insistence to stand up as a unit.  Secondly these are people who will never relinquish their core ways of life to imitate the others who are deeply ingrained in tribal bloodletting, killings and cattle theft. Politics will always remain a dynamic entity with no permanent friends and no permanent enemies or rivals. What is permanent in politics is one’s interest.

So where does all these leave South Sudan?  For our country to push forward we need to have the proper structures in place. We are indeed a diverse people yet we share the common destiny of being citizens of the one country - South Sudan. When we fought the enemy for over five decades before we won our independence, we also had the opportunity to observe how and where things went wrong -  whether that was on our side or the enemy’s side. But after having learnt all these lessons, we can only be fools to repeat any of those mistakes. Regrettably this already seems to be the case!

Our country still has a chance to become a good place for all of us if we can only rid ourselves of greed. What we badly need now is to shun away from any “One Man Rule”, and we need to make it clear that totalitarianism has no place in the independent South Sudan. Let’s go wholeheartedly to embrace multiparty democracy and a true USA type of federalism if we really want to build our country and above all to avoid going back to an all-out civil war of our own making.

Author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. He can be reached at: justinramba@doctors.net.uk

For Immediate release: May 10, 2013,

Juba, May 12, 2013 (SSNA) -- The South Sudan Human Rights Society For Advocacy (SSHURSA) condemns in strongest terms possible the recent detention of Juba Monitor Newspaper journalists. Michael Koma, the Managing Editor, who was detained by the police in Juba from May 2nd 2013 and released on May 5th 2013 after three days in unlawful detention and Alfred Taban, the Editor-In-Chief of the same Newspaper, on May 6, 2013, was put into interrogations by the same police for eight (8) hours in Juba and this equally amounts to unlawful detention. According to the findings of SSHURSA, the journalists were detained by the police under the orders of the Deputy Minister of Interior Lt. General Salva Mathok Gengdit. Minister Mathok complained of being defamed by the Newspaper and the Bul Community of Unity State. In a letter written and signed by their leaders, Bul Community made a rebuttal against the denials by the Minister on the allegations in Bul Community’s first letter against him on the murder of a young man called Banyjioth Mathoat Tap from Bul Community and whose body was found lying on March 30, 2013, beneath the premises of Minister Mathok. The community members in its letter previously published after the incident accused the Minister of being behind the demise of their son, allegations which recently the Minister strongly denied as false. Hence leading to the Community’s rebuttal to the Minister’s denial and in a letter published by Juba Monitor. The publication angered the Minister Mathok who ordered the police to summon and investigate the Senior Management of the paper as he claims that his name has been tarnished by both the Juba Monitor Newspaper and Bul Community.

In SSHURSA analysis, the behaviour of police under the orders of Minister to instantly detain the journalists is a clear case of intimidation against the press and misuse of power by the persons in the position of authority. This is a direct abuse of the rights to freedom of expression and media under Article 24 of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan 2011. This Constitutional provision allows every citizen to express, receive, disseminate or publish information within the limits of the law. Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 and Article 9(1) and (2) of the African Charter On Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1981 equally protect the freedom of press and expression. South Sudan in 2011 authored its own Constitution and is a member of United Nations and African Union, and by such a membership and also by the principle of the universality of human rights, her institutions are therefore, obliged to respect and promote the legal provisions of these bodies which guarantee the rights of an individual.

Article 18 of the South Sudan’s Constitution provides for the right of freedom from torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The detention of the two journalists under unending interrogations in the truest sense of the meaning, amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment and equally, their detention beyond the Constitutionally prescribed time, contravenes Article 19(4) of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan 2011 and Section 64(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2008, Laws of South(Southern) Sudan , both laws provide for a detention limit of the accused person not beyond 24 hours unless the time for the purposes of investigations is extended by the Court of law or by a Public Prosecutions Attorney. Article 9 of the UDHR prohibits unlawful arrest and it states; “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” This has neither been respected by the police. Section 3(3.2.) of the South (Southern) Sudan Police Service Regulations 2010 cautions the police personnel to uphold the laws of South Sudan and specifically, Section 4 of the Regulations provides for the police to respect human rights and it states;

“All police personnel shall respect and protect human dignity while upholding the human rights of all persons in accordance with regional, national and international laws indentifying and protecting human rights, as well as any other laws or legal instruments protecting all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”

Section 4(4.2.) of the Regulations warns the police that “superior orders or exceptional circumstances“among others, cannot be accepted as justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The police personnel by detaining Michael Koma and Alfred Taban for three days and eight hours and keeping them in such situation of uncertainity respectively in the orders of the Deputy Minister of Interior, have attacked the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of South Sudan for which their sole constitutional establishment is meant to respect and protect. As SSHURSA strongly condemns such behaviour of the Minister and the police, it also makes the following recommendations:

To the President of the Republic and the National Assembly:

1. To pave a way for thorough investigations of the murder he was accused of, the Deputy Minister should resign with immediate effect since he is misusing his powers to violate the Constitution by intimidating the media using the police whose command is under his control. The principles of natural justice do not allow him to continue being the Deputy Minister remaining in an institution investigating the crime he has been suspected of.

2. SSHURSA once again calls upon the President of the Republic H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit to suspend the Deputy Minister Salva Mathok Gengdit until the investigations are over and then reinstates him if the allegations levelled against him are proved to be false. Minister Mathok since March 30, 2013, has so far failed to resign after the murder allegations against him despites numerous appeals made to him and the President.

3. SSHURSA once more calls upon the Members of National Legislative Assembly to impeach the Deputy Minister upon the failure of the President to suspend him from his Ministerial position.

To the Directorate of Public Prosections in the National Ministry of Justice and the police:

1. SSHURSA calls again upon the office of the Prosecutor General to courageously and independently go on with the investigations of the case, disallowing the Ministry of Interior to take any part and this shall remove conflict of interest within the Ministry of Interior attempting to investigate itself.

2. Withdraw all defamatory charges against the Juba Monitor Newspaper and Bul Community by the Deputy Minister and the police, for they are mere cover-up to scare the investigations and drive off public attention from the case.

3. SSHURSA calls upon the police to respect and uphold the Constitution and police laws.

To the media houses and journalists:

1. Continue doing your work without fear or favour and within the limits of the law.

2. Sue any institution or person in the position of power for any harrassment, intimidations and violations of your constitutional rights.

To the family of the late and the public:

1. Remain calm but responsibly continue speaking up to help the struggle against impunity until justice is done for the murdered young man.

2. SSHURSA calls upon the public to remain calm as investigations are ongoing.

Why SSHURSA needs Deputy Minister to resign:

1. He is misusing his powers by the virtue of his position to abuse the Constitution.

2. He is biased and defensive on allegations linking the murder to his premises and if he cannot resign while allegations of the murder are linked to his premises, naturally, it is clear, that there shall be no fair and free investigations of the murder as there is clear and direct conflict of interest.

3. The murder is one of the brutal organized crimes, being a clear violation of the right to life protected under Article 11 of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan 2011 and Article 3 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

What SSHURSA appeals to happen:

1. Thorough investigations must be done immediately to clearly locate the culprits and the suspects be brought to justice and if found guilty, be lawfully punished.

2. If the Deputy Minister is found truly linked to the allegations, he should face justice and punished in accordance with the law.

3. The incident must serve as a case to end impunity and abuses of power, human rights and rule of law by any person in South Sudan if the Deputy Minister is found guilty.

4. If the Deputy Minister is found guilty, the entire Ministry of Interior leadership from the Minister to the Inspector General must be dissolved and SSHURSA calls upon the National Parliament to effect such dissolution of the failed leadership in the Ministry of Interior and inject in new faces.

Stance: “SSHURSA will fight on all these evils and abuses of human rights and of rule of law in South Sudan. It will continue defending the Constitution and its staff shall remain undeterred under the face of any price”

Background of SSHURSA: SSHURSA is an incorporated non political and non profit making national Human Rights organization founded in June 2007 by South Sudanese Lawyers and Law Students at Makerere Law Development Centre (LDC), Kampala-Uganda. In 2009, its operations started in South Sudan with its head office in Juba and co-ordination offices in other states of South Sudan. Its vision is to advocate for a democratic and human rights abiding South Sudan and its mission is to monitor, document and publish human rights status in South Sudan and also train general public on the importance of human rights, fundamental freedoms of an individual, Rule of Law and democracy, all geared towards creating a more responsible, justice and good governance oriented South Sudan. SSHURSA pays special focus on the rights of children, persons with disabilities women and other minority groups.

For this press release or more about SSHURSA, you may contact SSHURSA through its Executive Director Biel Boutros Biel on: Telephone number: +211 915 364 531; E-mail: sshursa2007@gmail.com, Juba, South Sudan

May 11, 2013 (SSNA) -- I'm often asked, "Is the Darfur situation still awful? is it still a humanitarian crisis?" It's a painful question to have to answer, if only because of the difficulty in providing even a superficial overview of such unfathomable human suffering and destruction; or the brutality of Khartoum's war of attrition against humanitarian relief efforts; or the massive and continuing displacement of civilians (more than 1.3 million since 2007). And it is just as difficult to give an adequate account of the role of the Khartoum regime in sustaining what Human Rights Watch a number of years ago called "Chaos by Design." In fact, the vast crisis in Darfur continues to be "designed"—sustained by denial and obstruction of humanitarian access; by Khartoum's granting impunity to militia proxies engaged in extortion, murder, and land appropriation; and by the relentless military assaults of the regime's regular Sudan Armed Forces and its proxy forces. The SAF air force in particular continues its brutal assaults—largely indiscriminate aerial assaults on civilian targets, of which there have been many hundreds confirmed (seewww.sudanbombing.org).

"But why has it disappeared?" is the typical follow-up question. "What about the vigorous advocacy movement at the beginning of the genocide? Why don't we read about Darfur in the news any longer?" This is a harder set of questions, but there are at least some obvious answers:

[1] Khartoum allows no journalists into Darfur, except under tightly controlled circumstances; and such control can produce egregiously inaccurate reporting by even talented journalists; see my April 15, 2012 account of a deeply misleading New York Times dispatch from West Darfur).

[2] Independent human rights reporting has not been permitted in Darfur for many years, and most of the various UN human rights "reporters" have done exceedingly little. The former UN Panel of Experts on Darfur did some excellent work, but its well-researched findings did not have a large audience; and by 2010, the Panel had become badly politicized and its reporting deeply inadequate (see Sudan Tribune, April 28, 2013). For example, September 2010—the month of the large-scale and utterly savage slaughter of non-Arab civilians by an Arab militia force in Tabarat, North Darfur—was carefully elided from the calendar of both the outgoing Panel and the incoming Panel, which began with October 2010, even as the previous Panel had covered only through August 2010. We still have no UN account of the ethnic slaughter at Tabarat, even as it was reported contemporaneously—in detail—by Reuters, which had actually taken the time to interview survivors.

[3] The UN, both in the Secretariat and in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, has badly misrepresented the scale of the crisis in Darfur, indeed has gone so far as to lie about humanitarian access. The UN has also acquiesced before Khartoum's demand that humanitarian data and reports not be promulgated. UNAMID, which is also routinely denied access by Khartoum's officials, is a demoralized mission whose reporting has become slovenly and wildly incomplete.

I sense that many people not from Darfur have come to believe that the crisis has simply gone on too long to be a true crisis—a conclusion that is only etymologically correct. But attention has certainly drifted, and fatigue has settled in for many activists and advocates—mainly for the reasons outlined above.

But there is another less obvious reason that Darfur has become invisible. For the suffering and destruction have at various times been seriously misrepresented by those who claim to know the region best. Alex de Waal, who has repeatedly and stridently condemned civil advocacy in the U.S. and elsewhere—as ignorant, misguided, and finally destructive—seems the best exemplar here. After the debacle of the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement (Abuja, Nigeria), de Waal went on to become the "Darfur expert" for the African Union Panel on Darfur (AUPD) that convened in 2009; the Panel was chaired by the politically ambitious Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa. The AUPD produced a lengthy, excruciatingly redundant report (without a single citation of work by others, including those upon whose work they obviously depended), and as conclusion offered a "Roadmap for Peace in Darfur."

Implementing the "roadmap" predictably transformed the AUPD into the (now geographically vague) "African Union High-Level Implementation Panel" (AUHIP), with Mbeki again chair. Many will recall that it was Mbeki who refused to accept well-established scientific evidence concerning HIV/AIDS, and subjected South Africans to a brutal epidemic that still ravages the country. And it was Mbeki as well who threw a crucial diplomatic lifeline to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; there is no crueler or more destructive one-man tyranny in Africa than Mugabe's. All too predictably—given their flawed means of proceeding and even more flawed leadership—the AUHIP failed badly in Darfur. They have subsequently migrated to other Sudanese issues, with the same vaguely exalted title of "African Union High-Level Implementation Panel"; their inadequacies have been similarly manifest elsewhere in greater Sudan.

So what sort of advice was Mbeki receiving from de Waal? What view of Darfur shaped the AU's? For someone so critical of the purported ignorance of advocates for Darfur, de Waal in 2009—the year the AU panel convened—offered a rather remarkable view of Darfur. Speaking of the village of Ain Siro in Kutum Locality, North Darfur, de Waal declares rapturously:

"A few days in Ain Siro is a reminder of what life used to be like in Darfur. The village is nestled in the spine of hills that runs due north from Jebel Marra into the desert. Protected by the mountains, the SLA has controlled the area for the last four years, and for many of the people in the vicinity, allowed an element of normality to return. Villages have been rebuilt, a rudimentary health service set up—and the school re-opened."

"Ain Siro shows how people on all sides are tired of war and, when given the chance, can make their own small but significant steps towards peace and normality. When Julie Flint first wrote about Ain Siro ‘'saving itself' in 2007, most were sceptical that it represented anything significant. Two years on, not only has Ain Siro survived, but its model of self-help is less exceptional than it was."

(May 29, 2009 at his SSRC blog: http://blogs.ssrc.org/darfur/2009/05/28/a-taste-of-normality-in-ain-siro/)

Ain Siro and its surroundings are presently caught in the middle of the vast maelstrom of violence surging in all three Darfur states—violence that has been surging for many months, even as it has ebbed and flowed for the past ten years. The village lies approximately 30 miles from Kassab camp in Kutum Locality, where some of the worst violence of the past year has been focused. But even at the time de Waal was writing, violence in Darfur had by no means ceased; human displacement had certainly not abated, indeed was continuing at terrifying levels (see http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3970); and Khartoum's intention to crush the Darfur insurgency by genocidal means remained just as clear under new direction by the notoriously brutal senior presidential advisor Nafie Ali Nafie (this following the death of his predecessor, Majzoub al-Khalifa, in June 2007). Methods certainly had changed from the most violent period of the genocide (2003 – 2005/2006), but large-scale, ethnically-targeted violence remained very much a fact of life for the people of Darfur. The previously noted example of Tabarat (September 2010)—close to de Waal's Ain Siro in North Darfur—is all too revealing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/17/ozatp-sudan-darfur-survivors-idAFJOE68G0BJ20100917).

Moreover, in May 2009 most of Darfur was still reeling from Khartoum's catastrophic expulsion of thirteen international relief organizations in March 2009, and the shutting down of three Sudanese national humanitarian organizations. Senior relief officials within the humanitarian community consistently estimated that this represented approximately half the total relief capacity for all of Darfur. Did de Waal somehow think—two months after this event—that there would be no serious consequences? In fact, these consequences have become steadily more apparent in the following years. Humanitarian conditions, already poor, continue to deteriorate badly; humanitarian capacity and access continue to shrink. Indeed, the people of Ain Siro may well be beyond the reach of relief assistance; Khartoum continues to engage in the systematic denial of humanitarian assistance to areas where specific ethnic groups are concentrated; and some 100,000 Darfuris have been displaced from this part of North Darfur alone over the past year.

Strongly encouraged as I have been for almost ten years now, by a great many Darfuris, I have continued to write about the realities of the region as reported to me by the people of Darfur themselves and increasingly by Radio Dabanga, an extraordinary journalistic collaboration of Darfuris, based in The Netherlands. Radio Dabanga has done far more than the UN or international journalism it making Darfur's realities visible (and is increasingly cited by other news sources, including the UN's Integrated Region Information Networks, IRIN). I have also benefitted from confidential humanitarian sources who have reported from the ground in Darfur, and from within UN OCHA, as well as from a range of other confidential sources. I have also read all the literature on Darfur from INGOs, human rights groups (typically using Sudanese national sources), policy organizations, and others; even in 2009 and subsequently these reports and accounts continued to be voluminous and time-consuming, if often fragmentary and incomplete. But I was certainly not alone in seeing something other than the idyllic scene at Ain Siro that de Waal reports, and which presumably informed his advice to the AU high-level panel then assembling.

What I heard and read was reflected in my running commentary (most of it published in the Sudan Tribune, a venue dismissed by de Waal as "biased") on the humanitarian and security crises in Darfur. Here I should frankly acknowledge that de Waal has recently written dismissively of these efforts: "Those who have hardly been [to Sudan] have no difficulty in writing reams of text…" (AllAfrica.com, May 9, 2013). What one would not surmise from this characterization is how much in these "reams" is citation and quotation, frequent and substantial citation and quotation from the widest possible range of reliable sources. It is in one sense an effort at archiving what is in great danger of being lost or forgotten or simply ignored, as it has clearly been by de Waal.

It may be useful, then, to compare de Waal's rapturous account of May 2009 with my own more expansive accounts from the periods before and after this moment. I offer no summary overview; the catastrophe in Darfur is neither simply nor easily rendered—and it is continually evolving. Understanding how deeply, perversely wrong-headed de Waal has been requires, indeed, some substantial reading. Better this than the glibness for which de Waal has become so well known.

• Humanitarian Efforts in Darfur Face Escalating War by Khartoum, Sudan Tribune, October 29, 2008, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article29073

• Darfur Enmeshed Within Sudan’s Broadening National Crisis, Sudan Tribune:

January 2, 2009, Part 1: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article29742

January 22, 2009, Part 2: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article29948

March 3, 2009, Part 3: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article30389

• Khartoum’s Expulsion of Humanitarian Organizations (March 4, 2009), Sudan Tribune, March 25, 2009, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article30643

• Darfur Humanitarian Expulsions, Two Months On, Sudan Tribune, May 14, 2009,http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31163

• Redefining Darfur’s Agony: A Shameless Betrayal, Sudan Tribune, September 27, 2009, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32602

• Humanitarian Conditions in Darfur: An Overview (in two parts), Sudan Tribune:

June 23, 2010, Part 1: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35480

July 5, 2010, Part 2: http://www.sudantribune.com/Humanitarian-Conditions-in-Darfur,35569

• QUANTIFYING GENOCIDE: Darfur Mortality Update, Sudan Tribune, August 10, 2010, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35911

More recently, and giving an even fuller sense of how profoundly misguided de Waal's May 2009 assessment has proved to be:

• Humanitarian Conditions in Darfur: The most recent reports reveal a relentless deterioration, Sudan Tribune,February 12, 2013,http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article45480

• THE DARFUR GENOCIDE AT TEN YEARS: A Reckoning, Sudan Tribune,

April 20, 2013,http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article46292

• A Key Report on Darfur by UN Panel of Experts Consigned to Oblivion, Sudan Tribune, April 28, 2013,http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article46376

Much of this and other work, including academic publications, is assembled in archival fashion inCompromising With Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012(www.CompromisingWithEvil.org).

Many generous words have been accorded this volume; none mean more to me than those of Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Eisa—former head of the Amal Center for Treatment of Victims of Torture and Rape (Nyala, South Darfur) and Robert F. Kennedy human rights award laureate for 2007. And his words, I have been convinced by frequent communications, represent the views of a great many Darfuris, who understandably express their bewilderment at the silence of an international community that seems to have taken de Waal's as the last word concerning the situation in Darfur:

"For the past few years, while the world has been stunningly silent, Eric Reeves has continued to write about the atrocities and immensely destructive policies of the Sudan government. His 2007 book, A Long Day's Dying, brought many of the atrocity crimes in Darfur to international attention. While some skeptics or deniers, such as Mahmood Mamdani, dismissed his writings, activists in Darfur and elsewhere continue to be sustained in their commitment by virtue of the research of A Long Day's Dying.

"His new and lengthy eBook [Compromising With Evil], representing much of his writing from 2007 to the present, makes a great deal more key information available concerning the evolving crises in Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, and the border region between North and South Sudan. In recent years the international community has chosen to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Darfur and Sudan. For his part, Eric Reeves has continued relentlessly to expose the failure of the international community in bringing about peace to Sudan, whether through implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 or the UNAMID mission in Darfur.

"Reeves's new eBook contains 14 annexes, each dealing with a specific topic of controversy that demands to be read. I strongly that urge those concerned about Sudan to read this new publication, which offers a sobering view of the deteriorating situation in both North and South Sudan."

I have certainly not spent as much time "on the ground" in Sudan as Alex de Waal has; but sadly, as his words reveal in various ways, those who have spent a great deal of time on the ground may still be unable to look in the right places or see what is quite plainly, if inconveniently, before them.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, is author most recently of Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012; www.CompromisingWithEvil.org

May 11, 2013 (SSNA) -- Until death do us part, seem to be the rapturous echoes ripping through the throbbing heart of bewildered Ngok Dinka citizens in Abyei. The disputed territory is aging as it is well over its centenary year in self-imposed exile. It is to be recalled the tiny but much priced territory straddled into the faulty lines dangerously laying between North and South of two Sudans back in 1905. The patriarch also known as paramount chief Kuol Deng Majok thought of rare benefits to bring within the grips of his Abyei off springs {both sons and daughters} when he decided rather opportunistically to kiss goodbye to the South, then considered Sudan’s back water of anything thought credible. The perceived benefits to grasp were modern education and Arabs civilization with which North was enviously associated. Not to forget, one more additional benefit whether subconsciously perceived of or not was conversion to Islam that as well accrued a few more bountiful goodies for people derogatorily regarded as infidels willing to cross over to the dubbed last Prophet’s holy land. All these coveted gains turned regrettable poisoned chalice one hundred years later. With Abyei striking it rich in oil wealth and South Sudanese clamoring for the independence, then began Abyei present day perpetual woes of an intractable pogrom.

The Abyei Dinka as truly South Sudanese in all social characteristics of ethnic origin, yet black skin complexion and Nilotic culture turned out to be the tug pulled in between beyond an elastic limit by both sides of political divide. Consequently, that strange twist and turn has attracted a legion of countless regional and international peace keeping interventions all under one leaking roof of the UN, collectively referred to as UNISFA. And from which arises the present day stalemate or be it sheer miscalculation of sorts that makes it difficult for one rival side to take Abyei over either through brute force or shrewd diplomacy. Nor is there possibility of a peaceful referendum insight as stipulated in an already defunct Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA that is now regarded as never comprehensive by still suffering peoples of Abyei, Blue Nile and Nuba Mountains. For so many timelines on that matter mysteriously as indefinitely come and go under protracted non-substantial arguments predicated on ownership rights.

While the tenancy over who should be given the keys turn bloodiest, the victims ironically happen to be the rightful owners but self-acclaimed civilized Ngok Dinka at the hands of hired goons – the Miseriya settlers on the suspected pay list of the bloody game spectators in far flung Khartoum. Fleeing in the face of genocidal Miseriya tribal raids followed by Sudan Armed forces mopping up operations, Abyei Ngok Dinka have a fairer share in their perennial predicament too. Their treacherous over reliance on external muscles while partly eating with those they call enemy are the conjoined debacles they have to clear on their tortuous journey to freedom. No amount of proxy wars waged by murk-racking press, local mercenaries paid from South Sudan increasingly shrinking public coffer and neither are international mercenaries under the UN financial benevolence shall win over Abyei to their side on silver platter. This brings forth pertinent questions for them to answer. How many times their paramount chiefs have to be slaughtered like chickens in that abattoir called Abyei under their hapless watch, how longer is the time for patience or veiled cowardice to pay and how many more cheeks remaining for them they the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms in Abyei to turn for unremorseful slapping? Eight years are long enough even for the faith-based patience or rather disguised cowardice to wither as there are only two cheeks a normal human being has to give away in self-inflicted indignity and concocted helplessness.

Despite all indications that point to the grim reality that future - as bleak as it is - of Abyei will not be decided at the ballot box. Since the conflict has hitherto defied well crafted amicable solutions that came far and between such as that of Abyei Boundary Commission, ABC, The Hague based - International Court of Arbitration and now the on-going shuttle diplomacy to determine Abyei troubled future which all have ground to a halt if not come to nothing. With one more saddest and time wasting thing at stake typical Nilotic ethnic groups lack but Abyei Ngok Dinka strangely have; being the false modesty under which they have recoiled hoping for never coming one day when the territory shall peacefully return home - South Sudan - to roost.

Deng Vanang, Journalist, Author of the upcoming book: ‘’South Sudan Contested Legacies’’ and Executive member of South Sudan’s leading opposition, the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement for Democratic Change - SPLM-DC. He can be reached at: dvanang@yahoo.com

NB. This opinion piece is solely mine and not attributed to the official position of SPLM-DC as the party on Abyei’s issue.

May 10, 2013 (SSNA) -- For those whose sun ascend and set within the perimeter of S. Sudan, the fuss brought forth, often, by the presidential decrees is something one must come to terms with.  If you are one of those who make fantasies about change and future, hold your breath. Decrees are not going away any time soon. The three decrees issued in the last 24 days stand out. A few others might be on the way. You never know. Although one would feel, sometimes, that the word “decree” sounds archaic and too totalitarian for a modern society, much ado about recent decrees arise from the fact that most of them are thrown to the public in bulk. And in the process of breaking them down into consumable kind of convincing facts –that is the beauty of our cognitive processes, anyway; making sense from nonsense –majority of people run short of logic and, consequently, succumb to confirmation bias –firmly anchored in tribal school of thought. In spite of the ambiguity they present to us, does Mr. President always get his decrees right? Let’s have a fair look at the following decrees:

Withdrawal of powers delegated to the Vice President

This is where the body temperatures, of participants involved in the debate, soared at a 100°C plus in the last couple weeks. Whereas Mr. Kiir’s sycophants felt that their Nuer political rivals are finally brought to their knees, Dr. Riek’s disciples viewed it as a typical Dinka plot against the Nuer community that must be squashed at all cost. Both parties, however, appeared oblivious to the constitutional requirements, Article 105 sections (a) to (d), that allow the president to delegate and withdraw powers. That is ignorance at its best, isn’t it? It is no-brainer that this is an enshrined law that has nothing to celebrate or lament about. It does not present a perfect win-lose scenario, does it? So, if you considered yourself a winner: start clearing your head. If you felt hard done by the presidential decree: pick yourself up and move on.  In my opinion the president has a right to withdraw his powers when he deems it necessary. Whether he made the law himself is another question, but for now let’s assume it is within the limits of his constitutional powers.

Cancellation of Reconciliation Process and the creation of new committee

According to the article posted by Sudan Tribune on April 15^th, there are two major theories explaining why the initial process had to be booted out with its organizers. One holds that it lacked “clear agenda”. The other suggests that the “vice-president wanted to use it as a political campaign project against the president”.  Well, let’s examine the validity of each claim. What “clear agenda” should underlie the ‘reconciliation’? Okay, let’s assume the ‘agenda’ is now defined. Why was Dr. Riek then removed altogether? Oh, hold on, we were told he “wanted to use it as a political campaign project ‘against’ the president”. Really? Does the vice-president operate in vacuum that he would make the “campaign project” out of it without the knowledge of the public? If he does, wouldn’t the public –that needs reconciliation –ask a question or two? Isn’t he accountable for the outcomes his duties before the law? Do you think these claims wouldn’t hold water? Maybe yes. Maybe no. I will leave that to you.

Meanwhile, if you have an illusion that reconciliation is a public muss that can be quelled with decrees, or a peace process that need biblical preaching from Bishops and Popes, think twice. Or forget it altogether. We are talking about reestablishing lost relationships and self-acceptance. It is about people sitting down, acknowledge mistakes on their parts, and convince each other why they have to bury the hatchet and move on as a unit. It is about bringing back the sense of brotherhood, not a mere cessation of hostilities. The difference here is that you don’t necessarily have to acknowledge your mistakes in a peace process. Therefore, peace is temporal and does not guarantee trust. Can you imagine the current S. Sudan, vacuous of trust, in the next two decades? Poor governance and social evils would only rife! The fact, and I would want to opine, that Dr. Riek has inscriptions in both dark and bright history of S. Sudan make him more relevant to reconciliation process than anyone else –including president Kiir. He has more to convince other tribes than Archbishop Deng and the company. Furthermore, ignoring the fact that Dr. Riek has an edge over others on both political and delicate issues concerning Nuer is a sheer hypocrisy and a blatant ignorance to the existing truth that anyone can think of. Let’s take the recent Nuer youth attack [or call it a ‘disarmament campaign’ according to ‘White Army’] on Murle, for instance. With the benefit of hindsight, someone can argue that the role Dr. Riek played would have been played by anyone else. But the naked truth is that neither the Jonglei State governor nor President Kiir himself could have stopped them. You and I know why. Both know too. Use of coercion wouldn’t have helped either. Absolutely not! Besides, if Murle community’s decline of Archbishop Deng as peace mediator last year, on grounds that he is a Dinka agent, is something to go by, then what does one expect to have changed overnight? In the wake of these, the recent committee is only but assigned the hardest task of their lives, and failure is eminent on the cards. Whether that appeals to your ears is one, the truth about it is another. In my opinion, this decree neither put into perspective the present degree of tribal tensions nor does it consider reconciliation as a necessity, at least, for the political future of S. Sudan. It is rather cockish and seems to substantiate the suspected political paranoia within the SPLM. Either the president or his advisors, blatantly, wants to justify the notion of “let’s see who is the boss” in the expense of national interest. Some issues need command, yes, others literally don’t. This is a political blunder, and might be regretted in the near future.

How about the firing of deputy Foreign Affairs Minister?

Well, if you never learned professionalism before being a professional, this is a great lesson. What is moral about working in an office during the day and gossips about it at night, anyway? I wonder why John Clement Kuc is never lauded for his patriotic action. He made, of course, a noble decision when he resigned to keep his hands clean from nepotism and corruption within the judiciary. For those who care about change and morality in public institutions, this is the best way to expose rottenness, and give the government something to think about. It is simple and less costly; just quit and let them feel the pressure. At least if they hire the next person a thing or two would have changed. Otherwise, some people need to shut it up and leave rumormongering to co-wives if they have no guts to stage a noble fight like Mr. Clement. We, the common citizens, do not need your gossips; we need someone with balls to stand up –in the face of adversity –for S. Sudan. In my opinion, Mr. President did a decent job here. Many are still around though, and a few more decrees might be necessary.

Whether the presidential decrees give you a bumpy ride or a smooth one, learn to cope. Generally. Romans do theirs in Roman way. This is the S. Sudanese way.

Philips Al-Ghai can be reached at alghai211@gmail.com

May 9, 2013 (SSNA) -- The recent (May 4, 2013) deaths of two UN peacekeepers in Abyei have a chilling familiarity, though to this point there has been no firm establishment of responsibility. Familiar also are the formulaic declarations of outrage coming from various quarters when UN peacekeepers are killed in greater Sudan. There are three large peacekeeping missions there—operating at tremendous expense, and limiting peacekeeping capacity throughout the world. Two of these peacekeeping missions have experienced serious losses because of actions on the part of the Khartoum regime's Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and its militia and paramilitary proxies, typically armed and directed by the SAF and the security apparatus in Khartoum, especially Military intelligence (MI).

The SAF has not been especially discreet in making its contempt for UN peacekeepers known. On August 2, 2011 SAF officers, with brutal callousness, denied medical evacuation to three mortally wounded Ethiopian peacekeepers in Abyei (see below). And in Darfur the threats against the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) have been constant and extremely serious. Reuters reports, for example, on one such instance from January 2011:

"UNAMID spokesman Kemal Saiki confirmed the bombing was by 'the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) air force.' Later on Wednesday [January 26, 2011], a group of 200 Sudanese government soldiers in 40 vehicles arrived at UNAMID's camp in the nearby settlement of Shangil Tobay [North Darfur], UNAMID said. '(The soldiers) surrounded the team site's exit as well as the adjacent makeshift camp, where thousands of civilians recently displaced by the December 2010 clashes have settled,' read the statement. The Sudanese army detained four displaced people at the camp, said UNAMID. 'The SAF commander at the scene … then threatened to burn down the makeshift camp and UNAMID team site, if the peacekeepers continued to interfere.'" (Reuters [Khartoum], January 27, 2011)

By "interference," of course, Khartoum and its SAF meant UNAMID's fulfilling the mandate of its mission, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1769 (July 2007).

What we know

The present account offers a brief history of those incidents in which Khartoum's responsibility for the killing of UN peacekeepers has been well established.

[ The three UN peacekeeping missions in greater Sudan are:

• UNAMID (UN/African Union Mission in Darfur), established in July 2007 by Security Council Resolution 1769; it was formed initially from its virtually impotent predecessor force, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS);

• UNMISS (the UN Mission in South Sudan), successor to the woefully infective UNMIS (UN Mission in Sudan); UNMISS was authorized in July 2011 by UN Security Council Resolution 1996;

• UNISFA (the UN Interim Security Force in Abyei), deployed to Abyei following military seizure of the regime by Khartoum in May 2011; it comprises an Ethiopian armed brigade, and was authorized in June 2011 by UN Security Council Res. 1990 ]

• Deaths of UNISFA peacekeepers May 4, 2013—Abyei:

The details of the recent killing of two Ethiopian peacekeepers in Abyei, along with Paramount Chief of the Dinka Ngok, Kuol Deng Kuol, are not fully clear (an Appendix provides relevant excerpts from newswire reports and other accounts). But the details as rendered by various parties strongly suggest that some leaders of the Arab Misseriya militia forces, likely at Khartoum's suggestion or encouragement, deliberately provoked an armed confrontation that resulted in the killings. Certainly the killing of Paramount Chief Kuol creates an immediate political crisis in South Sudan and has the effect of making immensely more difficult any peaceful resolution of the ongoing Abyei crisis. This has been Khartoum's goal since the Abyei self-determination was aborted—a decision announced by senior presidential advisor Nafie Ali Nafie, now headed to the U.S. (see http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3904).

Khartoum seized Abyei militarily in May 2011; this followed the regime's conspicuous and well-documented military build-up in the areas abutting Abyei—as well as inside the region—over the preceding months. Although UNISFA deployed subsequently—an Ethiopian armed brigade—it has been unable to secure the region sufficiently for the indigenous Dinka Ngok to return. Virtually the entire population—some 110,000 civilians—had fled to various locations in South Sudan following Khartoum's May 2011 military seizure. That military action created a de facto annexation of Abyei, and Khartoum has regularly declared that "Abyei has always been part of the north," thus defying the terms of the Abyei Protocol of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005). Moreover, the June 2011 UN/AU-brokered agreement between Juba and Khartoum on an interim administration of Abyei has provided yet another example of contemptuous reneging by the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party (NIF/NCP) regime.

The military seizure of Abyei was accomplished using both regular SAF forces and Misseriya militia allies. The latter remain and serve as a highly threatening military presence, deterring the vast majority of Dinka Ngok from returning, certainly to areas north of Abyei town (which is in the south of Abyei and very close to the Warrap state in South Sudan). The Misseriya have been heavily armed and some of its political leaders have been seduced by Khartoum's propaganda or money—or both. What is clear is that some Misseriya leaders do not want a resolution of the Abyei crisis on the terms formally proposed by African Union diplomats, terms fully endorsed by the African Union Peace and Security Council. There could be no more effective way of short-circuiting further negotiations than killing Kuol Deng Kuol.

Beyond the death of a good man critical to any settlement of the Abyei crisis, there have been many recent instances of killings, village burnings, and lootings in Abyei. In responding to the death of Kuol Deng Kuol, Foreign Affairs minister Nhial Deng declared:

"'The killing of [the] chief was not just an incident. It was preceded by reports of regular killings in the area. The list of those who have been killed has been filed and the United Nations has the details and we believe the killing of the chief will not be taken lightly nor [do] we expect the international community to consider [Kuol’s death] a normal thing or usual business … We hold the government of Sudan responsible because those who killed the chief are under the control of the government of Sudan. They are no stranger to Sudan,' he added."

The weakness of the UN in responding to such incidents, implicating the Khartoum regime, has for many years been contemptible. Despite the strong words from Nhial Deng, little is likely to change—and when it suits its purposes, the Khartoum regime will again kill or allow for the deaths of UN peacekeepers.

• Refusal to allow the medevac of critically wounded UNISFA peacekeepers, August 2, 2011—Abyei:

An incident of August 2, 2011 is revealing of Khartoum's contempt for the lives of UN peacekeepers. On that date the SAF refused to allow for the urgent medical evacuation (medevac) of three mortally wounded UNISFA peacekeepers in Abyei (their vehicle had run over a mine). Despite repeated attempts to secure permission from the SAF in Kadugli (South Kordofan) for helicopter evacuation, the UN was rebuffed on each occasion until it had become too late. One of the mortally wounded soldiers would have likely survived if he had reached Kadugli in timely fashion. Alain Le Roy, then head of UN peacekeeping, declared bluntly that, "We didn’t get the clearance for the Medevac helicopter to take off immediately. They [Khartoum's SAF] prevented us to take off by threatening to shoot at the helicopter."

"They [Khartoum's SAF] prevented us to take off by threatening to shoot at the helicopter." This extraordinary refusal should have been the occasion for consequential outrage; it was not, even as there could hardly be a more revealing moment in the recent history of peacekeeping in greater Sudan.

• Attack on heavily armed UNAMID convoy, October 17, 2012—traveling to Hashaba, North Darfur (scene of major atrocity crimes involving SAF and militia forces):

The village of Hashaba North and its environs (approximately 55 kilometers northeast of Kutum in North Darfur) was attacked from September 26 through October 2, 2012 by what were repeatedly described—by eyewitnesses—as Arab militia forces and SAF aerial military assets. Very high civilian casualties figures were soon reported by Radio Dabanga ("between 250 and 300 people," October 4, 2012), along with repeated descriptions of the attackers on the ground as belonging to "pro-government militias." Many thousands of civilians were newly displaced at the time, and total displacement in North Darfur alone since August is now well over 100,000 civilians.

Even more disturbing and significant, however, was a subsequent attack on the follow-up investigation, an unusually robust UNAMID investigative patrol comprising 16 vehicles in all. On October 17, 2012a very heavily armed militia group—which had carefully anticipated the route of the UNAMID convoy traveling to North Hashaba from Kutum—fired from high ground down upon the vulnerable UNAMID forces. UNAMID returned fire, but faced very intimidating weaponry and was at an overwhelming tactical disadvantage; with the killing of one UNAMID soldier and the wounding of three others (one critically), the force retreated back to Kutum. The South African soldier killed was the 43rd to die in UNAMID.

The character of the weapons used in the attack on UNAMID forces was reported in revealing and unusually detailed fashion (Agence France-Presse [Khartoum], October 22, 2012):

"'[The attackers] used arsenals of high-calibre weapons that were never used before,' UNAMID spokeswoman Aicha Elbasri said in a written reply to AFP questions. 'This includes mortars, medium machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47 rifles, and anti-tank guns.'"

Edmond Mulet, deputy head of UN peacekeeping operations, later declared in an October 24 briefing of the UN Security Council that the attacking force used "heavy machine guns," a fearsomely destructive weapon when fired with the advantage of significantly higher ground position.

This was no ordinary militia assault: it was immediately clear that the UNAMID convoy was attacked, on the basis of advance intelligence, in order to prevent the investigation of atrocity crimes reported from Hashaba. Indeed, although the UN merely hinted at this reality, I am aware of no analyst not connected with the UN or UNAMID who has disputed this conclusion or offered a plausible alternative explanation. UNAMID declared that it would proceed with a subsequent mission to investigate the crimes at Hashaba; in the event, however, this did not occur within a reasonable time-frame. As on countless previous occasions, after Khartoum's proxies finish sanitizing the site there was little left in the way of evidence from the attacks of late September/early October.

Further, this attack on the UN must be seen in light of the regime's repeated, utterly false claims about human security in Darfur, viz. that there is no major fighting in Darfur and that civilians are secure and able to return safely to their homes and lands. In the words of Deputy Governor of North Darfur, al-Fateh Abdel Aziz Abdel Nabi, uttered on the day the UNAMID force was attacked:

"'[T]here is very good improvement in the security situation’ compared with its peak in 2004, he said, with incidents limited to Kutum and Mellit. ‘And they are isolated and they are under control.'" (Agence France-Presse [el-Fasher], October 17, 2012)

We may reasonably infer that the assault on UN Security Council-authorized peacekeepers was designed in part to ensure that this perverse narrative was preserved as much as possible, at least with respect to civilian massacres and other atrocity crimes.

Indeed, the evidence was so clear in this attack on civilians in Hashaba, and in the subsequent assault on UNAMID, that only one issue remains undetermined: what was the nature of command responsibility for the specific atrocities in Hashaba on this particular occasion? How far up the Military Intelligence (MI) chain-of-command did foreknowledge of the attack on Hashaba go? (MI long ago took the lead in organizing "security" for Darfur.) This has not been determined and is highly unlikely to be. But the more important question is how far up the MI chain-of-command did foreknowledge of the assault on UN peacekeepers go? Again, we can't be sure, but given evidence of growing powers for the military and security elements within the NIF/NCP regime, it is highly unlikely that such an action would have been undertaken without at least tacit prior approval from someone senior in the Army or Military Intelligence/Khartoum.

The alternative is to believe that a field officer for MI with foreknowledge of the attack felt it to be insufficiently important to report back to Khartoum. For certainly some MI officers in North Darfur were involved in or at least knew of the attack, especially given the nature of the weaponry. Again, a UNAMID spokesperson has spoken of "arsenals of high-calibre weapons that were never used before,"and deputy head of UN peacekeeping operations Edmond Mulet reported specifically on the attackers use of "heavy machine guns." This kind of weaponry simply could not have gone unnoticed, and yet the UN is characteristically diffident in drawing the most obvious of conclusions.

Further, Radio Dabanga reported in late September that the governor of North Darfur had been warned of the impending militia attack on Hashaba by a local official from the town itself, Abdella Rifa:

"Rifa blamed the Janjaweed militias for carrying out the 'barbaric attack' [on Hashaba] and held the government responsible for the incidents. [ ] Rifa said that the leader of the Janjaweedmilitia that carried out the attack is called Al-Nur. He also said that the group moved to attack from their base in Damrat Al-Quba. According to Rifa, they knew beforehand that the militia was going to attack and they informed the authorities including the governor of the state, Mohammed Osman Kibir, 'but they did nothing.'" (Radio Dabanga, September 28, 2012)

[ For a highly detailed account of the locations and purposes of bases such as that at Damrat al-Quba, see Sudan Tribune (October 1, 2012): "Darfur war crimes, changes in demographic composition, and ethnic displacement," by Hamid Eltgani Ali of the American University in Cairo.]

In short, the UN—by refusing to do more than plead with Khartoum to investigate crimes committed by the regime's own proxies forces—remains complicit in an appalling silence despite clear evidence that Khartoum is responsible for a brutal attack on a major UN peacekeeping convoy.

• Attack on UNAMID, October 2, 2012—near el-Geneina, West Darfur:

On October 2, 2012, four UNAMID soldiers were killed and eight injured in West Darfur, approximately a mile from their main base in (regime-controlled) el-Geneina, capital of West Darfur—and very close to a Khartoum-allied militia checkpoint. Although the evidence is only circumstantial, it points clearly to SAF or allied militia forces.

Reuters reported (October 2, 2012) a UNAMID statement that the force "came under fire from all sides"; it is unlikely that a rebel force could have deployed in this way so close to el-Geneina and a Khartoum-allied militia checkpoint.

Subsequently we heard from the UN:

"In a statement to the press, Council President Gert Rosenthal of Guatemala said the Council members called on the Sudanese Government to swiftly investigate the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice."

And from the U.S. State Department:

"The State Department said on Thursday [October 4] it was 'appalled' by an attack that killed four Nigerian peacekeepers and wounded eight others earlier this week in Sudan's western Darfur region. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the United States condemns the ambush on UNAMID personnel that occurred on October 2, and called for an investigation into the attack and for those responsible for the violence to be held accountable."

The European Union completed the familiar refrain with its own entirely predictable statement (October 4, 2012):

“[EU High Representative Catherine Ashton] deplores the attack on UNAMID peacekeepers that left four Nigerian peacekeepers dead and eight others injured in an ambush in El Geneina, West Darfur. She strongly condemns the attack and calls on the Government of Sudan to work closely with UNAMID to bring the perpetrators to justice."

Almost as if to emphasize the impotence of this condemnation and demand, Ashton also spoke vaguely about "reports of a violent incident in Hashaba," the very "incident" that would lead to a UNAMID investigating force, and the brutal assault upon that force by Khartoum-allied (and likely -armed) militia forces:

"The High Representative is also deeply alarmed at reports of a violent incident in Hashaba in North Darfur, which appears to have cost the lives of large numbers of civilians, including through aerial bombardment. Shecalls for UNAMID to be allowed immediate access to the area and urges all Parties to end the cycle of violence in Darfur and to pursue a comprehensive and inclusive peace settlement."

Only diplomats are trained to such euphemistic usage: "incident" for "large-scale atrocity crimes," the reality that was already clear by the date Ashton spoke (see, for example, http://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/more-2000-people-fled-hashaba-attacks and Radio Dabanga, September 28, 2012). And the effect of these unctuous condemnations and "demands" for accountability? Agence France-Presse reported (October 22, 2012) comments by various officials on investigations of previous attacks on UNAMID:

"The dead South African is the 43rd peacekeeper from UNAMID to be killed in hostile action, but UN sources have said they were unaware of anybody previously being brought to justice for the attacks."

• Attack on UNAMID, January 7, 2008—near Tine, West Darfur/North Darfur border, across the border from eastern Chad:

At approximately 10pm on January 7, 2008 Khartoum's regular Sudan Armed Forces attacked, deliberately and with premeditation, a UNAMID convoy. The convoy, comprising more than 20 cargo trucks and armored personnel carriers (APCs), came under heavy, sustained fire near Tine, just inside North Darfur near the border with West Darfur and eastern Chad. One truck was destroyed, an APC was damaged, and a driver was critically wounded with numerous bullet wounds. The SAF assault on the convoy lasted 10-12 minutes, during which time UNAMID military personnel did not return fire. The motive for the attack, certainly ordered by senior SAF military commanders, was to inhibit the movement of UNAMID ground and air forces during night hours. In other words, the attack was meant to serve warning that UNAMID would be restricted in the same ways that the impotent African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) was restricted from the time of its initial deployment in 2004.

Evidence that the SAF attack was deliberate and premeditated was overwhelming, a conclusion shared by the head of UN peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, and many others within the UN, and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in particular. In his January 9, 2008 briefing of the UN Security Council, Guéhenno offered a number of compelling details, details amplified in confidential interviews conducted with UN officials by this writer. The most basic facts of the attack and its circumstances made unambiguously clear that Khartoum lied at every step of the way in its account of events, including initially denying that its forces were in any way involved in the attack on the UNAMID convoy:

[1] The transport trucks and APCs were painted in UN white, with clear UN markings on the vehicles. Even at night it is impossible to mistake UN white for the camouflage green used by rebels, who do not travel with either the configuration or the makeup of the UNAMID convoy. Rebel groups typically move using 4×4 Landcruisers and pick-up trucks, and at high speed. The UNAMID convoy, with heavy transport vehicles and APCs, was moving very slowly to allow the APCs to pick their way in the dark. There was simply no ambiguity as to the identity of the convoy vehicles.

[2] Critically, UNAMID had carefully notified all relevant SAF commanders, including the general at the base near Tine where the attack occurred (the convoy was on its way from Umm Baru to Tine). Redundant notification of the SAF by the UN was designed to forestall precisely any misunderstanding about the nature, location, and timing of this convoy mission, one of UNAMID's very first.

[3] The convoy did not return fire during the entire 10-12 minute assault by SAF forces, an extraordinary and quite revealing act of restraint given the length of time the firing continued. Moreover, the commanding SAF officer who accepted responsibility for the attack (responsibility initially denied by senior officials in Khartoum and the regime's ambassador to the UN) had the rank of general: in other words, he was no junior or inexperienced officer, and would not have ordered the attack on his own authority—nor would he have countenanced such an attack by young or frightened officers. Senior SAF military officials ordered the attack, even if the specifics of duration and degree of firepower were left discretionary (both automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades were used).

In the absence of a seized cable or other intercepted communication, there could of course have been no definitive proof that Khartoum ordered what had all the hallmarks of a deliberate and premeditated attack. But the likelihood that this was an independent military action, given the political and diplomatic stakes, is vanishingly small. This was certainly the conclusion of Jean-Marie Guéhenno and other informed officials at the UN in New York. UN career officers understood full well that Khartoum had engaged in a relentless war of obstruction in opposing effective deployment of UNAMID, and equally well understood that this convoy attack was part of the regime's larger campaign.

Khartoum's goals in ordering the attack can be readily discerned by noting issues that at the time remained outstanding in the deployment of UNAMID:

[1] The regime refused to grant night flight rights to UNAMID except for medevac purposes. But as UN and African Union peacekeeping officials continually emphasized, the mandate to protect civilians and humanitarians did not and could not be allowed to end at sunset. Khartoum was able to impose curfews, flight restrictions, onerous aircraft re-certification requirements, and a host of other crippling measures on AMIS. These extended to the brazen commandeering of AMIS aviation fuel supplies for use by Khartoum's helicopter gunships in attacks on civilians. The attack on the convoy near Tine was a way of signaling that UNAMID would face the clear prospect of attack, harassment, and obstruction if it persisted in traveling at night.

[2] The regime had refused at the time to grant landing rights to heavy transport aircraft, the sort that can move large quantities of logistical supplies, as well as heavy vehicles. Initially Khartoum insisted that the runways at el-Fasher and Nyala—the two key destinations—could not handle such heavy aircraft. This was patently false. Subsequently the regime insisted that aircraft could not land at night because of a lack of lights—an easily remedied engineering problem.

[3] Khartoum also refused to allow for the deployment of helicopters—or the construction of critically necessary maintenance hangars—until UNAMID completed an upgrading of the runways at el-Fasher and Nyala. Although there were no helicopters to deploy, and none in prospect—a disgraceful betrayal of Darfur by militarily capable UN member states—there was no way that they would be allowed to deploy under the circumstances that obtained at the time. Of the importance of helicopters in Darfur, particularly in the face of attacks by combatants, Undersecretary Guéhenno declared at the time in his Security Council briefing:

"'If we had had helicopters capable of flying at night and quickly reinforcing a convoy under attack, of course we would have been in a position to deter, probably the attack [near Tine] would never have occurred,' Guéhenno said." (Agence France-Presse [UN/New York], January 9, 2008)

[4] Most generally, Khartoum at the time had still refused to enter into a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the UN and African Union. This was the agreement designed to govern the mutual understanding between Khartoum and the UN/African Union about the mandate, actions, and prerogatives of UNAMID. (The SOFA was not signed until February 2008—over half a year after UNAMID received UN Security Council authorization.) Well-placed UN officials indicated at the time that the issues holding up conclusion of a SOFA were various and continually changing: Khartoum would relent in one area, only to raise a new issue in another area. There was a continuous and debilitating changing of the terms of negotiations; the continual switching, shuffling, and disingenuousness on the part of the regime was clearly designed to forestall completion of the SOFA for as long as possible.

As a result, issues such as night flights, night movement of resources and personnel, land rights for bases (an acute problem in West Darfur), adequate access at Port Sudan—all remained unresolved at the time UNAMID officially took up its mandate (January 1, 2008). Khartoum also demanded that it be notified of all UNAMID movements and actions beforehand, and that UNAMID accept Khartoum's right to suspend all communications within UNAMID while the regime is conducting military operations. These conditions were completely unacceptable to the UN. The overall effect was to create a crisis outlined in the direst possible terms by then-Under-secretary Guéhenno:

"The top United Nations peacekeeping official today [January 9, 2008] warned the Security Council that the new, critically under-manned and under-equipped mission in Sudan's strife-torn Darfur region faced 'probably the greatest risk' to a UN operation in more than a decade. [ ] 'Today we have the convergence of three factors which put UNAMID at great risk, probably the greatest risk since the 1990s,' he said after briefing the Council, citing the ongoing war in Darfur, the lack of a clear signal from the parties that they want a robust mission, and the mission’s own 'tragic' lack of essential resources. Under-manned UN missions in the 1990s were unable to prevent the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the massacre of Bosnian Moslems in Srebrenica in 1995." [ ]

"'Five months after the adoption of Resolution 1769 (setting up UNAMID), we do not yet have guarantee or agreements from the Government [of Sudan] on the basic technical issues,' [Guéhenno said]. 'And finally, the mission itself will not have the personnel or assets in place to implement its mandate for many months even in the best case scenario,’ he added, noting that no offers for essential transportation and aviation assets had been made, including 24 helicopters."

"'When you combine those factors you see that you have the possibility of failure unless the political situation is rectified, unless the war situation is ended and a strategic choice is made by all the parties that it is not by military action that peace will be brought to Darfur but by negotiation, and unless there is a decisive reinforcement of the mission,' he told journalists after the Council session." (UN News Center [UN/New York], January 9, 2008)

It is difficult to imagine a fuller or clearer indication of Khartoum's attitude toward the deploying peacekeepers of UNAMID—or the fatal nature of the weaknesses of characterizing the mission—than by examining the history of the attack on Tine.

• Janjaweed attack on UNAMID, July 8, 2008—Umm Hakibah, North Darfur:

On July 8, 2008, at approximately 2:45pm local time, heavily armed Janjaweed militia attacked a UNAMID joint police and military patrol in an area approximately 100 kilometers southeast of el-Fasher, near the village of Umm Hakibah (North Darfur). In a firefight that lasted approximately three hours, seven UNAMID troops and police were killed and twenty-two were injured, seven of these critically. Ten vehicles were destroyed or taken during the attack. Although there was initial uncertainty about the identity of the attacking force, this uncertainty was quickly eliminated in the course of an urgent investigation. In addition to various published reports, UN Undersecretary for Peacekeeping Guéhenno again offered a compelling July 11, 2008 briefing to the Security Council (in closed session), making a number of telling observations that point unambiguously to Janjaweed forces as those responsible:

[1] Guéhenno told the Security Council that the attack on UN-authorized peacekeepers "took place in an area under Sudanese government control and that some of the assailants were dressed in clothing similar to Sudanese army uniforms. He also said the ambush was 'pre-meditated and well-organized' and was intended to inflict casualties rather than to steal equipment or vehicles" (Voice of America [UN/New York], July 11, 2008). The peacekeepers attacked reported seeing approximately 200 fighters, many on horses—a signature feature of the Janjaweed.

[2] Agence France-Presse reports: "Guéhenno was quoted as saying that the ambush was designed 'to inflict casualties' and was carried out with 'equipment usually not used by (rebel) militias'" (UN/New York, July 11, 2008). Separately and confidentially, a UN official went further in confirming to this writer that some of the arms used, including large-caliber recoilless rifles, have never been seen in the arsenals of the rebel groups. This official said that Guéhenno, who is retiring, had rarely been so explicit in assigning responsibility for attacks in Darfur.

[3] Agence France-Presse reported from Khartoum on the views of UN and African Union officials on the ground in Darfur: "Officials in the African Union and UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, known as UNAMID, said on Wednesday [July 9, 2008] that suspected Janjaweed militia, who have fought [together] with the state [i.e., Government of Sudan], were behind the attack that killed seven peacekeepers" (July 10, 2008).

[4] The motive for the attack was not been established, but an assessment of who benefitted from an attack of this scale and intensity could leave no doubt as to responsibility. The rebels knew full well that such an attack would make insecurity in Darfur all the greater; and UNAMID—predictably—pulled back significantly from patrolling and investigating operations. Some deployments of additional forces were put on hold because of the attack (Australia, for example, announced at the time that it was suspending deployment of nine much-needed military specialists).

• Darfur rebel attack on UNAMID, September 2007—Haskanita, North Darfur

Some have made facile comparison of the July and January 2008 Khartoum-directed attacks on UNAMID to the attack in September 2007 on the African Union mission base in Haskanita (the mission was then known as the African Union Mission in Sudan, or AMIS). The motive for the earlier rebel attack appeared at the time to be the taking of weapons and supplies from an AU force that had long been perceived by the rebels as siding with Khartoum, particularly in excluding from ceasefire meetings the rebels groups not party to the ill-conceived Abuja peace agreement (May 2006). Indeed, in the case of Haskanita the attacking rebels—not one of the major factions, but probably an ad hoc collaboration of breakaway elements—may have mistakenly believed that the AU post was passing on bombing coordinates for rebel positions to Khartoum's regular military forces.

But however irresponsible the rebels have been—and they have a fearsome list of offenses and abuses to answer for—all the larger factions urgently wanted a larger UN security presence, to protect both civilians and humanitarians. Rebel leader Abdel Wahid el-Nur, who had an enormous following in the camps for displaced persons, made such a security presence his condition for participating in any renewed peace talks. The Sudan Liberation Movement/Unity—with forces closest to the location attacked—was also the most responsible of the rebel factions, and certainly realized that the attack was a disaster for the people of Darfur. For the rebels knew full well that it would make insecurity in the region all the greater.

The killing will continue

Altogether approximately 50 United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in greater Sudan over the past five years, and a great many more seriously wounded. This is in large measure because of international refusal to support the missions, especially UNAMID, with sufficient transport aircraft, adequate surveillance and communications capacity, and—most significantly—pressure on Khartoum to allow unfettered access and freedom of movement to UNAMID forces—guaranteed by the February 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

Given the lack of consequences for its murderous ways with UN peacekeepers, Khartoum's regular and militia forces will almost certainly kill more peacekeepers. Most—as long been the case—will occur in circumstances that do not permit full determination responsibility without much greater investigative determination. Yet we have seen enough incidents in which responsibility is fully established to make reasonable inferences about a number of the cases in which UNAMID has offered—at least publicly—only a confession of ignorance about the perpetrators of these war crimes.

Calls for "accountability" coming from the U.S., the EU, the AU, and the UN have proved continually worthless—indeed, they are worse than worthless: for every time that the men of National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime hear such "demands," they look back on the long history of previous "demands" that they have ignored…and simply smile complacently.

APPENDIX: Reports on the killing of UN peacekeepers and Paramount Chief of the Dinka Ngok in Abyei on May 4, 2013:

The event—details report from Agence France-Presse:

"The United Nations said the 'attack by a Misseriya assailant on a UNISFA convoy' also seriously wounded two of its peacekeepers." [One of the two wounded soldiers later died from his wounds—ER]

"Despite negotiations, 'a clash happened when a UNISFA soldier shot one of the Misseriya who was readying his weapon,' said the Misseriya chief who asked to remain anonymous. During the resulting clash, the Dinka leader's car was hit by an explosion and he and his driver were killed.'"…

"Negotiations continued 'for a long time' until a Misseriya youth, shouting and armed with a weapon, climbed onto the roof of [the Paramount Chief's] car, the resident said, declining to be named." (Agence France-Presse [Khartoum], May 5, 2013)

Given the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in place for UNISFA, there should have been no negotiation over the passage of either a UNISFA convoy or an important political interlocutor in the Abyei crisis. That "negotiations" were prolonged is highly suspicious. And that the car carrying Kuol Deng Kuol was hit by an explosion suggests it had been particularly targeted by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).

On the timing of the killings:

On May 4, 2013 Sudan Tribune reported the UN decision allowing…

"UN personnel to access the contested oil-producing region of Abyei, using any travel means available. Nhial Deng Nhial, the country's Foreign Affairs minister, said the move was in line with last year's Status of Force Agreement (SOFA), signed by both Sudan and South Sudan, allowing UN to access Abyei without placing conditions. UN personnel, as part of the SOFA, are allowed to travel to the disputed region, either for immediate assessment, or to conduct and respond to daily needs of the humanitarian related activities in the region. But the world body insists it has often been difficult for its personnel to obtain visa approval, mainly from the Sudanese Foreign Affairs ministry, despite the agreement, which the two countries signed."

This was the same day that UNISFA peacekeepers were killed.

The killings also occurred the same day as a meeting held between members of the Abyei Joint Oversight Committee (AJOC), a development that some Misseriya leaders have been encouraged by Khartoum to see as threatening.

Evidence of responsibility:

Reuters reports (Khartoum, May 5, 2013):

"Kuwal Deng Mayok [Kuol Deng Kuol], the top Dinka leader in Abyei, was killed by members of the Misseriya, another Dinka leader told Reuters, asking not to be named. 'The Misseriya targeted him after he had held a meeting in Abyei town with Misseriya leaders,' he said. 'The Misseriya opened fire on his convoy and killed him and another person.'" [Reuters is extremely unlikely to use a witness they have not vetted—ER) "A Misseriya official, Saddiq Babu Nimr, confirmed the death of Mayok but blamed it on a shooting incident with Ethiopian UN peacekeepers, which administer Abyei."

That the attack occurred after Kuol held a lengthy meeting with Misseriya leaders in Abyei town strongly suggests that forces within the Misseriya opposed to such meetings ensured that they would not occur again. This comports fully with Khartoum's determination to keep the Abyei crisis festering, a means of distracting or commandeering international diplomatic attention. Diplomacy—whether involving the AU (Thabo Mbeki in particular), the UN, or Western actors—has been singularly ineffective in resolving the Abyei crisis (see http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=2312). This is in large part a legacy of the terrible decision by the Obama administration in fall 2010 to pressure Juba to make further "compromises" on Abyei—beyond those already reflected in the Abyei Protocol of the CPA (2005) and the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (July 2009).

Sudan Tribune (May 7, 2013) reports on the reaction of the Government of South Sudan:

"'The killing of [the] chief was not just an incident. It was preceded by reports of regular killings in the area. The list of those who have been killed has been filed and the United Nations has the details and we believe the killing of the chief will not be taken lightly nor [do] we expect the international community to consider [Kuol's death] a normal thing or usual business ... We hold the government of Sudan responsible because those who killed the chief are under the control of the government of Sudan. They are no stranger to Sudan,' he added."

And just what will the UN do with these "details"? The most cynical skepticism is fully warranted.

Motives for the killings:

Kon Manyieth, a former head of physical infrastructure in the Abyei Area Administration, described a meeting with Government of South Sudan cabinet member Deng Alor Kuol:

"'Our meeting with cabinet affairs minister Deng Alor Kuol was fruitful. We briefed him about general situation of the area, particularly about the massive settlement plan of members of the Misseriya who are getting direct support from the government of Sudan to the area. The other matter and the main reason of the visit is the continued killing and raiding of cattle and burning of villages in the area by the government of Sudan backed militia group,' Kon told journalists Thursday [May 2, 2013]." (Sudan Tribune, May 3, 2013)

The timing of this dispatch is well worth noting, with its report of a "massive settlement plan of members of the Misseriya who are getting direct support from the government of Sudan to the area. The other matter and the main reason of the visit is the continued killing and raiding of cattle and burning of villages in the area by the government of Sudan backed militia group…."

May 3: the day before Kuol Deng Kuol Deng was killed following negotiations over precisely such attacks, inter alia.

In scrambling for Misseriya political support, in sustaining controversy over the fate of Abyei and uncertainty concerning the delineation and demarcation of the North/South border, Khartoum is more than willing to let the Misseriya militias have their way, not only in Abyei but elsewhere. For the border regions are rich in arable land and pasturage, and this—not oil—is what matters most to the vast majority of people who live there.

Consequences:

Sudan Tribune reports (May 7, 2013):

"South Sudan on Monday lodged a strongly worded complaint to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) over the killing of Abyei tribal leader Kuol Deng Kuol, warning that until the perpetuators are identified and brought to justice, it is no longer 'business as usual.' South Sudan's minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation, Nhial Deng Nhial, said his country takes the death of the paramount chief of the Dinka Ngok 'more seriously' and will not tolerate the case being taken lightly by the international community. 'We have started with clear procedures, legal steps. We have now officially filed and deposited our complaint about this brutal act which violates not only the international law but also humanitarian law. Chief Kuol Deng Kuol was not in combat; he was not carrying a gun, not in possession of any weapon. He was purely [an] unarmed civilian killed in the hands of the United Nations. His security and safety was in the hands of the United Nations,' Nhial said, while addressing thousands of mourners who turned out for Kuol's burial on Monday in Abyei town."

All this Khartoum well knew.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, is author most recently of Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012; www.CompromisingWithEvil.org

If the ancient proverb still holds true, at least in the 21^st century, then it ought to be that ‘A fight between grasshoppers is a joy to the crow’.

May 9, 2013 (SSNA) -- Literally, this is the painful truth that S. Sudanese are destined to live through. The rulers seem to plot strategies that would send the public helter-skelter, pointing accusing fingers at their respective tribes.  With innocent citizens sensitized and craved to swallow each other, the trouble instigators [some call them politicians, others leaders....I call them rulers] grin with satisfaction that they can now manipulate and exploit their weakened subjects comfortably.

How does anyone find it logical to superimpose the national menace onto certain tribes? If we truly have functional visual systems, we would see –quite conspicuously –that citizens who paid the heaviest price toward the liberation of S. Sudan are still hunted by hunger and curable diseases down there at the nether of food chain in the villages. Absolutely, none is better than the other –whether they reside in Unity, Jonglei, Warrap, Eastern Equatoria etc. Albeit these are the very men and women who [generously] contributed their sons –the fallen heroes –during the two decades of liberation struggle. While the unburied bones of their sons lay meekly in unknown bushes, they are left to spectate in horror as the greedy morons at the apex of food chain in Juba continue to spend lavishly on sex and beer. As audacious as it is, they comfortably execute their normal business with impunity: shuttling the excess of grabbed fortunes to Kampala, Addis Ababa, Nairobi, and even Khartoum [well, for former traitors who are still maintaining their double-standards with the North], and the rest used to fund the silencing of a few who keep revisiting the question of “Where are we going?” as in the assassination of Isaiah Abraham. These poor exploited S. Sudanese define the tribes political lunatics keep pointing fingers at. Do they really know anything about tribal hatred the rowdy literate youths and their politicians seem to champion in towns? No. Absolutely no. Still they stand right at the receiving end of all kinds of political mess, notwithstanding their genuine innocence. So, why do we often fail to vent our anger on the right targets? It is a mystery.

Hands up if there exists any differential regional development [in S. Sudan] to support the calls that Dinka, Nuer, Lotuko, or Didinga edges other tribes. Unfortunately, all phrases that carry the word ‘development’ in S. Sudan seem limited to the back pockets of the titans. The only time I hear about money allocated to certain imaginary ‘developmental projects’ is when the big-pocket pick-pocketers –call them ‘secondary thieves’ if you like –cheekily use their inadequate expertise to hijack the pockets of their bosses. A recent theft “around” His Excellency’s premises presents a perfect example. Poor things. They will have to face the music –whether it is Rock, Blues, or Bongo. Not gospel music anyway. One would be forgiven to think that the timid judicial system, that is yet to tell the public about the stolen $4 billion or the demise of Isaiah Abraham, would be red-hot on their tails. Maybe because:

It is in the interest of the supreme caucus. Predictably if the profiles of the culprits are low and so are not subject to the famous “defamation” that most bosses dread.

It is a good opportunity to blackmail the public that the transparent justice truly exists!

Can the chicks expect fair justice when hawk is the judge? Whatever your take is, hold onto it. The other day I heard justice Gatwech swearing by his ancestors that they will “leave no stone unturned.” Well, I could sense trouble brewing and I assume the culprits know it. That is how ugly it can be when you opt to purloin from a purloiner. Whether the robbed S. Sudanese public would dub them ‘local heroes’ is solely your take. But you would pity them, wouldn’t you? Let’s pray they don’t get crucified before Easter next year. That aside.

In any event, there is only one tribe that S. Sudanese should not only point accusing fingers at, but also demand what rightfully belongs to the neglected S. Sudanese in villages: Bloody Robbers within the SPLM government!

Make no mistake, these are the men who witnessed their comrades fell at the front-lines; they are the living heroes we expect to instill the spirit of nationalism in the generations to come. S. Sudanese expect the best service from them. Yet, breathtakingly, they have taken the heroes-to-zeroes’ turn by using tribal qualms to their selfish gains. Their non-ideological lame-sort-of politics is turning the impoverished S. Sudanese against themselves. They have earned themselves a perfect opportunity to exploit and kill when they want simply by keeping S. Sudanese tribes engaged in the old fashioned politics of “them vs us”. They are at it. Attend a social media sermon about S. Sudan, one of these days, and you will be, exceedingly, bored! All are conducted in only one language: Tribal Hatred! It transpires that many people easily grow allergic to honest criticisms by other members of the public –not on the basis ideological differences, but on the grounds of tribal affiliations! How weird everyone look desperate to relinquish their constitutional rights to the advantage of thieves! One always wonders whether S. Sudanese youths are too fatuous to learn from the past. It just doesn’t add up.

For heaven’s sake, we should start realizing that the parasites sucking the life out of S. Sudan are not those tribes we frequently keep pointing fingers at –neither the majority we see begging on the streets nor those who are still tilling the land with stone-age tools in villages. They stroll right in the corridors of the parliament buildings in Juba, discussing when to put the next iron yoke on the necks of the poor to ensure they remain subdued! Yes, they want us to blame ourselves for our problems when they are exactly the problem. If we need to change the painful history of S. Sudan and rescue the interests of the common S. Sudanese then we must choose to stand together against these bloody flukes, lest we all perish in the aftermath of tribal politics and the rest becomes history.

Philips Al-Ghai can be reached at alghai211@gmail.com

Deng Mangok Ayuel is the former Office Manager {2008} to Aweil West County commissioner and lives in Aweil. He can be reached at: mangokson@gmail.com .

SPLM – USA National Secretariat Leadership Condemns in the Strongest Terms the Assassination of the Abyei Paramount Chief, Kuol Deng Kuol

May 7, 2013 (SSNA) -- The SPLM –USA National Secretariat learned with shock and disbelief the assassination of the Abyei area Paramount Chief, Kuol Deng Kuol on Saturday May 4, 2013 at around 6:00 PM local time. The assassination carried out by armed members of the Misseriya nomadic tribe with an apparent order and planning from above, vis-à-vis government of Sudan, has not only made a mockery of the talks held earlier in the day but has negated any gain or trust that may have been built between the two former foes of north and South Sudan during peace talks and the visit of the North Sudanese President, Omar Bashir last month.

To this end, the leadership of the SPLM-USA National Secretariat has, in the strongest terms, condemns this heinous crime perpetrated against an unarmed leader whose only goal is to achieve peace for his people and secure his land. Killed along with the chief was a United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) Ethiopian peacekeeper. The chief was ambushed on his way back home after attending a meeting with Edward Lino, the Co-Chair of the Abyei Joint Oversight Committee (AJOC) representing South Sudan on one hand and the Sudanese delegation on the other.

While the people of South Sudan mourn the death of the chief, the international community should be reminded by the killing of the UNISFA peacekeeper that this was not only an attack on South Sudan and the people of Abyei but on the UN and the international community. While the UN in particular and the international community at large have been reluctant to act in the past crimes and violations by the Sudanese government, we hope they don’t take this incident lightly and treat it as business as usual since this is one of the serious violations of UNSC Resolution 2046.

Finally, we want to extend our heartfelt condolences to the people of South Sudan, the Abyei community, UN and the Ethiopian government for the losses of the chief and the UNISFA Ethiopian peacekeeper.

May 6, 2013 (SSNA) -- First and foremost, I would like to seize this opportunity, to convey my heartfelt condolence to the family of Kuol Deng Kuol the permanent Chief of the nine Ngock Dinka of Abyei region, especially, the Abyei community in Arizona State, in the Diaspora, while we are mourning the death of Chief Kuol, who was ambushed, and gunned down cowardly by Maysseria Militia after he accomplished his mission of peace in the area. Almighty God rests his soul in eternal peace.

More importunely, I would like to salute all our heroes and martyrs, who have fallen in that tragedy for our dignity, democracy, freedom, self-determination, and justice for all, their precious lives that; was shed’s in the line of duty, did not perished in vain, and their shrines would be reliquary for generations.

Furthermore, the crisis of identity is a creation of former Sudan regimes, which defines the Sudanese identity in Arab and Islamic terms. The north political elites consider the Sudanese citizenship as a transition to full integration into the Arab identity. This undermines the rights of the vast African majority to whose identity should be fully embodied in the character of the state, which leads to decimation of South Sudan through prosecution of war and perpetrating large-scale massacres of innocents people by various north regimes, and, the last atrocities and hyena crimes committed by Arab Maysseria nomads, was the living proof, and, we sincerely, We remonstrated, and condemned this remorseless, and barbaric act against innocents’ civilians in strongest terms. 

On the other hand, there is racial, religious, cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity in the region, these diversities have not been used to help enrich and consolidate its unity, rather, were used by the elites in the north to oppress and exploit the indigenous people of Dinka ngouck. Plus, socio-economic and political exploitation, and injustice perpetuated by the successive sectarian civilian and military regimes have been the prime cause of the conflict in that rich area.

It is worth mentioning that; Sudan has been at war for the last fifty years and it is our strong belief that the only way to resolve this conflict, and to attain just and lasting peace is to allow the people of Abyei region, “and only, nine Dinka Nyock tribes” to exercise their constitutional right to self- determination, (to be or not to be) according to CPA protocols through supervised referendum by the international community as soon as possible.  

There from, I would like to add my voice with those who are working day and night to bridge the gap of differences and hatred   between South Sudanese tribes, and their neighboring tribes, which has been accumulated for years through divide- and- rule policy.  Islamic fundamentalism has become a serious cause of human harm and suffering worldwide. This ideology implies bigotry and does not accommodate any reasoning, rational, or any logical thinking what so ever.

It is important to note that human rights value do not only impose negative restrictions on the United Nations members state, but also impose positive obligations on the states to create conducive environment for a dignified life. It operates as a parameter and standard of a society based on the rule of law, justice, and equality.

Sudan as a UN member is a signatory to the aforesaid Universal Declaration and the two Covenants thereto. It’s an established principle of the International Law that UN member nations are to abide by the provisions of the international documents and willful failure to do so may result to punitive consequences, especially where a member state has ratified the same.

Article 6(1) of the I.C.C.P.R provides as follow: “Every human being has inherent right to life, no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life, and this right shall be protected by law”. It’s also the requirement under Article (4) Of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.  Arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, and custodial death; without trial and the like have become the order of the day in the region.

Therefore, we appealed to the International Communities, and world leaders under the umbrella of United Nations to thoroughly, investigate this incident, and brought the criminals into justice, despite the fact that; the comprehensive peace agreement “CPA”, and Abyei protocol is not perfect marriage between two Sudan and South Sudan.

Then, you know the rest of the story!

The author is a criminologist, living in USA, and can be reached at nyang19@yahoo.com

By J. Nguen Nyol

May 6, 2013 (SSNA) -- Human’s perfectibility before the law and above all else is what defines truthfulness and moral absolute. Herein, I feel obliged to write to what I think prescribes to this humanistic perfectionism for awakening proposes to further a positive collective progress and allow informed participatory decision making process in South Sudan. Since independence, there have been heroic burst of energy from the youth who wanted to change the status quo with well-grounded intent of good governance in order for the new country to restart a new.

Despite these positive attempts, more than once, people of South Sudan have been kept in the dark and denied access to information and participation in political discourses aimed to shape the future of the new country. Often, the intents for exclusion are for short ends but long term dictatorship and coercion government outlook in South Sudan and in the SPLM. Because of this, I purposefully decided to write, to share with my fellow South Sudanese issues of special interest that bond us together and which are solely confined to the SPLM party and its long awaited upcoming SPLM 3^rd National Convention this month, May 2013.

To begin with, I must declare before my readers that I am a proud member of the SPLM party and I will always be, like I have been for the last 24 years, so long the principles and the values for which this party was founded upon remains standing, strictly kept and perfected to the highest regard by those whom the party entrusted to carries the baton. Based on these principles, this is where I sincerely believe SPLM party is too big to be a one man dynasty and a wrong platform to stage a brutal dictatorial leadership. 

Therefore, the key aim of this commentary is to enlighten members of the SPLM party and the general public to ensure that no one is denied or deprived freedom to information and inputs about importance matters that are being discuss in the Political Bureau meetings, prior to the forthcoming SPLM 3rd National Convention.

Currently, there are four agenda items before the PB, which are as follow:

In February and March 2013, the highest organ of the SPLM party, Political Bureau met and discussed most of the above mentioned agenda items. There were reports of unanimous consensus on major items but bitter disagreements on the constitution voting processes and internal democracy. Hence, this is where I would like to focus to ensure that public is aware and inputs of the SPLM party members are welcomed to help in the deliberations process.

In a nutshell, the disagreements arise because President Salva Kiir Mayardit proposed and demanded a show of hands voting method as oppose to the secret ballot in the SPLM 3^rd National Convention elections. The president asserted that “the voting process in the SPLM 3^rd National Convention shall be a show of hands, no more, no less.”

However, Mr. President’s position was bitterly opposed by many members in the Political Bureau in both meetings because the method is open to intimidation; bribery and it compromises voter’s security, but the president seemed not to get it. Therefore the issue remains unsettled because Mr. President has refused to consent despite the fact that his position is weak, unsustainable and only used in medieval times on temporary platforms, where there was only one nominee for the post.  

Those who rejected President Kiir’s position argued that a secret ballot is an ideal method, because it “allows voters to make confidential choices and thus helps prevent intimidation and bribery” while the show of hands voting method is open to intimidation and bribery. Not only that the secret ballot is flawless method, it is use universally around the globe. For instance, the secret ballot voting method was passed to law in British in 1872, Canada in 1874, USA in 1892 and Australia in the 1850 and the list is almost endless. In these instances, the key reason was that “it is the only appropriate method that ensures voter’s security, sincere choice and forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation or bribery” (1838).

With method as flawless as this, why is President Salva Kiir strenuously pushing for a “show of hands,” an outdated method subjected to flaws and abject bribery and deadliest intimidation? Of course, this is for anyone’s good guess. But the simple answer is that Mr. President admires coercive method and one man show governance. It has worked in the past perfectly in his favor and still being utilizes intensively in RSS. For example, this method of bribery and intimidation were used during 2010 elections and when the South Sudan Interim Constitution was being passed into the law of the land. Mr. President demanded unnecessary powers and got away with it.

Here, it will be unforgivable political blunder if President Kiir gets away with this ill informed motive in the SPLM 3^rd National Convention because the demand is at best gravely contrary to the SPLM founding principles. Outrageous as it sounds, it adds to the fact that people South Sudan have had enough sell outs already from an inconsistence, indifference and unfocused war veteran and head of state. However, I am convinced that the SPLM aspirants and the PB will not and must not allow the president to triumph with such disastrous, illogical and irrational method of voting. I am also sure that our people know better. They know the reasons why we took arms, because the reasons were clearly articulated in the SPLM’s founding document and well communicated to them. The truth is President Kiir should have known this better than anyone else, because he was in the heart of the movement, but it lately appeared the SPLM’s programmes are still too complicated and too overwhelming for a man who never had administrative experiences or a formal education to say the least. Without doubt, President Kiir is not the founding father of the nation but a step father who delivered the nation to its birth and he deserves minimal credits.   

The other issue that generated major disagreement in the PB meetings is the internal democracy. President Kiir Mayardit demanded that “the SPLM Constitution shall only elect the Chairperson of the party and the National Liberation Council whereas the vice chairperson (s) of the party, the Political Bureau members and the Secretary General of the party shall be nominated by the chairperson of the party. Many think this is hypocritical and pathetic at best. Where in the world is this possible? Nowhere! Even in the “Animal Farm” where lion was named king of the jungle because his bravery and might, but the opposite is true for the poor president. 

Another point made along the same argument was that all the above mentioned positions must be subjected to vigorous contest and each candidate must be democratically elected. In an essence, the canard rationale behind Mr. President’s position is to control the party as one man show as he falsely assumed that he will win the party’s chairmanship. The other poorly planned tactic was to bar young SPLM party’s aspirants from contesting for any position in the high organs of the party; and thus will keeps the party unsuccessful, underdeveloped, unreformed, not rejuvenated, not re-energized but instead remains under misguided old guards who ceased to think of anything positive.

Finally, President Kiir demanded to handpick 5% allocation of the SPLM’s 1,000 delegates (100 from each 10 states) to the national convention and be allocated to him. This position was bitterly opposed by majority in the Political Bureau meetings. Those who opposed see no justifiable reason why Mr. President should be given 5% percent allocation. Out of 1000 delegates that would attend the SPLM 3^rd National Convention the president needed fifty people. This is not fair and logical to any SPLM member because it under-minds democratic ideals of the party. It also places the president at advantage above everyone else, in a party where everyone is considered equal. 

To place this under honest scrutiny, President Kiir needs no special treatment in the party. However, if Mr. President refuses to relent as evident suggested in the PB meetings, it would be nothing short of miscarriage of justice and the move will certainly temper with proper SPLM party’s elections results in favor of the president. There is also a weak argument from the president that the mentioned 5% are for youth, women and disables. If this is true, the 5% is meant for youth, women and disable, then, this should be given to each state to bring their women, youth and disable and not by the president of the Republic. More so, the women, the youth and the disable must also democratically compete and should not be handpicked by the President.

In closing, it is true that confusion reigns under President Kiir’s leadership since independent or even before the South Sudan’s Interim Constitution became law of the land under one man’s dynasty. Lazy old guards and some uninformed general public are now taking notice of the fault made 20 months on since South Sudan independent on the 9^th July 2011. Because the flaw in the institution distresses and continue to affects every thread of our society politically, economically and socially. Presently in replica, President Kiir is demanding for the repeat of the same unwelcomed grave mistake.

I believe SPLM members are not really that fool to make the same political blunder made during the passing of South Sudan Interim Constitution in 2011.  But surprisingly if may, few in the political Bureau remained silent when Mr. President strenuously demanded for unnecessary powers and unlawful voting processes in the SPLM Constitution, thus, I cannot escape the question why few reasonable beings in the PB do behaved so unreasonably?

For this commentary, the facts now are before the public for public scrutiny and inputs in order to propel matters that are of national interest and beyond our ethnic lines. It is undeniable that South Sudanese in general have been unlawfully denied participatory rights and their inputs have not been considered by the system and the same government they previously blindly trust. So, the question is how long can we be victims of a system of exploitations before saying enough is enough?  

“The people cannot be fooled for long into accepting … those they judge to be self- aggrandizing and seeking to enrich or benefit themselves at their expense” Robert Mugabe

True in our case! Around the world, people of South Sudan have lost confident on the SPLM party led government under Kiir and this is no secret. Our people have no hopes and aspirations anymore simple because President Kiir’s government is too corrupt, too tribalized, too irrational, too misguided, too inconsistence, too confused and too lazy to deliver big programmes and vision and mission of the SPLM party. In addition, the government is also too big for the president himself to “handle,” as previously alluded to by Deng Alor Kuol, the current Minister of cabinets Affairs in RSS.

In South Sudan for example, people are being killed in thousands daily and President Kiir does not care to even address a nation and mourn with South Sudanese who lost their loved ones. Strangely, President Kiir instead condemned the deceased. Good example of this occurred in Western Bar El Ghazal State when Mr. President condemned the deceased killed by RSS’ police force. Similarly, President Kiir never visited SPLA troops in borders, Fangak Nuer, Murle people, Dinka Bor and Lou Nuer in their villages who are losing their loved ones daily due to Mr. President’s miscalculated moves. What a President! In other nations, especially in the west, if one person is killed the President will address his or her nation to calm the people down, mourn with them and assure them that justice will be done.

The evidences mentioned are unquestionable an abject failures, but Mr. President is weirdly in a gruesome denial. He instead resorted to higher end immorality of blame game tactics, tribalized politic, rampant corruption, arbitrary arrest and killing of innocence South Sudanese who seems to questions how he misguidedly and blindly runs the government. He is in a hopeless pursues of cover up and masking up his inability to lead and deliver services effectively. Mr. President need to be corrected that South Sudan is not being runs like other nations. There is no nation in this planet where the head of the sate can sack or remove elected government officials and governors without any due process. There is no nation in this planet where sensitive organs of the government institutions are assigned to and runs one tribe men/women and by extension one clan for that matter. There is no nation in this planet where $4 billions US dollars was stolen by 75 government officials and no one has been persecuted and held accountable. There is nowhere in this planet where $6 millions dollars/pounds were kept in the President’s office in cash and at the end got stolen. With these disappointing facts, President Kiir was mistaken by stating that “we are a new country. This is why the whole world has turned to us and [is] watching closely to see what we are doing. It is not because what is happening in this country is not happening in other countries.”

Beside, President Kiir is currently in a dangerous pursues of reminiscing Uganda President’s dictatorship style, but the truth is, SPLM as a party is a wrong platform to stage such brutal tyranny ideals. Similarly, the South Sudanese people are not Ugandans to be dictated.

Above features are what defines the current government in South Sudan, and therefore I wonder, should the SPLM party members just standby and allow an inconsistence leader with distorted conscience to turn people’s SPLM into one man dynasty with irrational ideals and batters us with outdated voting processes while we watch? I don’t think so. SPLM party is too big, too strong and it has high moral principles and values which are unfit for one man dynasty.

J. Nguen is a concerned South Sudanese citizen living in Canada. He can be reached at nyolgaar@yahoo.com

May 4, 2013 (SSNA) -- Let’s start by answering the basic question of whether the SPLM led government in Juba – South Sudan is in any way capable of transforming this nascent country into the continent’s oasis of the much talked about democracy, whether that be under President Salva Kiir’s leadership or any one of his handful colleagues of the SPLM political Bureau for that matter?

To answer the above question one needs to look back into this quasi political party’s history and have a good look at all those skeletons it harbors in its cupboard. One will also need to check the party’s track records on good governance and the respect of human rights.

But above all you will need to acquaint yourself with the true nature of how this monstrous organization has feasted on its own supporters while promoting a limitless impunity as it rules without the least consideration of the supreme law of the country – which is none, but its own hand made transitional constitution of the new republic of South Sudan.

After you are done with the above then and only then can you qualify to pass a fair judgment and for that matter a verdict that strongly suggests how blindfolded the entire population of South Sudan remain to be while the SPLM under Salvatore Kiir Mayardit does away with every bit of that beautiful dream they once  had when independence from the "Jallaba Rule" is finally attained. Why has everything beautiful that they had  dreamt for themselves and the country they so dearly sacrificed for suddenly become only for the few privileged??

There is no way that the current leadership in the office can continue to boast of being any patriotic. And even though a few are still locked up in the nostalgia  of the bush war and  are  rightly or not  claiming  some patriotism, again the truth of the matter is that,  long gone are those old days. As sad and unfortunate as it is,  what is practically left in front of us now is clearly a bunch of corrupted thieves and monsters who have long been intoxicated with powers to steal, kill, arrest and make to disappear with a total impunity.

Let me take you through one of this government’s showdowns and you will find it extremely nauseating to see the so-called leaders talk, and are being talked to, and being talked about.

It has been reported in the Sudan Tribune online May 1, 2013 (JUBA) , that the  South Sudan president Salva Kiir Mayardit said  he would  no longer tolerate members of his cabinet accusing the government they serve in of corruption, arbitrary arrest and human rights issues. Here I quote:

“He warned that he will no longer turn a blind eye to those in the cabinet who go outside the country to accuse his government of mismanaging the affairs of the nation while serving the same system”.[ST.]

And further to clarify his point that he is determined to spy on his ministers and all other officials, the president went on to add and I quote:

“From now on I will be tracking what cabinet ministers do and say when they leave the capital, Juba”. President Kiir stressed! [ST]

President Kiir determined to blackmail his cabinet members to the best of it left  nothing to chance as he gave them [ministers and senior officials]  all what he intended to say and frankly the president  kept nothing behind, especially when he pointed the finger of corruption and extrajudicial killings at his cabinet members and senior officials.

This is what he said in Sudan Tribune:

“They talk as if they are not part of it [government] but if you follow them, you find they are the same people who are the ones involved in corruption. They are the ones involved in arbitrary arrest, but they come out in the day and say they are not part of it”, he said.

There you go now and you are left with only one conclusion in mind and that most arbitrary arrests in South Sudan are carried out on the instructions of more senior government officials both at federal and state levels. Some observers claim that many officials use it as an alternative method for silencing political opponents and critics of their performance. This is confirmed by Sudan Tribune as a wide belief held by the people of south Sudan.

Is Sudan Tribune rushing to conclusions here?  Of course not! Otherwise how are we and any others expected to interpret the president's words, when he squarely placed the entire blame on his cabinet members.

According to Mr. President these people [his ministers & senior officials] often commit these horrible crimes back home in south Sudan and when they are out of the country the same people go out to condemn the government for crimes that were committed by none but themselves.

Should Mr. president be telling the truth and in which case he is this time, we are then left with ministers who are not only the true culprits of the ills that befell our country, but they are also greedy hypocrites for they continue to operate together as a government or better still as brothers in loots, yet when confronted abroad with all the evidence that suggest a record breaking corruption, lack of vision and the absence of the rule of law , they become witnesses against their government which they continue to serve in.

Two things are clear here and it is that president Salva Kiir Mayardit himself is a hypocrite. Of course he has long been so. However in the case at hand the president is rightly an adamant hypocrite for  the fact he without the least doubt has the full knowledge and in that case  is completely aware of his senior officials’ short comings and their gross  involvements  in arbitrary arrests and surely as it implies to include all  the extra judicial killings and disappearances.

Yet instead of holding these corrupt officials accountable, he [president] has for his own sake has chosen to rather use all these shortcomings as tools of blackmail against the officials with the intention to in return secure and guarantee their loyalty and silence. What a way to run a government and a country!!?

President Salva Kiir is undoubtedly disturbed by the US State Department’s country report on the nascent country of South Sudan. And he is rightly being worried and ashamed of those incidences of human rights violations, widespread rape, impunity, corruption, and the total absence of the rule of law. More unfortunate is the fact that each year's report seems more worse than the one it preceded. No way can the president challenge these reports as they rain year after year  since he too has openly accepted and declared in an open and broadcasted speech how his officials carried out these horrendous acts and yet go out of the country to play the role of the “good guys”.

As for the cabinet ministers and the SPLM senior officials, altogether with their security dogs, it's only one thing – your boss has exposed you, locally, regionally, and internationally. In other wards worldwide you are known as the true culprits of the mess that RSS is in now. Of course the good news for you here is that  these ex-posers  don't in any way spare the president. You are all in the mess together - remember this is true before Man & God!

Let’s reason out things well, for its no good to stab anyone  from behind. The bottom line is that everything in this world has a price attached to it, and when you choose one, you also choose to pay the price. Those of us who choose to expose the mistakes of the government will continue to do so out of deeply rooted conviction to serve our country and people by the way of enlightenment and civic education.

Should anyone who chooses to accept a cabinet job under the current status quo and God forbid, then they must be prepared to relinquish being an opposition. It is said that” You can NOT eat your cake and still have it”, yet this very simple logic seems to be in shortcoming.

It is common knowledge that South Sudan is rapidly sinking under the weight of poor and visionless leaders. And although the whole thing now stings of corruptions, and impunity, yet many fainthearted opportunists are drawn towards serving under this administration for the simple fact that they too share the same genetic traits with those in office.

We all understand that many good guys have joined the system for the money and the privileges, however occasionally they are made to regret this decision when faced by the true rotten nature of the system – hence from time to time we hear some faint voices of dissent from within the corrupt cabinet itself.

Now the core issue here is all about why suddenly the president is repeatedly growing very nervous by the day as the year 2015 gets closer?  The truth is that  it's all got to do with whether he can still maintain his precious chair in the No. 1 office amid all the political chaos and economic upheavals the country wide.

Initially President Salva Kiir Mayardit intended to pacify any power ambitions within the ruling SPLM by  investing heavily in one corrupted cabinet after the other. Yet he failed and is now being challenged by his own deputy in what is an open secret. Are you in any way caught by surprise? I hope not. And to further  reflect the internal power struggles, as you read these lines the ruling SPLM remains an  unregistered party and with no certificate to operate per the RSS political party’s act 2012.

These are but a few of the chaos brought in by Mr. President in order to dilute any true patriotism in RSS.  However in spite of this chaos there is only one way for the president to  remain in power and that is through the ballot box. First for the chairmanship of his SPLM party,  then another in 2015 if he is to dream of another term in office. Any attempt by the president to do otherwise will for sure  open the Pandora box and all the unwanted devils will come down on South Sudan.

Remember it was this very president who warned his senior military officers against any coup to topple his government for the fact that the international community will not recognize such a step. Having said that he better also be quick to understand that the same international community will never continue to tolerate him or his government should he not allow for a free, fair and democratic elections first in his party, then the country  come 2015.

Last but not least the message to the president and the people of South Sudan at large  is that whether it pleases the leadership, plus or minus its  loyalties, the international community is determined to help bring about a democratic transformation in South Sudan. In other words it's all about South Sudan and never about Salva Kiir Mayardit or anyone within his in circles or even the organization..

My fellow compatriots!  It's for the sake of a better South Sudan, that we must endeavor very hard to see many more ministers and senior officials speak out and loud against corruption, impunity and the widespread disrespect of the rule of law.

Salvatore Kiir Mayardit can choose to dismiss officials who criticize is corrupted leadership style, but that will only make them appeal more to the electorates come 2015, than being enslaved within a rotten and an ailing system.  Yet the true salvation lies beyond party politics and as for now the future of the   worn out SPLM party and its crooked leadership are anybody’s guess.

Author: Justin Ambago Ramba. He can be reached at: ambagoramba@hotmail.co.uk.

May 3, 2013 (SSNA) -- Fellow comrades in liberation struggle of our People and Nation, country mates and friends in global Revolutions; it is a profound gratitude on behave of the revolutionaries to eloquent {our} position {as} of Inter-Revolutionary Leadership Council on the Presidential Amnesty dated: April 26, 2013, and the reports of surrender by Revolutionary Movements on both national and International Media.

We {the Inter-Revolutionary leadership Council); on before of remaining entire Revolutionary movements; we wish to inform the general public that, we never surrendered, and never have any plan to surrender to the SPLM’s Regime as it has been speculated by the Government and some Rebel movement.

We are Revolutionary movements and in Revolution; there nothing like amnesty and surrender. Amnesty is meant for criminals and vision-less organization because true Revolutionary is caused by grievances that demands change. That demand cannot be fulfilled by amnesty or surrender but either through total regime change, or Comprehensive Peace Negotiation between the Revolutionary Forces and SPLM. If the SPLM Regime needs Peace in the Country; it should therefore call for Peace Talks and we will be ready to come to round table, in order to find common grounds that will address the Nation’s crisis.

It is the South Sudan Liberation Movement / Army who have accepted the Amnesty and getting into Negotiation with SPLM’s Regime, and they are doing so on their capacity but not on capacity of entire Revolutionary Movements in the Country. The decision of SSLA is simple to safe guide their interests as organization, which is against the will and interests of the entire revolutionary organizations in the Country.

SSDM/A is revolution organization of the people and people’s choice and interest is final; and we are in the series of political consultations with other Revolutionary forces with purpose of forming Coalition Force under one leadership to strive for National Revolutionary causes. The causes that took us to fight for total regime change, as this remains the only option for us and this nation, in order to enhance the Revolutionary’s  principal objective, that is to strive for the achievement of political and economic self-determination for all South Sudanese, in United Country.

Therefore, we are ready for Peace and Progress in South Sudan, but this very peace will not be achieve (by) under, the current regime in Juba. To achieve lasting peace as well political and economic self-determination of the people of this Great Nation, it is vital for the SPLM’s regime to call for Comprehensive Peace Talks with Inter–Revolutionary Leadership Council that should be mediate by  International Community because this is the only way, for us to reach common ground that will give birth to everlasting Peace, security and socio-economic and end the Country’s political crisis, which becomes the major causes of our revolt against the regime of SPLM.

We, the Inter-Revolutionary Leadership Council will therefore continue to forge unite of common purpose and work together with other democratic, as well human rights conscience revolutionary forces in the Country, to find lasting solutions to the Country’s contemporary problems, and ensure that, there is meaningful change in the Country’s political system.

For Peace, Justices and Prosperity for All;

Signed:

It is now one and half year since Sule’s indefinite incarceration.

By Elhag Paul

May 2, 2013 (SSNA) -- Justice Peter Sule’s only mistake was to misunderstand and mis-assess his people’s response to the status quo.  He perfectly understood their sufferings and pain.  He rose up for them when they are not prepared to accept the truth of the time.  They did not want to be themselves.  They did not want dignity.  They lost sight of the truth and reality of the situation under falsity of being civilised and peaceful.  They falsely claim to be the beacon of unity in a country that is driven by ruthless unprincipled gangs of people.  A country that they sacrificed greatly for and now after independence deprives them of the basic necessities of life. 

His people pride themselves in being educated and rational.  This thinking has fragmented them into individuals rendering them weak.  Each one is isolated from the other making them good targets of those who intended to prey on them.  The security that comes from being in a cohesive group or community has been broken and destroyed and with it the might of once a well organised community. 

A community that in the 1970s and 1980s fought its corner without flinching and it won what it wanted.  It vindicated the saying that ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.  That will has been broken and destroyed by its enemies during the long years of the liberation war.  A war in which they themselves fought hard and scarified enormously but yet ended up being reduced to underdogs of those who acted in ‘group think’.  Those who acted brutally towards them.  Those who legitimised their group think with violence on them while condemning any form of organisation in them.  This planned and executed fragmentation of Equatoria as a whole by its ill wishers has enfeebled its people.  So today, anyone trying to act for its good is brought down and condemned by none other than Equatorians themselves.  Sule’s case is a classic example of oppressed people that Frantz Fanon’s book the Wretched of the Earth talks about.

Kokora in the late 1970s and early 1980s was achieved because Equatoria was solidly held together by a glue of consciousness in relation to its interest and security.  It protected each and every Equatorian from abuse.  That glue of consciousness which emanated from a ‘group think’ ensured that Equatoria was mighty though it had its own internal weakness but externally it projected might which gave it its respect. 

In April 2011 a semblance of that might flashed in Juba during the Equatoria conference but it died out as quickly as it flickered like a dying asteroid.  Perhaps it was this that misled Sule into thinking that at long last Equatorians are ready to look after themselves.  Politics is brutal.  No one can look after your interest if you don’t look after it personally.  Appeasement of the powers that be and sycophancy never pays but only strengthens the abusers and oppressors.  In the process, the abusers stay long in power abusing you and the masses. 

Violence breeds violence.  We have seen this during the war, especially when SPLM/A split up in early 1990s.  We now see it in Lakes state, Unity state, Upper Nile state, Jonglei state and so on.  Tit for tat between communities that once lived peacefully have fallen prey to manipulation by opportunistic politicians.  South Sudanese have experienced a lot of this violence for a long time and there is need to put a stop to it.

How do we put a stop to it?  Ending violence may not be easy but there are some steps that each and every one of us should take.  This includes our political leaders.  Foremost is the need for a truth and reconciliation commission to examine all the heinous crimes that took place during the two decades of liberation.  The purpose of this exercise would be as in South Africa in mid 1990s not to seek revenge but for both culprits and victims or relatives of deceased victims to exchange the painful information thereby leading to forgiveness and healing.  That is to restore respect for humanity.  We must also accept that the culprits were dehumanised and so we do not seek vengeance but their rehabilitation. 

Some people reading this piece may be surprised by my call for truth and reconciliation commission, especially given the fact that the government of South Sudan has already taken initiative by organising one.  However, I do not believe that the government initiative on healing will be effective simply because the whole process is an exercise of showing off, although I hope I am proved wrong. 

There is no will to conduct a real truth and reconciliation process in South Sudan now because the rulers are the real culprits who must be held to account.  As they are in power they will frame the terms of reference for the healing programme to deal with communities excluding their own heinous crimes.  It will be a charade like the Anti-Corruption Commission which until now has not prosecuted a single person in a country awash with corrupt people robbing the government in day light.  The real healing or truth and reconciliation commission will have to be set up in future by a non SPLM administration so that the current criminals in power can be dragged to answer for their part in setting one tribe against the other;  a son against father, a daughter against mother and so on and so forth; in the process dehumanising the entire society.

The most surprising thing is that even as the government tries to promote healing, it grants amnesty to all the rebels from the ruling ethnic groups and preclude people like Justice Peter Sule who is held indefinitely on tramped up charges.  In July last year Gen. Paul Mach and company attempted to overthrow the government of South Sudan violently.  Instead of holding this group to account, all the members were set free and rewarded with positions in the government within a week.  Same with the police chief alleged by the president himself to have murdered engineer John Luis over his plot of land.  Do you see the arbitrary rule of the president and his ruling party the SPLM?  One rule for the ethnic ruling group and another for the others.  How can healing be achieved with such ongoing discriminatory and oppressive practices fuelled by tribalism?

The ideal thing is for the government to behave in a uniform manner toward all who allegedly committed the same crimes with the understanding that we the people of South Sudan do not want more violence.  The outcome of trials should not be to exact harsh penalties but to seek to reform or to learn from them as in the cases of Equatorial Guinea and Apartheid South Africa with Simon Mann and Nelson Mandela respectively.  By doing this, South Sudan will not only become civilised, it will discourage the culture of violence from state and individuals alike. 

There are those like Ngor Tong who through their articles in 2011 and early 2012 are calling for violent revenge by the state.  This is not only irresponsible but naïve lacking knowledge of the complexity of punishment and management of society.  Today, the Europeans have learnt that capital punishment does not pay and it does not serve any purpose other than to destroy lives of innocent people (executioners) psychologically.  South Africa led by foresighted leaders like Mandela has abolished capital punishment.  South Sudan should and must seek this path.  We benefit nothing by making fellow countrymen (executioners) killers of fellow human beings.   

SPLM did annoy people by its April 2010 behaviour during the general election.  This generated mixed feelings in the population and sparked numerous rebellions such as that of late George Athor.  That general election will remain a black mark in our conscience and history and it will continue to generate controversary.  It is the turning point on the aspiration of democracy in our country.  The latest episode is David Yau Yau’s rebellion and who knows what awaits us in the future.  The arrogance of SPLM will fragment our country and also fragment SPLM itself.  It will be an implosion that consumes all of us before we rise again.  No point burying our heads in the sand.

Justice Peter Sule should have swallowed the bitter pill.  But if someone was brought up with dignity, it would be difficult to stomach such discourtesy.  The question that demands answer is: why did president Kiir deliberately humiliate Sule in his residence on 10^th July 2011 in front of everybody present on that day?  Was it politically intended to despise Equatoria as a whole, or was it a personal issue, or was it a harboured grudge related to the unfortunate incident of 26 March 1993 in Kongor where the late honourable statesman Joseph Oduho lost his life and Sule narrowly escaped?

If this was meant to despise Equatorians it is understandable given the very sad relationship between the Jieng and Equatorians.  During the war president Kiir openly insulted Equatorian people in Yei as “cowards”.  Since then his tribes mate have used the term freely to disparage and intentionally injure the feelings of Equatorians. 

But if the humiliation was meant as a personal insult, why should a president behave in such an appalling manner that reduces his stature?  After all, Sule and the other parties except USSP in 2006 unanimously pledged their support to the president.  The communiqué of that gathering stands out as evidence to prove that Sule as a person did not hold any ill feelings towards the president.

I personally was not impressed with the president’s backward manner of behaviour on 10^th July 2011, a day after declaration of independence.   The president therefore has to take responsibility for pushing Sule to his limits.  There was no reason at all for the president to behave towards Sule in the way he did.  After all Sule was his guest and Sule was in his residence. 

In African traditions guests are respected no matter what, especially when they are in your house.  Courtesy demanded the president to show civility, diplomacy and respect.  The president did not.  His behaviour was atrocious.  His behaviour towards Sule was not only condescending, but belittling and provocative.  Put yourself in Sule’s shoes and imagine yourself being treated in this way.  What would you do?  How would you feel?  Those people near Sule (whose names I will not name now for obvious reasons) could testify to this. It was obvious that this was a nasty experience for Sule. 

If the discourtesy towards Sule was in relation to the events of 26^th March 1993, then it opens up a whole can of worms.  The president in the Rumbek meeting of November 2004 accused late Dr John Garang of being a dangerous person who did not forget or forgive.  Could he possess a similar character and therefore was projecting his own part of character to late Dr Garang?  Whether he is or not, as the president he is expected to be above all past grudges.

If I had any right to criticise Sule it would be that he underestimated the 28 years of SPLM pacification of South Sudanese, especially Equatorians.  The ethnically dominated leadership of SPLM hammered the idea that they are the liberators into the mind of the young and the average South Sudanese.  They installed themselves in the place of the Arabs.  Most of the South Sudanese born after 1980 have no real picture of the dynamics of South Sudanese social fabric.  This generation without putting any blame on them have been indoctrinated with Garangism to their own detriment.  This can be seen from the arguments they expound in support of this failed and incompetent organisation called SPLM.   

This generation is incapable of seeing that politics is about interest and how that interest is framed.  It is either framed for one group as in the case of SPLM or for the society as a whole in the case of ANC of South Africa.  In South Sudan, the SPLM framed the political interest of the country in favour of the ruling ethnic group. 

This interest is protected by: 1) constant disarmament of all the other tribes.  2) Control of all the security organs in the country.  3) control of the legislative assembly.  4) control of judiciary.  5) Enriching members of the ruling ethnic group by way of massive corruption in order to control the economy.  6. Denial and projection of tribalism to the victims of the rulers.  7) Abuse of mass media.

If you remember the ruling Arabs in the Sudan behaved exactly like the SPLM now.  They used to blame any political protest from the non Arabs as racist act.  Take for example the failed coup of Hassan Hussein of 1976.  The ruling class in the Sudan did not waste any time.  They rallied the Arabs and used the media to label the coup as racist. 

In South Sudan now, anybody from the rest of the oppressed ethnic groups opposing the government is quickly labelled by the rulers as tribalist.  As far as the ruling class is concerned their own pernicious tribalism is not an issue but it is the tribalism of the others that is destructive to the country.  What they fail to see is that for tribalism to be effectively practised, essentially one must have power.  It is they who possess power currently in the country and this is the very reason they dominate every sphere of the government.  How credible is it then that the ruling ethnic group blames the powerless oppressed ‘other’ for tribalism in the country?

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion obviously is neither desirable nor acceptable.  For it causes unnecessary destruction, loss of life and unquantifiable sufferings.  This said, in some instances rebellion is not only desirable but becomes an evil necessity to be undertaken.  Take for example, when the Sudan became independent in 1956, we the Southerners in that country had no other option but to rebel and take up arms against the unjust tyrannical regime in Khartoum. 

Our current president joined that rebellion and when the Addis Ababa agreement was signed in 1972 he returned as sergeant.  Again hurt by the behaviour of the Arabs in 1983, he went to the bush.  For most of his life, the president has been a serial rebel for the just cause of the South Sudanese people.  The Arabs considered him an outlaw and we considered him a nationalist freedom fighter.  So are most of the current leaders of South Sudan.  The line between a nationalist and a rebel traitor is thin and it depends on whose side one is and who has the power to effectively label. 

With the above I consciously bring my reflection to an end for now and let me say Sule’s unjust incarceration whether people like it or not, is a statement by the ruling ethnic group to all the other tribes of South Sudan, especially Equatorians that they have the power and they can do as they please.  If you have not yet waken up and noted that those who call others as cowards are the ‘New Arabs’ on the block, then think again.  Sule’s incarceration is a message, loud and clear, that if you the ‘other’ do not worship those who consider themselves ‘Born to rule’ by singing Oyee!. Oyee! ………you are in for further pacification.  Therefore, it is a challenge to South Sudanese fair minded people and so the ball now rests in the court of the people to question why Sule is singled out to remain in Gulag.

[The truth hurts but it is also liberating]

The Author lives in the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at elhagpaul@aol.com

May 2, 2013 (SSNA) -- There has been a good deal of understandable outrage at the decision by the Obama administration to invite to Washington Nafie Ali Nafie, senior advisor to President Omar al-Bashir of the Khartoum regime.  Al-Bashir himself could not be invited, of course, because he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, crimes in which Nafie is deeply complicit and for which he bears major responsibility.  But al-Bashir's voice and that of others in the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime will be well represented by Nafie.  Indeed, like other members of the regime already indicted by the ICC—including Defense Minister and former Interior Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein—Nafie's own future lies in The Hague if justice is done.  His central role in orchestrating the Darfur genocide is well known, indeed is acknowledged by Nafie himself.

There are other reasons for incomprehension at the Obama administration's decision to invite Nafie.  Such a meeting in Washington is an extraordinary reward to a regime that is guilty of serial genocide: in the Nuba Mountains in the 1990s, in the oil regions along the North/South border from 1998 to 2002, and in Darfur, where vast ethnically-targeted violence broke out in 2003 and continues to this day.  We must wonder with Congressman Frank Wolf:

• "In a letter to President Barack Obama, Wolf said that he was not opposed to diplomacy but that talks could take place at other locations such as the US embassy in Khartoum. 'With Darfur worsening and continued indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the Nuba mountains displacing thousands, why would your administration reward Khartoum with an invitation to Washington?' Wolf wrote." (Agence France-Presse [Washington], May 1, 2013)    

Indeed, the invitation of Nafie is perhaps the most dismaying decision U.S. officials could have made.  Among other things, it gives him a leg up in his competition with First Vice President Ali Osman Taha to succeed al-Bashir, who is very ill with throat cancer.  Africa Confidential (26 April 2013, Vol. 54 - No. 9) has very recently provided a superb overview of the dynamics of this competition, something that certainly should have figured in the Obama administration's choice of interlocutors.  Moreover, while Nafie may well have the ear of al-Bashir, his own actions and attitudes must make us wonder further about what guided the process of invitation. 

Nafie was head of Khartoum's ruthless security services, for example, when Khartoum orchestrated an assassination attempt against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa (1995); various investigations made clear Nafie's role, and the Egyptians insisted that he be removed from his position, which he was, though this was only a minor speed-bump in gaining ascendancy within the regime.  As head of security he presided over countless arrests, extra-judicial executions…and torture.  Some have described his presence during torture sessions as surreally calm—the Los Angeles Times reported on an interview conducted with Nafie in Khartoum (October 2008), in the course of which a torture incident was discussed:

"'[Nafie] was my interrogator,' said Farouk Mohammed Ibrahim, a former University of Khartoum science professor and government critic who was arrested in 1989 and held in one of Sudan's notorious, secret 'ghost houses' for 12 days. 'I was tortured, beaten, flogged in his presence,' Ibrahim said. '[Nafie] was administering the whole thing. He did it all in such a cool manner, as if he were sipping a coffee.' In his characteristic style, Nafie expressed no regrets, saying opposition activists at the time were planning counter-coups and civil war. 'We were there to protect ourselves,' he said with a shrug. 'Definitely we were not there to play cards with them.'" (Los Angeles Times [Khartoum], October 26, 2008)

More consequentially, if just as brutally, Nafie—more than any other senior NIF/NCP official—has charted the ongoing course of the Darfur genocide following the death of Majzoub al-Khalifa in June 2007.  Khalifa had represented Khartoum all too effectively in the Abuja talks that yielded the exceedingly misguided and destructive "Darfur Peace Agreement" (2006).  (At the same time it should be noted that over the past two years senior military and security officials within the regime have achieved increasing power, especially in decisions about war and peace.)  All this comes against the backdrop of the deep division within the regime between Nafie and Taha.

In short, the Obama administration has provided an extraordinary reward to a regime that craves nothing so much as legitimacy, and to a man who is utterly ruthless and savagely cruel—and who may well trade on this visit in asserting himself as al-Bashir's successor.  For Khartoum's chief foreign policy goal, certainly in its bilateral relations with Washington, is removal from the U.S. State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring nations.  And perhaps an additional gift awaits Nafie.  But let's be clear about who will be the bearer of this gift, about the man who is already celebrating having been selected to make such a high-profile trip to Washington.  Larry Adre, "the top State Department official on Sudan," is simply being disingenuous in claiming that "we do not view this visit as a reward, but as a continuation of a dialogue on issues of concern to the U.S. government" (Agence France-Presse [Washington, DC], May 1, 2013).  And the "dialogue" must "continue" in Washington precisely why, Mr. Adre?  And how is not a "reward" when it is so desperately desired by the Khartoum regime?

Part of the quid pro quo, which we will see only partially, no doubt included the demand that Khartoum negotiate with the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-North (SPLM/A-N), the rebel movement that is fighting Khartoum's tyranny in South Kordofan and Blue Nile.  And a few days ago talks did begin, only to collapse almost immediately because of Khartoum's bad faith; but Nafie's visit remains on track. 

Abyei also remains an unresolved flashpoint of renewed conflict, an issue on which we might have expected more cooperation from the regime (accepting the fully endorsed African Union proposal would be a good start); and yet as things stand, major fighting between South Sudan and Khartoum could easily be re-ignited.  Notably, it was Nafie who declared for the regime that the Abyei self-determination referendum would not take place as scheduled (January 9, 2911) by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005).  Subsequent tensions and Arab militia violence led to Khartoum's military seizure of Abyei in May 2011, and subsequently to the regime's assaults on South Kordofan (June 5, 2011) and Blue Nile (September 1, 2011).  Fighting continues, and displacement is massive.  Hundreds of thousands of people face starvation in the two regions, and yet Nafie and his colleagues have remained adamant for almost two years in obstructing all international humanitarian relief aid to civilians in rebel-controlled areas.

But during Nafie's time in Washington we may also wish to focus on his record of anti-Semitism, which typically takes the form of anti-Zionism and a railing against the "Jewish lobby" in the United States.  This is certainly well known to the Obama administration; indeed, former U.S. charge d'affaires in Khartoum, Alberto Fernandez, spoke bluntly about Nafie in a "wiki-leaked" cable of March 3, 2009:

• "Senior Presidential Advisor Nafie Ali Nafie, the hardline NCP Secretary for Political Affairs who holds the Darfur portfolio within the Sudanese Government, accused [SLA leader Abdel Wahid] Al Nur of planting Sudanese in Israel to convert them to Judaism and to effect a normalization of relations between Khartoum and Jerusalem.  'Opening an office in Israel is material proof that the Darfur crisis is manipulated by foreign hands and the Jewish lobby,' said Nafie." (US embassy cable - 08KHARTOUM340, at Wikileaks.org)

Of course Nafie has much company within the regime; an earlier cable provides a revealing account of the views of Defense Minister Hussein:

• "On July 26 the Arabic pro-government Al-Rai' Al-Aam reprinted an interview with Sudanese Minister of Defense Abdelrahim Hussein in which he claims that 24 Jewish organizations are provoking the conflict in Darfur. In the article, reprinted from an earlier interview from the influential Saudi newspaper Al-Ukaz, Hussein claims 'holocaust groups' have penetrated tribes in Darfur, carried out a propaganda campaign, and used their political and financial power to influence decision makers." (July 29, 2007, "wikileaked" cable from U.S. embassy in Khartoum, UNCLAS KHARTOUM 001174, at Wikileaks.org)

But it is when he speaks for himself and the regime that Nafie is most revealing:

• "'[We have] been monitoring the movements of the forces of evil and aggression represented by American imperialism, world Zionism, and neo-colonialism that are trying to eradicate the cultures of people, plunder their wealth and conquer their will.'" (Sudan Tribune, March 3, 2012)

• "Nafie further accused Israel of transporting Darfurian refugees to South Sudan's military camps for training before to send them to wage war in Darfur against the government troops. 'Jewish and Western circles want to make Darfur a dagger in the heart of the country to hinder its march towards renaissance and progress,' he said."  (Sudan Tribune, May 20, 2012)

• "'Zionist institutions inside the United States and elsewhere . . . are exploiting the latest economic decisions to destabilize the security and political situation,' the state-linked Sudanese Media Centre quoted presidential assistant Nafie Ali Nafie as saying. Nafie said the government had evidence of collusion between rebel groups in Darfur, politicians in arch-foe South Sudan and Zionist institutions in the United States to sabotage Sudan. He did not present the evidence." (Reuters [Khartoum], July 1, 2012) 

• "Presidential assistant Nafie Ali Nafie ruled out the conclusion of a peace agreement with JEM and the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Abdel Wahid Al-Nur. 'They want that Darfur issue remains unresolved to use it as a means of public action by the opposition coalition or the Zionist lobbies to change the regime,' Nafie said." (Sudan Tribune, June 4, 2011)

• "The Sudanese presidential assistant Nafie Ali Nafie on Saturday said that his country is in possession of evidence proving the involvement of external players including Jewish groups and neighbouring South Sudan in attempts to exploit the country's recent austerity decisions to create domestic instability." (Sudan Tribune, June 30, 2012)

• "Nafie also lashed out at the French government and dismissed its proposal to resolve the International Criminal Court row. The French role in supporting the charges against Al-Bashir is a result of the growing Zionist influence in France. 'I see no taste or smell or use from the so-called French initiative,' [Nafie] said." (Sudan Tribune [Paris], August 17, 2008)

• "Dr. Nafie pointed out that the government exerted all efforts to make the secession peaceful, but the SPLM and the Zionist lobby work together to hinder that." (Sudan News Agency [SUNA], August 20, 2011)

And of course there are a great many other examples of similar tenor.

There is no satisfactory answer to the question of why Nafie was invited by the Obama administration, and why now.  At the very least the Obama administration should have secured beforehand from Khartoum explicit and detailed commitment to allow the creation of humanitarian corridors into the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, with clear and painful consequences for any reneging on such agreement.  Certainly massive displacement and vast suffering will continue until such corridors are secured.  Instead, without securing any visible concessions of consequence, the U.S. has invited for discussions a virulently anti-Semitic génocidaire with ties to terrorism (not only did he play a central role in the Mubarak assassination attempt—an act of terrorism—but he cozied up to Osama bin Laden during his years in Khartoum, formative for al-Qaeda).

Those who have held out hope that the U.S. might move beyond the misguided policies of appeasement so consistently promoted by former Obama special envoys Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman must be sorely disappointed.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, is author most recently of Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012; www.CompromisingWithEvil.org

May 1, 2013 (SSNA) -- In the old Sudan, South Sudan had demanded a federal system of government to sustain national unity. However, the narrow minds of the old Sudan rejected the South demand. With no alternative South Sudan then embarked on one of the longest and bloody protracted armed struggle on the continent for freedom, justice and equality. This was spearheaded by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

After twenty-one years of armed struggle South Sudan achieved what it had aspired for, total independence. This was expected for people who had suffered so much injustice and gross marginalization in the hands of brutal neocolonial North Sudan. It was easy realizing independence through the ballot box but it is going to be a different matter to attain sustainable unity of South Sudan being diversified as it is.

There are instruments, nevertheless, when carefully considered and applied with a nationalist and revolutionary vision may promote sustainable unity. The problem may be that people hardly differentiate between a nationalist and a tribalist vision. People are confused as the level of tribalism may be high.

SPLM Constitution 2008

The SPLM is the lead party in government in South Sudan. It has a constitution that will make South Sudan a paradise on earth, only if it could be rigorously followed with a nationalistic zeal. In the constitution the SPLM is guided by principles such as democracy and political pluralism, prosperity, harmony and social cohesion. In addition the SPLM is guided by the principles of decentralization and devolution of power and voluntary unity of people, respect of diversity and economic interest.

Among other things the SPLM is guided by the principles of justice and equality for all irrespective of ethnicity, religion, region, social status or gender, accountability, transparency and good governance, and above all emancipation of the individual from constraints to freedom, prosperity, self-realisation and happiness.

From the highlights above the SPLM constitution 2008 is a masterpiece. The constitution has clearly set out basic principles to follow in making South Sudan truly a country all can call home. The aims and objectives of the constitution suggest that the SPLM has a clear revolutionary vision and an instrument to attain sustainable unity and prosperity for all in South Sudan. However, in practice it is not clear to which extent the SPLM has rigorously followed its own constitution to realize the aims and objectives set.

Transitional Constitution 2011

In the Transitional Constitution, 2011 of the Republic of South Sudan, Articles 24(1) and 25(1) stipulate respectively that, “Every citizen shall have the right to the freedom of expression, reception and dissemination of information, publication, and access to the press without prejudice to public order, safety or morals as prescribed by law” and that, “The right to peaceful assembly is recognized and guaranteed; every person shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form or join political parties, associations and trade or professional unions for the protection of his or her interests”.

In Article 36(1) of the same transitional constitution it is stipulated that, “All levels of government shall provide democratic principles and political pluralism, and shall be guided by the principles of decentralization and devolution of power to the people through the appropriate levels of government where they can best manage and direct their affairs”. 

It can be seen that what the Articles in the transitional constitution stipulate is indeed magnificent. However, what matters are not the niceties of the Articles in the transitional constitution. What is of great importance is for the constitution to be seen making the difference in the lives of ordinary people. For example, the freedom of expression guaranteed in the constitution should be translated into practice when people are not silenced for expressing critical views.

Decentralisation and devolution of power to the people to manage their own affairs is something that is universally accepted and is put into practice to make the unity of a country attractive. In South Sudan, however, decentralization and devolution of power to the people at best remains theoretical on paper. There are ten state but remain like departments in a centralized system.

Centralisation of power is evident and examples abound. Tax collection has been centralized and so are the police, prisons and the wildlife forces where the states hardly have power over deployment. This does not sound at all like decentralization and devolution of power to the people in the states to manage their own affairs.

SPLM Manifesto 2012

According to the SPLM Manifesto 2012, “Good governance is achieved through transparency and even more through inclusion, in decision-making through opportunities to give voice to concerns at all levels of governance, and through exercise of the right to ask questions and to demand appropriate answers”. The manifesto states that the ultimate goal is the full empowerment of the people of South Sudan as agents of their own destiny in the economic no less than in the political life of the nation.

What the SPLM Manifesto affirms can only mean decentralization and devolution of power to the people as agents of their own destiny. The manifesto also affirms that the SPLM will ensure democracy under the rule of law and good governance, to safeguard fundamental human. economic, social, cultural and religious rights, and freedoms.

On equality the SPLM Manifesto asserts that it is rooted in the understanding that all men and women have an essential right to be respected fully as human beings, that all human life has equal worth and that all human beings must be afforded equal dignity.

With reference to unity the manifesto affirms that it should not be confused with unanimity. The manifesto asserts that people of South Sudan are diverse and value their diversity, and respect for equal dignity of all human beings necessitates respect for their right to assert and preserve collective identity and values.

The SPLM Manifesto 2012 is very clear on governance, equality and unity. However, good governance, equality and national unity cannot be achieved by word of mouth without the empowerment of people to manage their own affairs. Empowerment of the people is best achieved through proper decentralization which in other words could mean a federal system. The SPLM Manifesto couldn’t have been clearer about empowerment of the peop0le when it asserts that, “True national liberation comes not with the achievement of formal independence, but with the achievement of full and effective empowerment and sovereignty of all citizens and of the nation as a whole”.

The manifesto further affirms that the SPLM shall uphold and respect the rights of minorities and guarantee their representation and participation in the life of the country. Arguably the rights of minorities and their participation in government cannot be guaranteed through a centralized system. Minorities may need to be empowered to manage their affairs and that can be through a federal system for sustainable national unity.

Models of federal system

There are various models of a federal system of government in the world. Models of a federal system are found in countries such as the United States of America (USA), Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Nigeria to mention but a few. To avoid boredom only two models of a federal system are highlighted. They are the Swiss and the Nigerian model.

Swiss model of federal system

Switzerland is a small country located in the heart of Western Europe. It is only 41,277 square kilometers, smaller even that Central Equatoria State whose size is 43,033 square kilometers. However, the population of Switzerland is 8.02 million almost the same as that of South Sudan.

Switzerland has quite a unique democratic tradition. Although a small country Switzerland is a federation of 26 member states known as cantons. Switzerland’s basic political philosophy can be described as far reaching with a form of federal system granting member states a maximum of political self-determination and restricting the competencies of the federal government to absolute minimum.

The Swiss model of a federal system consists of governments, administrations, parliaments and courts organized on three political levels, federal, state (canton) and communal which may be an equivalent to county in the case of South Sudan.

The importance of the Swiss model of a federal system is that Switzerland is made up of different ethnic groups. Over the centuries whenever conflicts have arisen between the different ethnic groups, the Swiss have resolved the conflict by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves.

Single states have divided into half-states, new states have been formed and border communes have opted to leave one state to join another. In this way the Swiss have developed a federal system which permits people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. This makes the Swiss model of a federal system particularly well suited to ethnically diverse countries.

Nigerian model of federal system

In Nigeria, under the British colonial rule, conflicting demands for autonomy by the various political grouping compelled the British to establish a measure of compromise to accommodate conflicting demands. The Nigerian model of a federal system can be traced to when the Northern and Southern protectorates were amalgamated. With the existence and recognition of the two autonomous parts of Northern and Southern protectorates, the administrative system of Nigeria was an outlook of a federation.

Under a new Nigerian constitution introduced by the British, a federal system of government was established. This system was based on three regions Eastern, Western and Northern Nigeria. The idea was to reconcile the regional and religious tensions as well as accommodating the interest of diverse ethnic groups. Coups and counter-coups created a volatile situation in Nigeria when the Eastern Region announced secession and proclaimed its independence as the Republic of Biafra. However, the Republic of Biafra could not win an all out war for independence and after a cease fire the Eastern Region was reintegrated into Nigeria.

The three regions of Nigeria were restructured into twelve states with the intention to produce larger representation for other ethnic groups. Each region was divided up into states as were the three regions of South Sudan each also divided up into states. The Nigerian population is diverse with well over 250 ethnic groups. Given the historical legacy of divisions among ethnic groups and regions in Nigeria, the federal imperative was so fundamental that even military governments, characteristically unitarian and centralist, attached great importance to the continuation of a federal system of government.

The model of a federal system in Nigeria is flexible. This means with time more states in the federation can be created. For example, in 1967 the three regions of Nigeria were restructured to create twelve states. The number of states increased to nineteen in 1976, and eventually to twenty-one in 1987. In the span of twenty years Nigeria, from three regions, has developed into twenty-one states in addition to the Federal Capital Territory. The increasing number of states was a direct response to the demands of groups that were not satisfied with their positions in the federation.

National unity through federal system

Both models of a federal system of government in Switzerland and in Nigeria have one thing in common, the achievement of sustainable national unity. The two models adequately address ethnic and regional diversities and challenges that a centralized system may hardly cope with. South Sudan has similar ethnic and regional diversities and challenges as in Nigeria which seems to be coping through a federal system. South Sudan may also cope adequately with its ethnic and regional diversities and challenges through the adoption of a federal system of government.

The main worry about adopting a federal system in South Sudan is that some circles are very scared that they will be out of Equatoria through administrative mechanism of deployment to work in one’s state when a federal system is adopted. This is because Equatoria seems to have become a safe haven for people escaping insecurity in their own states. This may explain the bizarre proposal to annex the states in Equatoria to the insecure neighbouring states. Nigeria abolished the federal regions and instead created federal states. The existing ten states in South Sudan could become federal states with the larger ones to be divided up into more states to address imbalances in service delivery.

It is not the solution to insecurity and development stagnation to annex the states in Equatoria to the insecure neighbouring states in the other regions. Arguably the solution is the adoption of a federal system to empower the people to manage their affairs with adequate support from the national government. The recent announcements by the President of the Republic of South Sudan for amnesty to rebellious groups were a giant step forward and in the right direction to realize security and peaceful co-existence. However, so that not to be seen as discrimination, the amnesty should also include Peter Abdelrahaman Sule though he is a politician. This may go a long way as reconciliation and confidence building for a peaceful South Sudan.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be seen that sustainable national unity can be attained through the adoption of a federal system of government as the Swiss and the Nigerian models seem to suggest. A federal system addresses the challenges of ethnic and regional diversities in the national interest. The main challenge to the adoption of a federal system may be how it is interpreted in the context of South Sudan. However, from a positive perspective a federal system appears to promote sustainable national unity in diversity as the Swiss and Nigerian models seem to confirm.

The author can be reached at jklupai@googlemail.com

April 30, 2013 (SSNA) -- The hyped upcoming 'national reconciliation and healing' process generates a lot of questions more than the answers it provides. To say the least, it has basically pre-failed to achieve its objective. For any reconciliation and healing to take place, it has to be a process, occurring in different phases. First of all, the past crimes have to be squarely owned by the perpetrators. On the other hand, the victims will then make a choice between accepting the perpetrators' apologies as presented or ask for justice to take its course. And then finally, the two parties reconcile amicably after which a new page in their lives is opened. This relieves them of the horrific memories being addressed through reconciliation and healing. Other than these steps, nothing like healing is being aimed at.

So, is this 'national reconciliation and healing' going to address chronic cattle raiding/tribal violence that has engulfed most parts of South Sudan? Is it meant to settle political and military conflicts or distrust between the SPLM/A and the former Khartoum clients...Or is it just going to be vague lectures supposedly directed at those who were 'unintentionally wronged' during North-South conflict? Such questions are far from being answered by the so-called 'national reconciliation and healing' process. Thus, it should be boldly declared outright as a pre-failed process.

A genuine novice in South Sudanese issues will definitely extol this shambolic initiative of 'National reconciliation and Healing' as a responsible and comprehensive approach to end chronic tribal violence in the country. It could also be erroneously perceived as a solution to political disharmony in the country. Chief among them is the legacy of 1991 failed coup against John Garang. It could still be assumed to be the solution to the 2010 SPLM leadership disagreements that generated numerous independent candidates during 2010 general elections. The 1991 failed coup cost thousands of civilians' lives. It also poisoned the atmosphere of peace in the whole country from 1991 to this day. Attributable to 2010 elections hiccups are various rebellions such as George Athor's, David Yau Yau's, Galuak Gai's etc. The consequence of these rebellions has unfortunately earned South Sudan a spot on the list of the most dangerous countries in the world. Therefore, all these conflicts must be redressed accordingly to pave way for nation building.

Of course, we have the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and wish that the upcoming ' reconciliation and healing' process will address all of our security and political challenges. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be surprising if the opposite of the intended objective is the final outcome. I don't necessarily want/wish to take the roles of an ardent pessimist here, but a political gimmick should never be a platform for such serious national issues with grave consequences. The fact that it's being led by the man who initiated and supervised most of the crimes speaks volumes about its credibility. It has seriously wounded its credibility if it had any in the first place.

It's undeniably true that some communities or individuals got mistreated by their fellow South Sudanese during the war. So a credible reconciliation and healing process is vital in laying grounds for nation building. But not the upcoming one! While there are numerous reasons attesting to inappropriateness of this process, a few of them such as seriousness of the crimes committed, identification of the parties to be reconciled and direct engagement of the communities themselves should be the pre-requisite to the whole process. Let me clarify these points.

Crimes committed are/were extremely inhumane

It all began with 1991 break away of some SPLA/M members to form a SPLM/A-Nasir. At the outset of the conflict, SPLA/M-Nasir forces comprising armed soldiers and unarmed Nuer civilians were sent into Dinka territory. The role of the Nuer civilians such as women, children and old men was just to carry the spoils from Dinka land to Nuer Land as opposed to the assertion that they committed crimes against Dinka civilians. They DIDN’T kill civilians.

As the conflict progressed and the SPLA-Nasir force became more youthful and fully armed, it unfortunately turned out that the vulnerable members of the Dinka community became their soft target. The SPLA-Nasir forces started committing crimes as gravest as the ones Al Bashir committed in Darfur. The following are some of the war crimes the upcoming 'national reconciliation and healing' is trying to gloss over.

1. Violation of women and children rights

Women and children were subjected to gang forced-labour. In the process, pregnant women who feigned exhaustion at work were slit open and left to die as a warning to other pregnant women with the same intention. A shirking lactating mother had her baby killed by being violently slammed onto the ground as a deterrent strategy against shirking.

2. Indiscriminate killing of civilians

When SPLA-Nasir forces defeated SPLA at Payom in Twic East (before they started their march to Bor), they introduced indiscriminate killing technique where families, wounded soldiers and individuals were forcefully crammed into a luak (byre) before being set on fire. Anyone trying to escape the inferno was instantly shot dead at the door. Such massive slaughter of civilians continued throughout Dinka land until the SPLA-Nasir forces were intercepted by another SPLA force around Bor.

3. Slavery

Children and women that survived killing were taken by SPLA-Nasir forces. Lucky ones joined their relatives who lived in Nuer land while the other group faced the dehumanizing fate of living as sex slaves. Though some of them escaped later, others were willfully released by their captors since they had no prior experience in slave ownership. Still, some families are missing their loved ones to this day. Other families formalized such slave-master sexual relationships into legitimate marriages after the conflict.

4. Destruction of property

Towards the end of the invasion of Dinka land, the SPLA-Nasir forces started killing cows that resisted to go with them. The dead cows were then stuffed with corpses to render them unfit for human(Dinka) consumption. Since the SPLA-Nasir forces invaded Dinka land at the time of flood, a goat or a sheep on a dry ground was dragged into the water such that it could drown as a strategy to deny the Dinka potential food. Granaries were either set on fire or emptied into the rivers by these forces. All the erected structures such as schools, private houses, hospitals, water tanks, churches etc. were all vandalized.

Before the SPLA-Nasir forces dispersed to Khartoum, they meted the same crimes on innocent Nuer civilians during the Nuer inter-clan wars. In the face of these heinous crimes, are the responsible leaders ready to present themselves for legal investigation as part of peace and reconciliation process? An answer to that question might be the only route to sustainable 'national reconciliation and healing'!

Is it healing before peace or healing after peace?

There is basically conflict all over the greater Upper Nile region. If an honest reconciliation were to be achieved, some or all of such conflicts have to be genuinely addressed before any sensible reconciliation. One glaring example of such conflicts is Yau Yau's rebels in Jonglei state. The other two states of Unity and Upper Nile states are not new to militias (rebels) either.

Recent slaughter of Nuer civilians by Murle tribesmen makes reconciliation a remote idea to these communities at this point in time. The emotiveness of this conflict displayed itself vividly when Goss officials headed by Riek Machar were rebuffed by the civilians of the affected villages. So, when the cart is put before the horse by jumping to a healing process before cooling off the belligerent attitudes of these communities, will they not simply dismiss Juba 'reconciliation and healing' process? To them and others in the same situation, the planned peace and reconciliation is just a banquet like any other privately organized banquet!

Lakes state's internal conflicts and its erratic conflicts with the neighboring states such as Unity state are yet a challenge to a well-intended 'national reconciliation and healing’ process. If such conflicts are ignored, then the whole process is worth less than its name. It shouldn't be surprising at all if the process is welcome with extensive military activities in some of these hostile regions of the country.

No one knows the parties to be reconciled

The problem to be solved has to be identified first before designing any solution to it. For the case of peace and reconciliation process, the warring parties have to be identified from the onset. For our case, it’s not clear who are being reconciled in the first place. Even if they were identified, still, presenting the reconciliation process as 'national' deprives it of its vitality because of the uniqueness of each conflict and the parties involved. Yes, we had/have numerous conflicts that need reconciliation. So a suitable ground needs to be adequately prepared for it.

It would only fit 'national' description if it were meant for political forces in the country after all the tribes are pacified. In that regard, even Lam Akol's mere absence from Juba could be a serious challenge to it let alone the rebel activities. On the other hand, if it were to settle tribal disputes, then the involved communities have to be reconciled first on a case-by-case basis before heading to the state or national level.

The process is detached from the parties involved

I can't imagine how a bereaved cattle rustler would stop a revenge urge simply because some Europeans, Americans, Asians and other Africans have met in Juba in the name of peace and reconciliation. In other words, internationalization of local issues is not a solution to South Sudanese conflicts. It's just a complication of relatively simpler problems. Hopefully, our distinguished guests will do their own homework and shun the disgraceful event altogether. Neither is hiring and sending South Sudanese to their communities a solution to tribal conflicts. Less complicated approaches such as Jonglei Peace Initiative could achieve some results as they give a chance to local communities to interact among themselves.

The bottom line is that local approaches to peace process should not be simply replaced by ceremonial foreign approaches. These foreign processes can’t be binding. They just widen communities' mistrusts in peace process as they are continuously bombarded with amateurish peace and healing processes that falter with the end of the peace conference. In comparing the two peace processes, we see the Dinka-Nuer peace of the 1990's binding in Jonglei state while all the non-community based peace attempts to stop fighting in Jonglei state have so far all failed miserably.

Conclusion

While all South Sudanese are yearning for peace and reconciliation in the country, it's regrettable that peace processes are hijacked by some power hungry politicians in Juba. The planned reconciliation falls in this category of hijacked peace processes as some greedy politicians are using it tacitly to stage their political ambition to South Sudan's presidency. It should not be misconstrued by any means that it will bring peace to complex conflicts in the Upper Nile region or anywhere else in the country.

All in All, my view is that if past conflicts and all branches of corruption such as land grabbing are not well addressed, then the whole process of the upcoming ‘reconciliation’ is by itself a perfect delusion at best. Let's see how it goes....

The author can be reached at ajang2008@yahoo.com

April 30, 2013 (SSNA) -- Since the South Sudan signed the comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) with the government of  Sudan, it has had a very interesting history, marked by many years of patronage and partisan politics, imbued with nepotism, massive corruption and economic mismanagement, at the expense of public service politics. The political corruption and favourism associated with political appointments, manifested through  nepotism and appointment of associates on the unmerited basis in South Sudan, have badly affected the economic development as well as transformational changes in the new nation. Those who had been lucky to be allies with the ruling elites and political leadership are the ones who are often rewarded, disregarding merit-based system. In so doing the leadership failed to unite the grassroots based on principle of inclusivity and sense of nationalism. Therefore this article is intended to discuss the negative features of patronage politics, tribalism, lost of National Identity and diminishing of Nuer values and power in South Sudan.

Firstly, it may be argued that patronage politics are an observable fact present in every political system, whether developed, or developing countries. In fact in the South Sudan political system, some oppositions give their full support to patronage as a tolerable occurrence at the highest levels of government, where the heads of the ruling Party, especially the president is entitled to select his cabinet and the heads of departments (usually based on who he knows or who is close to him). However, evidence shows that patronage politics in South Sudan are dangerously destroying the country, because it has been practiced even at the county level, as well as in the military. The situation in South Sudan is equally true, patronage politics have continued to affect every part of government functionaries, that is leading to unpleasant insufficiency in service delivery (health care, education e.t.c..), and increase corruption. Some officials hire their office staff base on blood relationship or through their close friend's recommendation.. Therefore, most heads of departments or even some ministers in South Sudan government are holding those posts not based on their academic experience or qualifications, but because of their loyalty to the highest ranked people including the president himself. However, this nation has been entangled in its own bewildered web of favourism politics, and intense corruption, which have adversely affected the poor and makes poverty mitigation far away from actuality. The education and health care systems in South Sudan have been left lame ducked, because all the families of  the South Sudan elites live in neighboring countries and the western world. So, the poor and ill managed  schools and hospitals across the country are left for the poor. As a result of nepotism and patronage policies, the most qualified South Sudanese including PhD holders, Engineers, Medical doctors, and their families are facing an unpredictable future in the country.

Lost of National Identity

Secondly, does the national identity matter anymore in the Republic of South Sudan? Believe it or not some South Sudanese people have lost it all. The promotion of tribal identity in the new country is one of the most important causes of misunderstanding among politicians, as well as among the grassroots. The pressed issues I have observed among South Sudanese are greed and power struggles between tribes. Therefore, even the well educated South Sudanese, sometimes forget to mention the Republic of South Sudan, when they are asked where they from. Instead, they would say something like I am from “Dinka” or “Nuer” or “Shilluk,”and so forth. However, the question is what is ahead of us from now on? Well, the thinkers would argue that South Sudan is one inch away from slipping into Deep Ocean. That means that the tribal war in South Sudan is an inevitable, since the tribal wrestlings and bribery have moved to the forefront in South Sudan politics.

Tribalism in South Sudan

Thirdly, what causes the political struggles within the SPLM Party? The ill advice that the president receives in the daily basis does not only belittle the president, but it will lead the country to “chaotic evil”, which no one wanted to see.  The laws and order, and good deeds in South Sudan are disdained, as the presidential advisors are promoting chaos and evil. These people hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory and prestige in a system ruled by individual quirk, and their own fancy. The presidential advisors without fear of destruction are now adopting what so called “Chaotic Evil Code”.

These people seem to forget that the art of speaking is a valuable character trait of a leader. A good leader is one who is able to express himself and inspire others through his/her verbal expression, but not through bribery or political intimidation. Nevertheless, materials need is another important factor, that cannot be underestimated. As the scarcity of resources, and food shortage continued to rise in the new nation, the patronage politics and nepotism are elevated in a scary fashion. For example, the elites from the president’s side are increasingly defying the law, and violate all norms of political civility of the country. The latest instance is the political intimidations including the assassinations and bribery tactics.. The presidential decree has become a driving force intended to relieve officials including the military officers who are not loyal to the president. This strategy is the most dangerous tactic that could create unnecessary genocide in South Sudan. Why the political inspiration to run for the top job in the democratic government has been politicized and seen as a threat to the country and to the president? The tribal hegemony is the only explanation of such a question. One is wondering what kind of law these future candidates violate? None. These people who show their interest in the presidency did not violate any law, as the meaning of a “democratic country” is concerned, but the tribal domination is an obstacle for the development of Southern Sudan. As a result of this tribal hegemony and ideology, the country’s wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few.

Diminishing of Nuer Power in South Sudan

Fourth, why the Nuer power is fading? Well, there are many reasons why the Nuer power and values are diminishing. Since the signing of the CPA, the Nuer people have been victims of “divide and rule strategy”. This strategy is intended to break the Nuer “Mighty” into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then take control of those small pieces one by one. In order to maintain power, and influence, the Nuer adversaries will often work to keep the Nuer politicians and intellectuals from uniting. Back then, Nuer were so organized and powerful society in Sudan. According to encyclopedia of world cultures supplemented in 2002, the Nuer became part of the Sudan politics in the 1820s, when the nation-state was taking shape, beginning with the Ottoman invasion from Egypt in 1821. Like the other South Sudanese groups, the Nuer have resisted incorporation into the Sudanese political structure. This resistance has led to the development of two distinct parts of the country: the north and the south”. In addition, Nuer people were egalitarian society in Sudan, and they were known for their bravery and unselfishness. Despite all these positive traits the Nuer people had in the past, Nuer at the present day are become followers and selfish. Prior to 1983, Nuer were the one leading the rebellions but because of their low self-esteem, they gave up all the power, but not only that they end up killing their fellow Nuer who objected the idea of surrender. In 1991, Nuer were the one who came up with the idea of “Self-Determinations” which led to South Sudan independent and yet the history of the SPLM has been hijacked from them in the broad daylight. The economic meltdown or higher inflation rate in South Sudan, has forced weak hearted Nuer to increasingly become submissive to the Dinka elites, and become aggressive to their fellow Nuer. However, the bad news is that even some of the high ranked Nuer in the South Sudanese army ( SPLA.), are living in fear of being dismissed from the army and so they too become submissive.

New norms and community sell out

Fifth, why the Nuer people want to be second class citizens in the country they helped create? There are many driving forces that compel some Nuer politicians to be submissive. Materialism has consumed many Nuer’s lives to such extent that it affected our cultural values and integrity. Our integrity as Nuer has decayed with the rise of bribery culture in South Sudan. The “divide and rule strategy” in the new nation has affected the norms and moral values the Nuer people used to have. For example, in the past, it was very hard to bribe a Nuer man or woman, but now it is quite common to bribe a Nuer man to kill even his own brother if you promise him a position in the government. As stated earlier, Nuer are become selfish and opportunists. The current move by the vice president Dr. Riek Machar, was condemned by some Nuer politicians who earn their living by betraying other Nuer fellows. The fight for what they need to survive forced those Nuer politicians to confront Dr. Machar’s bet for the presidency in the 2015 elections.  Some politicians naively, and falsely, claimed to be representing their particular clans, in order to fool the small minded creatures like Gordon Buay. Hence, the greed has greatly led to the moral and value decline in the Nuer society. Therefore, the current crises in Juba between the vice president and the president of the Republic of South Sudan, can be seen as evidence of cultural change in the Nuer society. In Juba now, some Nuer politicians are campaigning to dislodge Dr, Machar and his supporters so that they could be given ministerial posts and governorships as rewards.

In conclusion, this article concludes, by suggesting the following actions that must be taken in the long term to save the country from chaos. One of these is a creation of the merit-based system in every sector of the public service if effective public service delivery is to be achieved. This would mean strengthening the civil service agency to distance its operations from due political influence. Second, the country should focus more on systems and institutions building process, to eradicate, patronage, bribery and nepotism. Third, there should be legislation that guide individual behaviors toward other tribes. Individuals from a particular tribe should be expected to follow the rules and norms established which hypothetically should create a region that morally blameless and free from tribal violences. Fourth, there must be term limits for the presidency, so that others would have a chance to lead the country. Last, the patronage and nepotism must be made illegal, so that the well qualified individuals would get opportunity to service the people. With all these in place, our country would be well-off, in the whole continent.

The author is a concerned citizen of South Sudan living in Canada. He can be reached at jamestot20032003@yahoo.ca.   

April 30, 2013 (SSNA) -- It is socially, culturally, morally, religiously, politically, and in sovereignty terms, refreshing; to hear Governor Kuol Manyang Juuk, of Jonglei State, bemoaning the fact that, the majority of his government employees, may be, including some, or all of his ministers, are keeping their families in other foreign countries, and that, I suppose, according to Governor Manyang, is not nice. To put it politely, for the sake of social and intellectual harmony!

I am just bemused by the fact that, it has taken this Governor of Jonglei State; good eight (8) years, that is, from 2005 to 2013, to realise that, South Sudan is ruled by rulers, the majority of whom are birds of passage; as opposed to settled birds. It is very funny that, it has just occurred to H.E the Governor of Jonglei State that, most of his colleagues, in the government of South Sudan (GoSS); if not him, treat South Sudan like a goldmine. They are here in South Sudan (SS), just to mine the gold, and send the proceeds back home; in Uganda, Kenya, and elsewhere in Europe, America, Australia, and such like.

On the other hand, constitutionally and administratively; the temporal ultimatum issued by the said Governor is utterly ultra vires. In this regard, the said Governor has gone beyond constitutional and administrative powers allowed him within his powers as Governor of the said State. His intentions within the remit of this temporal ultimatum are unlawful threats against the human rights of freedom of movement; of the people who shall be affected by these intentions; if put into effect. On the other hand, at Common-law, which is the formal legal tradition in SS, the said ultimatum is also culpable. The said Governor cannot attempt to make laws on the hoofs as it were, for this shall amount to ruling his State through retrogressive laws.

This Governor of Jonglei State ought to be informed that, at law, and in accordance with constitutional and administrative laws of SS, as they stand at the moment, the whereabouts of his employees’ families, as well as, future intentions of his employees, and including his ministers, as to where they want to keep their families, is none of his business. Unless, there were clauses, in their contracts of employment, expressly, stating that, these employees shall keep their children in SS, during the course of their employment with the government of Jonglei State; the Governor of the said State must not interfere with the family lives of these citizens of SS, ministers and all employees of Jonglei State.

Something is constitutionally, administratively, and legally wrong with the senior rulers of SS. Is it raw ignorance, or raw arrogance, or just outright application of jungle laws in the administration of SS; including the lives of the people herein? South Sudanese are not commonplace chattels. If the peoples of SS are not being threatened with crucifixion by deputy governors; and if they are not being barred from working anywhere in the State by the concerned Governor, or now, if they are not being told where to keep their children; they are singularly and severally being left to fend for themselves in the comprehensive quagmire of SS.

The majority of these rulers in Federal SS behave like very bad landlords, who treat their tenants like some human garbage. In fact, our comprehensive collective dilemmas, in SS, are akin to comprehensive collective dilemmas, of retarded children, under the care of very bad nannies, in a hostile and forlorn hostel. Therefore, I still stand by what I said and wrote, some years ago, and that is that; SS is like an orphanage kindergarten; being run by, and under the sole authority of convicted pedophiles.

The least the Governor of Jonglei State can do, in a way of persuading his employees to bring their dependents to SS, is by not accommodating them in family size government houses, and restricting his ministers to just one vehicle, instead of the standard two cars, one for the minister, and the other one for the madam as it were. Such administrative decisions shall not be infringing any human or legal rights of the said employees in Jonglei State. However, the Governor cannot deny his employees their marriage allowances with or without children, as long as there are legal documents supporting such claims. My legal advice is that, Governor Kuol Manyang Juuk must get himself an excellent legal advisor from one of his relatives as is the practice in SS.

The Governor of Jonglei State ought to know that, moral wrongs are not always legal wrongs. Governor Manyang, you cannot, and shall not, convert, the ought into the is. On the other hand ethical, moral, and religious sins cannot be converted into legal felonies; whether civil or criminal. Laws must be reasonable, just, fair, objective, predicable and discoverable. Governors and others cannot just get out of their beds and begin criminalising conducts, acts, and omissions; just because, they think that, they as Governors are right, or because, they think that, such decisions shall make them popular with the voters, tribesmen and tribeswomen, or general followers. Leadership is a tricky business Governor Kuol Manyang, and it is dangerously saturated with constitutional, legal, and administrative dilemmas.

I have in many occasions condemned this tourist mentality of our rulers in SS, whereby, I called them political sojourners. However, this is argued from political mortality standpoint. I for example said that, the schools and hospitals to which our rulers send their children for education in Uganda and Kenya, were built by Kenyan and Ugandan mothers and fathers for their children’s education. However, we in SS appear not have reached that level of social development in which, we can also build and sustain our own schools for the education of our children in SS. The saga and tragedy of the lost billions of dollars in SS; through ministerial theft; and other frauds; against public funds; notwithstanding. The byword of starting from scratch appears to have become a permanent excuse for government misfeasance.

After eight (8) years of ruling ourselves by ourselves, and being in charge of billions of dollars, an amount of wealth, which is more than whole budgets of Uganda and Kenya, put together, during the same period; and here we are, still sending our children to Uganda and Kenya for primary education. I am not going to buy the argument that, because we have been at war for many years, we have therefore lost our educational and health infrastructures. Any first year student of development economics will disagree with such contention, given the billions of dollars which went through our hands in SS; if put into good logical usages, from 2005 to date, these monies could have transformed us into some success story in this part of Africa. However, how can we positively advance if we have been busy carrying our monies to Uganda and other places, through refrigerators, coffins, jute-sacks and such like.

Governor Manyang, the relative peace, tranquility, and security that your employees, and others in SS want to savour, and bask in, in Uganda and Kenya, did not just drop from the blue skies on to these countries. In these countries, there are certain cultural values, and traditions which value human life. The majority of Ugandans for example, do not just enter into one another’s house and begin looting or beating the occupants for some tribal reasons. This is commonplace in SS. These acts are not committed by foreigners in SS. They are committed by particular tribes in SS.

The police in Uganda and Kenya can at least protect the citizens of these countries. Compare the situation with us in SS. The peoples in these East African countries in which we want to live are peaceful. The rulers there are at least, relatively predicable. The people there value humanity. The peoples there want to produce, and indeed do produce their own food, not like us in SS; where, we abandon our villages to come and live in hotels at the expense of public purse. Or, we abandon our villages to come and crowd in our relatives’ homes in all urban centres in SS or, we abandon our villages to come and sell government monies in the form of US Dollars, Pounds Sterling, and Euros in markets places; because; our kinsmen and women; are in charge of these public monies in the GoSS, therefore; it is free for all; for the few of us. Governor Manyang; these are just few reasons why your employees do not want their children; to stay in Jonglei in particular, and SS at large. Let us show our peoples that we are humans, and then they shall let their children stay in SS. If we show our peoples that we are political sojourners; they shall also become tourists through their children; like us the rulers in Juba and Bor. Can you blame them Governor Manyang?

The author is Professor of Social and Rural Development and Lecturer in Laws. He can be contacted at wani.lako@yahoo.com

To understand the surging violence in Darfur over the past year, a lengthy and highly authoritative "unofficial" report covering most of 2011, from former members of the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan (Darfur), is critically important.  Why does the UN continue to keep it confidential?  The answer lies in the incompetence and political bias of successors on the Panel, and the failure of the "unofficial" report to square with the highly distorted UN/African Union narrative about Darfur.

By Eric Reeves

April 27, 2013 (SSNA) -- Reporting on Darfur by non-Sudanese news organizations has picked up significantly in recent months as violence accelerates dramatically, massive new human displacements occur continually in all three major regions of Darfur, and large-scale fighting continues between the Khartoum regime's regular Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), along with its militia allies, and rebel forces that have become stronger and more aggressive.  These dispatches have come from Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, and the UN's Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN).  Although not allowed into Darfur for a number of years, journalists are finding that enough information is making its way out that reporting has become obligatory. To be sure violence in Darfur has long continued, at much higher levels than the UN and African Union have reported, either via the UN/AU "hybrid" Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) or the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.  Former UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator George Charpentier set the terrible precedent of refusing to speak honestly about humanitarian and security conditions on the ground, declaring with an utterly shameful mendacity:

"'UN humanitarian agencies are not confronted by pressure or interference from the Government of Sudan,' [Charpentier said in a written statement to the Institute for War and Peace reporting (IWPR)]." ("UN Accused of Caving In to Khartoum Over Darfur: Agencies said to be reluctant to confront Sudanese government about obstructions to humanitarian aid effort," January 7, 2011) (all emphases in all quotations have been added) 

This statement was and is patently untrue, and was contradicted at the time by UN officials speaking on and off the record, and by non-UN relief workers in confidential interviews.  But Charpentier set the tone, and international non-governmental humanitarian organizations were forced to follow suit or face expulsion by the Khartoum regime—a regime that has expelled a great many organizations over the years, and made the work of many others impossible.

The UN and AU continue their disingenuous ways, but no longer do we see such deeply misleading reporting as appeared in The New York Times just over a year ago.  With a dateline of Nyuru, West Darfur (less than 20 miles north of the major town of Mornei), the Times dispatch ("A Taste of Hope Brings Refugees Back to Darfur," February 26, 2012) provides an astonishingly misleading account of realities in Darfur:

"More than 100,000 people in Darfur have left the sprawling camps where they had taken refuge for nearly a decade and headed home to their villages over the past year, the biggest return of displaced people since the war began in 2003 and a sign that one of the world's most infamous conflicts may have decisively cooled." 

A UN official cited in the dispatch declared simply: "there are pockets of insecurity in Darfur."

"'It's amazing,' said Dysane Dorani, head of the United Nations peacekeeping mission [UNAMID] for the western sector of Darfur. 'The people are coming together. It reminds me of Lebanon after the civil war.'"

"On a recent morning, thousands of Nyuru's residents were back on their land doing all the things they used to do, scrubbing clothes, braiding hair, sifting grain and preparing for a joint feast of farmers and nomads. Former victims and former perpetrators would later sit down side by side together, some for the first time since Darfur's war broke out, sharing plates of macaroni and millet—and even the occasional dance—in a gesture of informal reconciliation."

In fact, what is "amazing" is not the returns, many of whom do not, in fact, stay in areas to which they have "returned" because of security concerns; the UN makes no mention of these, although Radio Dabanga has repeatedly.  What is truly of note is the number of newly displaced civilians—more than 1.2 million since UNAMID took up its mandate on January 1, 2008 (see Appendix One).  Some fifty thousand people have recently not returned from but fled to eastern Chad from Darfur, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees and Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), increasing the number of Darfuri refugees in eastern Chad from 280,000 to 330,000 (see Appendix One).  For those interested in the realities of Darfur—instead of the UN propaganda to which the Times correspondent succumbed during his highly controlled visit to one location in West Darfur—Radio Dabanga and the Sudan Tribune have long reported in detail on developments relating to both security and humanitarian conditions.  In a series of contemporaneous articles, Radio Dabanga offered detailed research and interviews with people from the Nyuru region that completely undermined the credibility of the Times' claimed findings.  Highly informed Darfuris with whom I spoke and communicated directly expressed their disbelief that a distinguished American newspaper could so misrepresent the situation in Darfur.  

It should be noted in this context that Radio Dabanga (http://www.radiodabanga.org/)  has become a truly extraordinary resource, offering both a substantive and textured sense of what is occurring on the ground in Darfur.  Developed by Darfuris, operating out of Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Radio Dabanga has an astonishing number of contacts on the ground in Darfur, including sheikhs, omdas, nazirs, camp leaders, and the leadership of the various rebel factions.  The standards of their journalism continue to improve at a rapid rate, with particularly valuable instruction coming from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which has co-produced Radio Dabanga since its initial reporting in late 2008.  For every disingenuous, misleading, or mendacious declaration by the UN and AU leadership (see brief compendium in Appendix Two), Darfuris have been able to respond in their own voices.

But there was in fact also much in the "unofficial" report from the former members of the Panel of Experts that sharply and directly contradicted the UN's politically motivated official accounts, especially from eastern regions of Darfur.  From January 2011 through August 2011 three members of the UN Panel of Experts on the Sudan (Darfur) conducted the last professional investigation as mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1591 (March 2005): (1) monitoring the arms embargo on Darfur and (2) monitoring compliance with the Security Council "demand" that the Khartoum regime cease all aerial military assaults on Darfur.  Following their resignation from the Panel in August and September 2011, weapons experts Mike Lewis (Britain) and Claudio Gramizzi (Italy), and Darfur and Chad specialist Jérôme Tubiana (France) prepared a last, extensive report on their findings.  This document has, unfortunately, not been widely circulated outside the UN (where it remains "confidential"), even as it remains the most authoritative account we have from any international investigators on the ground in Darfur.  It also provides a clear warning of what was to come in the following two years.  What appears now a vast and incoherent mélange of violence has a great deal more intelligibility if we examine closely this highly detailed, professional, ground-based research from 2011. The document is available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/72848070/Report%20of%20former%20members%20of%20the%20UNSC%20Panel%20of%20Experts%20on%20the%20Sudan%20January%202012.pdf

The Document

In a significant scoop, the highly authoritative Africa Confidential provided the first account of the report in April 2012 (along with the URL for the report itself):

"UN clash over Beijing bullets claim: UN experts' reports differ over Darfur arms violations," Africa Confidential, 13th April 2012:

"A seismic diplomatic row is rumbling at United Nations headquarters in New York over the circulation of a damning report by former UN experts pointing to the supply of Chinese-made ammunition to the Sudan government for use against civilians in Darfur. The row exposes fresh divisions on Sudan at the UN Security Council and disarray in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office. It may also unpick Beijing's careful diplomacy as it seeks to realign its relations between Sudan and South Sudan.

"The report, which is circulating clandestinely at UN headquarters, was written by three of the original members of the UN's Panel of Experts, which monitors violations of the UN arms embargo in Darfur. It argues that the Darfur crisis, far from winding down as Khartoum and some press reports suggest, is worsening, with new incidents of ethnic cleansing, arms deliveries and aerial bombing.  Africa Confidential has obtained two separate reports on Darfur (available to download at the end of this article), one commissioned by Ban's Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, which is highly conservative in its findings, and a more forthright, detailed unofficial version by the three specialists who resigned from Pascoe's appointed Panel on Darfur in 2011.

"Weapons experts Mike Lewis (Britain) and Claudio Gramizzi (Italy), and Darfur and Chad specialist Jérôme Tubiana (France) resigned, Africa Confidential has learned, after Pascoe's department declined to take seriously their complaints about the standards of competence and neutrality on the Panel. The trio have now sent their own report—with lengthy annexes—to the Security Council. This unofficial report details Sudan army ammunition found in Darfur that appeared to be Chinese-made. Some may have been made in the Sudan Technical Centre, a Sudanese military company in Khartoum. The findings upset China, which says the report is not an official document and should not be given a hearing. Diplomats from the United States and Britain are nonetheless backing the report in private."

I have also written previously (April 17, 2012) about this report and its striking contrasts with the "official" UN Panel of Experts report submitted by the highly politicized Panel that succeeded that of Gramizzi, Tubiana, and Lewis.  This "official" report is, by comparison, a travesty:

[1]  The "official" Panel of Experts offered only a very superficial account of events in eastern Darfur, especially in the Shangal Tobay region, where violence flared viciously in the wake of Minni Minawi's defection from the Khartoum regime in late 2010.  But the Panel experts who resigned investigated much more fully, spent much more time on the ground in the region, and interviewed a much greater range and number of witnesses.  On the basis of this extensive research, they concluded that the attacks on Zaghawa civilians were deliberate (Minawi is the Zaghawa leader of the Sudan Liberation Army/Minni Minawi, or SLA/MM) and that the evidence was sufficiently compelling to characterize the violence as "ethnic cleansing" by the Khartoum regime and militia proxies.

[2]  The "official" Panel of Experts offers only a few weak conclusions—and even less research—about violations of the UN arms embargo on Darfur (again, monitoring this embargo and the ban on offensive military flights are the primary mandates for the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur, per UN Security Council Resolution 1591).  For its part, on the basis of wide and impressively deep research, the "unofficial" Panel of Experts finds overwhelming evidence that weapons and ammunition manufactured after 2005 in Russia and China continue to make their way to Khartoum and then onto Darfur. Unsurprisingly, resistance to discussion of the "unofficial" Report comes primarily from these two veto-wielding members of the Security Council.

[3]  Nowhere is the contrast between the two reports greater than in the broader generalizations drawn about insecurity on Darfur.  Again, it must be stressed that in character and quality of field research, depth of analysis, annexes, footnotes, and time on the ground, there is simply no comparison between the two reports. Indeed, the official report of the UN Panel of Experts has five factitious and skimpy annexes.  The fifth is simply make-work—a "Summary of the Outgoing Communications Sent by the Panel of Experts" (e.g., we learn that on "February 18 Ethiopia [was contacted] for visa assistance").

By contrast the report of the Experts who resigned has twenty-eight key annexes.  It also has more than 150 detailed footnotes for references.  For its part, the "official" Panel of Experts typically provides trivial and often meaningless sourcing, a large majority of them baldly citing UNAMID (e.g., Footnote 50, on the important subject of carjackings over the past four years has simply, in toto, "UNAMID source"; Footnote 46 declares equally baldly, "Figures provided by UNAMID"). Indeed, the entire report by the "official" Panel of Experts reads like an uninspired, uninformed, and dismayingly listless political exercise, allowing the UN and AU to check off a box on the "to do list."

The conclusions drawn about human security are correspondingly, and unsurprisingly, at odds in the two reports.  On the basis of what is finally paltry evidence from the ground, the "official" Report concludes that:

"there has been a clear and relatively positive change compared to the [security] situation in the previous years. Significant and tangible changes have taken place in the political and security situation. The Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) has set in motion a peace process that has been garnering support from the Darfur population at large."

These conclusions are simply preposterous: all evidence suggested that even at the time of this statement violence was significant and expanding; it has continued to escalate dramatically.  And reports from Darfuri leaders in the camps make clear that the Doha agreement is a dead letter, a blue-print for nothing other than the perpetuation of the status quo.  This "agreement" is purely expedient UN political posturing in the face of a situation in which it has made no progress either diplomatically or in providing human security.  Indeed, the Sudan Tribune reports (April 25, 2013) that relations between Khartoum and the one small rebel group to sign the peace "agreement" in July 2011 (el-Tigani Seisi's "Liberation and Justice Movement") are on the verge of collapse—a collapse that cannot be averted by the recent signing on to the agreement by a Justice and Equality Movement splinter group.

By contrast, the report from the Experts who resigned notes:

"Nonetheless, from their [the authors'] experience and direct observation elsewhere in Darfur, and from information and testimonies gathered from sources in Darfur, Khartoum and countries neighboring the Republic of Sudan, the Members of the Panel consider that some elements emerging from the Shangal Tobay case-study represent a reliable illustration of more generic trends of the recent evolution of the conflict in neighboring areas of the same region [i.e., the area of Shangal Tobay, between el-Fasher and Nyala and east], straddling the border between North and South Darfur.  Members of the Panel also found that the most intense violence in Darfur during their mandate happened in those areas of eastern Darfur, and in particular Shangal Tobay area." [ ]

"Members of the Panel found that government officials and forces under the control of the Government of Sudan had a primary role in the violence in Shangal Tobay” [though, they note, some officials also tried to stop the violence]."

The scandalous lack of even desk research by the "official" Panel of Experts is constantly in evidence.  So too is the inadequacy of desk research, given the reporting patterns of UNAMID.  The "unofficial" report, for example, notes that,

"…events [the former members of the Panel] witnessed alongside UNAMID personnel were not fully reported in UNAMID Patrol Reports or Situation Reports."

The largest conclusion of the "unofficial" Report of the Experts on Darfur is reflected in the violence that has been exploding in Darfur since last July:

"UNAMID forces have not been able to protect Zaghawa or other civilians, including those already living in IDP camps, from attacks, harassment, and displacements, some of which took place just in front of Shangal Tobay UNAMID team site."

These Experts also note that the failure to understand sufficiently the "chain of violence" in Shangal Tobay was due to "under-reporting or deliberately omitting to report some incidents."  This has been true for years and includes the dramatically inadequate and misleading reporting by the AU and UN leadership (again, see Appendix Two for some of the most telling examples).  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Secretariat as a whole, in various reports on UNAMID and Darfur, have been either spectacularly credulous or disgracefully disingenuous.  One revealing example: in the first two reports on Darfur and UNAMID in 2012, Ban's report mentions not a single incident of sexual violence—not one—even as the epidemic of rape continues unabated; reporting by Radio Dabanga also makes clear that UNAMID refuses to respond to threats or acts of rape.

This "under-reporting or deliberately omitting to report" has contributed greatly to the failure of the international community to understand the dynamics by which violence has escalated to the point where there is simply no security anywhere in Darfur, and mass civilian displacements from violence are reported on an almost daily basis. This comparison of the two reports will be continued in subsequent briefs.  Of particular significance for this period, the "unofficial" report of the Panel of Experts estimates that approximately 70,000 people were newly displaced from the greater Shangal Tobay/Khor Abeche region during their time on the ground in 2011:

"This cycle of violence provoked one of the most significant displacements that Darfur has experienced since the height of the conflict between 2003-2005, with the reported registration of around 70,000 new IDPs….  Most of those new displaced persons belong to the Zaghawa group."

Presently human displacement is surging throughout Darfur and into Chad; MSF reports some 50,000 new refugees in eastern Chad in recent weeks, including 40 percent of the major town of Umm Dukhum in West Darfur.  Altogether, many hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes within Darfur over the past months and years into highly uncertain circumstances, amidst rapidly decreasing security (see Appendix One).

Indeed, as I have argued in a series of recent analyses, security in Darfur is in "free-fall":

"Human Security in Darfur Enters Free-Fall," March 20, 2013 http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3838

"Human Security in Darfur, Year's End 2012: North Darfur," January 17, 2013 http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3736

"Human Security in Darfur, Year's End 2012: South Darfur," January 11, 2013 http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3727

"Human Security in Darfur, Year's End 2012: West Darfur," December 27, 2012 http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3692

"Growing Violence in Darfur Deserves Honest Reporting, Not More Flatulent UN Nonsense," December 1, 2012  http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3627

"Violence in Hashaba, North Darfur: A brutal portent, another UN disgrace," October 30, 2012  http://www.sudanreeves.org/?p=3525

Despite overwhelming evidence of a rapidly deteriorating security environment—posing a wide range of acute dangers for civilians, both in the camps and rural areas—the UN and African Union continues to minimize the scale of current violence, as it has done for many years now; this is true even as UNAMID's performance continues to deteriorate and morale falls.  It is especially revealing that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and its Undersecretary Hervé Ladsous, continues to claim that circumstances on the ground actually permit a draw-down of peacekeeping forces.  There is evidently no inclination within UN DPKO to continue funding at present exorbitant levels a peacekeeping force that is performing so poorly, given other acute needs for peacekeepers around the world.

Realities

The UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) has very recently offered not only a more realistic assessment of the total number of displaced—2.3 million in Darfur and Chad—but cites an estimate by the International Monitoring Centre:

"An estimated 2.3 million people remain displaced by Darfur's decade-long conflict.  A number of peace agreements - most recently the 2011 Doha Document for Peace in Darfur—have failed to halt the intermittent clashes between the government and rebel groups in the region…. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 150,000 people were displaced by renewed violence in Darfur in the first three months of 2013." (April 19, 2013) 

Many additional tens of thousands of people have been displaced since violence began to accelerate so dramatically last July, producing a figure of newly displaced that dwarfs highly dubious UN claims about the number of "returning" displaced persons (see Appendix One).  An epidemic of rape continues to surge throughout Darfur amidst a climate of complete impunity; displaced persons camps are increasingly attacked or subject to brutal, often violent extortion schemes by militias and the feared Abu Tira (Central Reserve Police); major roads are too insecure for travel except with the heaviest of armed escorts.  Relief efforts are ever more endangered, and there is a steady increase in reports of food shortages, food inflation, lack of clean water and primary medical care, and a lack of livelihoods.  In many cases, returns by displaced persons to their villages and lands is impossible because they are now occupied by Arab pastoralists—typically armed and threatening—including groups from Chad and Niger. 

Indiscriminate aerial bombardment continues unabated (see www.sudanbombing.org), particularly in the Jebel Marra region, but in a great many other locations in Darfur.  UNAMID confirms virtually none of these, in part because it is so frequently denied access by the security forces of the Khartoum regime.  Humanitarian access—both because of insecurity but also because of Khartoum's denial of access—continues to deteriorate rapidly.  Assaults on camps and even in towns have become more frequent and more indiscriminate.  Basic services, including water and always sparse electricity, continue to be degraded.  And there is no end in sight to the violence.  But current realities have a history, and our most detailed account for 2011 comes from the reporting work of Mike Lewis, Claudio Gramizzi, and Jérôme Tubiana. §

§ The report of the former members of the Panel of Experts, with its highly defined mandate, is amply supplemented by a report from the Small Arms Survey by Claudio Gramizzi and Jérôme Tubiana.  They have provided a remarkably full overview of this violence in a report from the Small Arms Survey (Geneva): "Forgotten Darfur: Old Tactics and New Players,” (July 2012).  Their report is based on field research conducted from October 2011 through June 2012, and supplemented by extensive interviews, a full desk review of available reports, and a wide range of communication with regional and international actors.

APPENDIX ONE: Displacement, "returns," and current trends (a compendium of reports; see also,  “How many Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are there in Darfur?” Dissent Magazine [on-line], April 28, 2011):

It is important to realize that the UN, in totaling the number of returning IDPs, takes no obvious account of those who must abandon their attempt to regain their lands and way of life.  For example,

"[Seven] families who came back to the Guldo region [West Darfur] in the framework of the Sudanese Government’s voluntary repatriation initiative were found in an extremely worrying state. Witnesses told Radio Dabanga that they were part of 25 families who left Kalma Camp (South Darfur) as a part of the Voluntary Return program. However, the journey was too dangerous, and 18 families were forced to travel back to their original camp in South Darfur. Furthermore, they reported to Radio Dabanga that the remaining families did not receive any support from the province of West Darfur, even though it organized the deportation. They now call for international action to save these families, who are currently in a critical state.” (Radio Dabanga, July 26, 2011, "Voluntary Repatriation: 7 families found in a critical state")

Displacement and returns have been central issues in Darfur since the beginning of major fighting in 2003.  Darfur Humanitarian Profile No. 34 (representing conditions as of January 2009) was the last that OCHA produced. Its release in March 2009 came just as Khartoum was expelling thirteen distinguished international humanitarian organizations and closing three important Sudanese relief organizations—altogether roughly half the humanitarian capacity in Darfur.  This last Profile found that there were "nearly 2.7 million Internally Displaced Persons in Darfur."  An accompanying graph showed a slow but steady increase, much of it clearly the result of massive civilian destruction and attacks such as had occurred in the Muhajeriya area of South Darfur (October 2007) and the regions north of el-Geneina in West Darfur (February 2008), the latter described in brutal detail by one of the last meaningful UN human rights reports on Darfur (March 20, 2008):

"Military attacks in Sirba, Silea and Abu Suruj (8 February), involved aerial bombardments by helicopter gunships and fixed-wing aircraft, accompanied by ground offensives by militia and SAF. Consistent information gathered by UNAMID Human Rights Officers indicated that these actions violated the principle of distinction stated in international humanitarian law, failing to distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Moreover, the scale of destruction of civilian property, including objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population, suggests that the damage was a deliberate and integral part of a military strategy. Information on extensive pillaging during and after the attacks was also gathered. In addition, consistent and credible accounts of rape committed by armed uniformed men during and after the attack in Sirba were collected."

Such reports worked to explain the steady rise in IDPs that had featured prominently in news and human rights reporting on Darfur; both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center used the 2.7 million figure. But OCHA issued a massive (and unexplained) "correction" in July 2010, tied to no public or private report. As of July 2010 OCHA referred to 1.9 million IDPs—800,000 people had suddenly become "undisplaced" (http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?Page=1878 ). The only "source" offered by OCHA for this radical downsizing of an intensely distressed population was buried in a terse footnote, referring simply to work by the intergovernmental International Organization for Migration (IOM): "IOM Sudan (2009)." There was no indication of precise date, title, researchers, links, or anything that would allow a reader to understand what was signified by this reference.

The IOM did not announce a publication or completed study on displacement in Darfur; nor did OCHA subsequently explain what IOM had uncovered that justified such an enormous decline in the population considered "displaced." IOM's 2009 annual report makes no reference to research on IDPs in Darfur, although the report does note that Khartoum prevented IOM missions from traveling to South Darfur for much of the year (in summer 2010 Khartoum expelled two senior IOM officials for no reason).

What had happened? Since 2009, many within the humanitarian community in Darfur had thought some recalibration of IDP numbers was necessary, for a variety of reasons: double-counting of people registered in two locations; manipulation within the camps of UN World Food Program ration cards; the many deaths (but of course also many births) that had occurred in the camps; and confusion over whether a person already displaced counted for one or two "IDPs" if displaced a second time.

But the new IOM "figure" was relevant for the year 2008, not 2010, even less for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Moreover, during the period of study IOM's database was significantly incomplete. For example, only 488,997 IDPs were registered with IOM in South Darfur, a region with half of Darfur's total population (6.5 million). Some camps and concentrations of IDPs had never been registered. This was not an issue of bad faith on the part of IOM, which was simply doing the best it could with limited data (including data from the UN World Food Program). For the beginning of 2008, a figure of 1.9 million was at least representative of the data available to IOM. IOM made clear to OCHA that the figure was a work-in-progress with very significant limits; OCHA ignored this and peremptorily reduced the figure on the basis of the "IOM Sudan (2009)" reference. IOM had no intention of the figure of 1.9 million IDPs replacing earlier assessments, precisely because of the issues that are raised here, according to former IOM officials.

The Data Extant

To gain any true sense of scale of displacement in Darfur, we should also bear in mind UN and other figures for total displacement, of all kinds, in the immediately preceding years. 

• OCHA estimated that 300,000 Darfuris were newly displaced in 2007;

• OCHA estimated that 317,000 Darfuris were newly displaced in 2008;

• In 2009—the year of humanitarian expulsions—OCHA promulgated no figure of its own, but the Canadian "Peace Operations Monitor" found evidence suggesting that "over 214,000 people were newly displaced [in Darfur] between January & June [2009] alone (http://pom.peacebuild.ca/SudanRelief.shtml) Given the reports of violent displacement that followed June 2009, a total figure for the year of 250,000 seems conservative;

• The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre collected data suggesting that in 2010 approximately 300,000 people were newly displaced.  The OCHA Sudan Bulletin (January 7 - 13, 2011) reported that the "overall number of people displaced during the December 2010 fighting in the area of Khor Abeche stands at 43,000." 300,000 newly displaced for the year again seems a conservative figure;

• UN IRIN (Nairobi) reports, March 16, 2011:

"Tens of thousands of people continue to flee their homes in Sudan's western region of Darfur for the safety of internally displaced people's camps after recent fighting between government forces and armed militias.  According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), an estimated 66,000 IDPs have arrived in camps in North and South Darfur since January. At least 53,000 are in and around North Darfur State's Zam Zam IDP Camp." 

• Radio Dabanga alone reported on March 27, 2012 a finding by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (these are precisely the sorts of stories—accounts from UN humanitarian agencies—that so rarely figure in international reporting on Darfur):

"The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN said on Monday [March 26, 2012] that about 3,000 people from the areas of Dar Es Salam and Zam Zam camps in North Darfur have been displaced to Kalimdo and other areas with El Fasher. The FAO said that the displaced people are in need aid, food and medicines."

• Radio Dabanga reported, April 2, 2012:

7,000 flee after government forces raze villages in North Darfur

"More than 7,000 people have fled their homes in North Darfur after government forces and militants reportedly burned down their villages last week. '7,000 have left the villages of Adam Khatir, Nagojora, Hamid Dilli, Amar Jadid, Koyo and Duga Ferro near Donki Hosh and fled to the surrounding areas where there is no food, water or shelter,' said a newly displaced witness to Radio Dabanga from a safe area. 'They attacked us for three days, from Tuesday until Thursday evening. They burned down five villages, looted more than 20 and destroyed water wells and pumps,' added the witness. She appealed to the UN and humanitarian organisations to protect them and provide them with desperately needed assistance."

• Radio Dabanga reported, April 16, 2012:

5,000 South Sudanese forced out of Darfuri camp (Sharef [South Darfur] 16 Apr 2012)

"South Sudanese citizens living in a camp in the Sharef area of East [formerly South] Darfur had their homes burned down and destroyed on Monday by a group of militia. Witnesses told Radio Dabanga their camp was completely looted yesterday including the clothes they were wearing. They said today the militants came back and indiscriminately burned down their homes forcing the traumatised camp residents out into the surrounding areas."

• UN OCHA reported, April 29, 2012:

"According to IOM [the International Organization for Migration], some 3,400 newly displaced people have been verified and registered in Zamzam IDP camp, North Darfur. These newly displaced people fled their homes because of inter-tribal fighting between Zaghawa and Birgid tribesmen in Alauna village (approximately 25km north of Dar el Salam, North Darfur) that started on 22 February."

• August 5, 2012: a report from a highly reliable and experienced source on the ground in North Darfur (received via e-mail):

"Kutum town has been overrun by Arab militia since last Thursday [August 3, 2012]…all of the INGOs [International Nongovernmental Humanitarian Organizations] and UN offices in the area have been thoroughly looted and their staff relocated to el-Fasher.  All of the IDPs from Kassab IDP camp have been displaced [approximately 30,000 civilians—ER].  The markets in Kutum and in Kassab have both been thoroughly looted."

• Radio Dabanga reported, August 9, 2012:

"Representatives of the Kassab and Fatta Barno camps in North Darfur, revealed on Wednesday that the situation in both camps remains critical and over 70,000 IDPs fled so far.  UNAMID promised to provide support to both camps within 24 hours."

• Radio Dabanga reported, September 30, 2012:

"[M]ore than 2,000 people who fled the recent attacks around Hashaba have arrived to Ba’ashim area, north of Mellit, North Darfur, on Sunday, 30 September. Sources told Radio Dabanga that these people traveled for three days by foot, hiding around mountains and valleys when it was light and moving only by night. This way, sources explained, the victims could avoid being found by pro-government militias.

"Witnesses said these people are suffering from fatigue, adding that they barely ate or drank anything during the three days they traveled. Upon arrival in Ba’ashim, a remote area, most people were transferred to Mellit city where there are enough facilities to support them, sources explained. They added that the 2,000 people who arrived in Ba’ashim represent only one fourth of the victims who fled the Hashaba attacks."

• UN IRIN reported February 8, 2013:

"The Darfur-based Radio Dabanga reported on 6 February that some 16,000 newly displaced people had arrived in the North Darfur towns of Kabkabiya and Saraf Omra following threats by rival tribal militias. Many of the displaced are living on the streets with no humanitarian support."

• Reuters (AlertNet), reported (February 13, 2103):

"The latest violence left more than 100 people dead and forced some 100,000 to flee their homes in what aid agencies say is the largest displacement in recent years inside Sudan's troubled western region of Darfur. The United Nations said in mid-January it was alarmed by confirmed reports of killings of civilians, as well as the burning of more than three dozen villages."

• Radio Dabanga reported (March 19, 2013):

"Some 4,000 people in South Darfur were displaced after having their villages 'burnt by aerial bombings by the Sudanese air force' during last week's battles." (http://www.radiodabanga.org/node/44938).

• Radio Dabanga reported, March 26, 2013:

"A Nertiti camps activist disclosed on Tuesday [February 26, 2013] that between 23,000 and 25,000 families [likely over 100,000 civilians] have arrived in the area fleeing the battles between government and rebel forces in [formerly West] Darfur that erupted on 23 December last year. Speaking to Radio Dabanga, he noted that some 15 or 20 families continue arriving in the camps every day from Golo and the Jildu garrison area in West Jebel Marra, where much of the fighting took place. Nertiti is already home to more than 42,000 displaced persons according to the UN OCHA."

• Radio Dabanga reports, April 23, 2013:

"Pro-government militias reportedly attacked 300 civilians who were fleeing battles between government forces and rebels in South Darfur on Monday. The displaced were heading to El Salam camp near the state’s capital which has received '7,000 families' [perhaps more than 30,000 civilians] since March."

• Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported, April 26, 2013:

"TISSI, CHAD/NEW YORK, APRIL 26, 2013—Violent clashes in Sudan's Darfur region have driven approximately 50,000 people across the border into southeastern Chad since early March, where a lack of food, water, shelter, and basic services is developing into a humanitarian crisis, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said today."

• UN IRIN reported, April 19, 2013:

"An estimated 2.3 million people remain displaced by Darfur’s decade-long conflict.  A number of peace agreements—most recently the 2011 Doha Document for Peace in Darfur—have failed to halt the intermittent clashes between the government and rebel groups in the region…. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 150,000 people were displaced by renewed violence in Darfur in the first three months of 2013." 

• Radio Dabanga reports, April 26, 2011:

2,200 families fleeing Sudan army, rebels battles arrive in camp (KALMA CAMP)

"In line with “preliminary assessments” at least 2,200 families have arrived in a South Darfur camp over the last month due to clashes between Sudanese and rebel troops in two states of the region."

NB: the IRIN figure in its April 19 dispatch evidently includes much of what is excluded from the commonly cited UN figure of "1.4 million internally displaced in Darfur":

• 330,000 refugees in Chad;

• 300,000 IDPs registered in camps, but not registered for feeding by the UN's World Food Program (OCHA weekly report, Issue 06 | September 2, 2012); it is this population that when omitted yields the figure of 1.4 million displaced that OCHA itself has done far too much to promulgate without qualification.

• Recently displaced persons who figure in no census—perhaps as many as 200,000, judging from reports from the UN, Radio Dabanga, and other sources (see above);

• Those displaced but living with host families or villages, not in camps; early in its reporting, the UN Darfur Humanitarian Profiles estimated this figure to be as high as 600,000.

This readily available data, in aggregate suggests that more than 1.2 million civilians have been newly displaced since January 1, 2008, the official beginning of UNAMID's mandate.  Indeed, the figure may be much greater than 1.2 million. Yet despite these data, most news reports continue to cite a figure of "1.4 million" as "remaining displaced" in Darfur; this is a gross misrepresentation of realities on the ground.  Even so, the new UN/AU Joint Special Representative Aichatu Mindaoudou claims on the basis of this figure that "the numbers of people affected by violence had decreased each year between 2008 and 2011." It did not take Ms. Mindaoudou long to learn the mendacious ways of UNAMID (see Appendix Two below).

APPENDIX TWO: UN and African Union misrepresentations of Darfur's realities

[ It is worth noting here that the spokesman for UNAMID, Aicha Elbasri, resigned on April 23, 2013, as Radio Dabanga and the Sudan Tribune reported (April 23, 2013):

"The spokesperson of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), Aicha Elbasri, announced her resignation on Tuesday eight months after her appointment, saying she was blocked from accessing information. 'I resigned from my post because I wasn't receiving the support I needed in terms of access to information in a timely manner, including the accurate and up-to-date information the media was asking for,' Elbasri told Radio Dabanga."

A "rogue's gallery" of UN and AU commentary:

• August 2009 statement by departing head of UNAMID forces Martin Agwai: "as of today, I would not say there is a war going on in Darfur, [but rather] very low intensity engagements."

[In 2009 data suggest that some 250,000 Darfuris were newly, and typically violently displaced—ER]

• Departing UN/AU special representative to UNAMID, Rodolphe Adada (August 2009):

"'I have achieved results' in Darfur. [ ] 'There is no more fighting proper on the ground.' 'Right now there is no high-intensity conflict in Darfur. Call it what you will but this is what is happening in Darfur—a lot of banditry, carjacking, attacks on houses.''' (http://inform.com/politics/darfur-war-departing-chief-646947a )

• UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Georg Charpentier offered a similarly optimistic assessment of Darfur in early 2011: "We are seeing a 'trend of decreasing overall violent incidents in Darfur.'" (January 20, 2011)

• In a truly despicably moment of mendacity, Charpentier declared: "'UN humanitarian agencies are not confronted by pressure or interference from the Government of Sudan,' [Charpentier said in a written statement to the Institute for War and Peace reporting (IWPR)]." (January 7, 2011)

• A year and half ago former JSR Ibrahim Gambari gave a statistical account of UNAMID's success: "Our figures have shown that the number of armed attacks in all three Darfur states has fallen by as much 70 percent over the past three years, which has resulted in more displaced people returning to their homes." (Radio Netherlands International, September 14, 2011)

• In an interview with Radio Dabanga (May 20, 2012), the spokesman for the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), Christopher Cycmanick, "described the security situation in Darfur as 'relatively calm.'"

• Former JSR Gambari declared in anticipation of his retirement party in September 2012, "I am gratified to note that barely 31 months on, all the objectives I set out to meet have largely been met." 

Fearing no contradiction, UN and AU officials—including senior UN officials in New York—have deliberately and disastrously understated the scale of insecurity and humanitarian need in Darfur.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, is author most recently of Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012; www.CompromisingWithEvil.org

South Sudan Rebels Declared Peace with the Government of South Sudan

Mayom, April 26, 2013 (SSNA) -- The leadership of South Sudan Liberation Army, South Sudan Democratic Army and South Sudan Defense Forces has declared peace with the government of South Sudan starting from April, 26, 2013. All the rebels will start interacting with the SPLA army without any confrontation to bring peace to our country. We have ordered all rebel forces to move to the areas controlled by the SPLA to achieve peace.

Today, 5,000 forces of SSLA have moved to Mayom County as part of the ongoing peace process President Salva Kiir Mayardit has called for since January, 2013. On April, 24, President Kiir issued amnesty to all rebels to facilitate peace in our country. As a result of that, the South Sudan rebel groups declared that they would move to areas under the control of the SPLA army.

The SSLA forces, under the command of Maj. Gen. Mathews Pul Jang, were received warmly today by the SPLA Division Four commander, Maj. Gen. James Koang in Mayom. The atmosphere was very warm that women and children started ululating and singing for the spirit of brotherhood that has come to South Sudan.

Within a week, a delegation that is composed of Lt. Gen. Gordon Koang Chol, Maj. Gen. Bapiny Monytuil, Maj. Gen. Johnson Olony, Maj. Gen. Karlo Kuol and Mr. Gordon Buay will land in Juba to meet President Salva Kiir Mayardit to finalize the integration of all rebel forces to the SPLA army.

The leadership of SSLA, SSDA and SSDF is very thankful to President Kiir for promoting the unity of the people of South Sudan. Since January, the government of South Sudan has been in contact with the political leaders of rebel forces to stop rebellion and join the government. The kindness and leadership of President Kiir have convinced us that the president is a man of peace who wants to see development in South Sudan.

Our leadership is also very delighted with the interest for peace and unity demonstrated by Lt. Gen. James Hoth Mai, the SPLA Chief-of-staff, who joined President Kiir in reaching out to all rebels to end rebellion and join the government to develop South Sudan. Since January, Lt. Gen. James Hoth has been working very hard to persuade all the rebels to end the war and he has succeeded today.

Because South Sudan needs development, peace and forgiveness, we have decided to end rebellion in South Sudan and ordered all rebel forces to interact with the SPLA until the integration is complete. From today, there will be no more war in Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile States.

For Contact:

April 24, 2013 (SSNA) -- The Republic of South Sudan is at a critical juncture in its history. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) 2005, and separation 2011 ended with the crises, yet a concentration of wealth and political power in Juba still under Oyee Party,(Elhag Paul), where marginalisation are searching for identity continues to fuel discontent and armed conflict in several regions of South Sudan, All the attempts to resolve current crises regime failed to bring the needed breakthrough. The regime will not bring the on-going conflict to an end and end the suffering of millions of people affected by the conflict.

The CPA which supposed to end-up the war, and allow south Sudanese to determine their future through self-determination referendum, enhance democracy, ensure rule of law, the extension of justice, the guarantee of citizen rights, impartiality and transparency in decision making, integrity in public spending, accountability and the dependence on the standards of efficiency, all that were wash-out unpredictable the Nile River waves. The South Sudan still governing by one political party which curtails non-basic on democratic and human rights.

The political wrangling with regards to the status of the current government is still on-going fighting between themselves and on the other hand with arms groups, the regime should attempt to form a government of national unity of the all major political parties, I am sure most them will not refuse to take part in the government of unity. Or otherwise we leave with a big question over the legitimacy of the government at the time when the country is facing many difficult problems.

The current war in Jonglei and Eastern Equatoria state recently created humanitarian crises due to displacement of thousands and thousands of civilians, with Government of South Sudan, refusing to allow International Humanitarian Organisations to provide the needed assistance with medicines and foods in some areas that might lead to massive scale catastrophe soon. And the killing, non free speech and torturing represented the lowest points between South Sudan and International community relation since independent 20011. However, delaying in resolve the outstanding lands and cattle’s raiding issues after South Sudan separation has serious impact in the relation between the communities.

We know that many of us were belong to the revolutionary generation in South Sudan who fought against the Jallaba regime. But that revolution failed and the power was seized by a group of empty-bellied which they drowned it in blood by policing suppression citizen and prison and torture, killing them. This regime will be pushed back us into a semi slave or East Africa situation. Yes, indeed it is horrific to subject 10 million South Sudanese to such situation, if there no changes our children will grow-up fighting against this authoritarian regime.

Today, some people calling upon to unite with the authoritarian regime in order to resist against the certain community. And there are some people who call to unite with them in order to get rid of this medieval regime. Does any real citizen think this is a choice? I am categorically refusing these choices. They are not choices for accomplishment. They are choices for guaranteeing enslavement of our people for many generations to come. Instead we fight tooth and nail to forge, against this SPLM political orientation to liberate our innocent South Sudanese. And to maintain faith in the basic principles of humanity, peace, human rights, mutual dialogue and tolerance.

A lot of people think opposition cannot do it and instead they should be one who liberating our people from this harmful regime. But I believe opposition is exactly the ones who can do it, deep oppression will turns them into formidable.

We strive to struggle against all forms of our people oppression, both overt and hidden. I personally, do not support the more subtle and softer forms of oppression suffered by our people in the any corner of South Sudan and I see myself side by side with people in the South Sudan against this regime supremacist states dominant in our country.

And then let us all carry the cross as a sign that we are all are of the same nation, nation of forethought for liberation of South Sudanese. To present ourselves to that level it is best to explain our political line in this fight. This is especially important because the government is waging a war against you and your friends, brothers, sisters even your wife and your biological relative. This brutal hatred and want it to be stopped quickly. And you can see nowadays the future election in the South Sudan is strengthening the war moves between president and vice president.

I invite you to join hands so that we can build a beautiful nationalism and not tribalism which is regime is practices it today. Come on South Sudanese Let us hook up together and work to free people of this country for a new nation without exploitation and discrimination and nepotism and class oppression from this regime.

The Author can be reached at adwokn@yahoo.co.uk

“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” –Aesop-

April 24, 2013 (SSNA) -- This is what ought to happen in South Sudan but it is unlikely because we are too immature, too tribalized and too irrational to the core. If I may, rationality is being truthful and driven by honest conviction to act and die for what is highly moral as “law is the objectivity” of good instinct. True, but I resent that good never seems to triumph for long before some evil interrupts. Sadly, this is the case in the Republic South Sudan considering the recent suspension of nationwide national reconciliation rescheduled for June 2013.

President Kiir suspended that landmark event despite its overwhelming supports from South Sudanese and friends across diversity and various geographical locations around the globe. Inability to think, tribalism and political jealous to earn credits for what one did not sow matters in South Sudan so long one is in position of powers. This is where things don’t get done in that country because free thinkers are not allows to thinks freely to enhance innovative ideas. Everyone is expected to play dump to resemble the big man at the top. Such trends are the political reality where I was born and where the national reconciliation was suspended on baseless grounds.

After the fact, I felt sadden and disgusted simply because I am aware of the implications because people who needed to heal in order to repair their shattered lives and redevelop a damaged nation were held hostage without national reconciliation in the country. By all accounts, it was a desperate and blinded move ever to say the least. This is equally painful to many wanted to heal and desperately disappointing to learn that President Kiir was indeed an obstacle to peace process.

It is one of the gross mistakes ever committed by a sitting president. It is a political blunder, deplorable and unforgivable injustice done by President Kiir to his own people. Above all, it is undoubtedly an endorsement and affirmation of hatred and simmering sentiments among South Sudan’s sixty three tribes. This brings me to the reason why I decided to write this commentary. My aim is to help readers understand that President Kiir was duped into such deplorable eventuality. Also to point out that lack of political shrewdness has complicated the matters and in many respects led to the unsolicited political decision which was poorly presented just like the previous insidious political verdict before it. In a nutshell, since the untimely death of late Dr. John Garang in 2005, South Sudan has politically been downgrading at a disappointing rapid pace and more so toward rogue state.

To start with, it is true that President Kiir was part of the movement who fought on the basis to overhaul deformed Khartoum regime and then build on common values guided by clear conscience goals to ensure peace and freedom. However, after he (president) ascended to power in 2005, such liberation ideals, values and principles were thrown overboard and became things of the past.

Hoodwinked or not, Mr. President has placed South Sudan and its people before the custodian of misguided, ill-informed and opportunists cliques. At will, Kiir placed his cronies in sensitive positions in the Republic of South Sudan (RSS) which include the banking and financial system, judiciary, foreign missions, military and security apparatus.  

After ensuring control over these institutions, the president and his clan-mate cliques set out on the next phase of embezzling public funds in billions of dollars in the cover of dark or in a broad daylight. Four shocking examples of this scheme that caught international headlines were:

1. The $3 millions dollars caught red-handed from Mr. Stephen Madut Baak at the Heathrow International Airport in London in 2008, where Mr. Baak was unhesitant to mention that he was working for president as an advisor;

2. The $4 billion reported missing by none other than President Kiir himself in 2012 and the $ 600 million reported stolen by the former RSS minister of finance Arthur Akuien Chol in 2008;

3. The $20 million stolen by Stephen Baak Wuol and $293 million reported by Aaron Young stolen by none other than Elijah Salva Mathok Gengdit, the current deputy minister of interior in RSS;

4. And the $6 million dollars and South Sudan pounds reported stolen from the president’s office 2013;

These are not mere allegations but proven facts simply because the RSS as a nation started this journey with the wrong foot. For example, the former Governor of South Sudan bank Mr. Elijah Malok Aleng was not hesitant to assert this that “we already know of people who have millions in their accounts, whether in Ivory or Buffalo Bank. Where did you get the money from, it is simply because you got it wrongly.”

That said the suspension of national reconciliation by the president is just another insidious political blunder in human context. With the latest, South Sudan is once again placed at the crossroad, between good and evil. Weirdly, the evils in their distorted terms are appreciative of the direction of which a nation is heading while the good masses are indifferent and confused. People are numbed to the core and ceased to think. Few who asked honest questions were threatened, kidnapped, killed and accused of wanting to overthrow the broken government. What a shame! No one can justify beyond reasonable doubt that the suspended national reconciliation was a political enterprise or has been used as one by anyone. The fear is based on political insecurity and lack of political shrewdness from the top spoiled brat.

Another disappointing fact was that President Kiir allowed himself to be driven, misled and grossly manipulated at his disadvantage by well stationed crooks whose aims are to set him up for failure and expose his weaknesses as a head of state. The April 15 presidential decree read on South Sudan Television (SSTV) was one of them and meant to trash the president’s records. The decree read dissolved national reconciliation committee and suspended national reconciliation process based on misconstrued political insecurity and erroneous speculations to say the least. However, this was not the first time President Kiir made such erroneous and regrettable decisions based on ill-informed advice which exploited Mr. President’s weak self-confidence, self-esteem and the absent of political shrewdness.

In 2011, President Kiir demanded more powers to avoid unfounded insecurity and was bestowed unnecessary absolute powers in the South Sudan Interim Constitution. The clause granted the president power to remove elected officials including the governors. Four months ago, Kiir acted on this misplaced clause and removed Lakes state elected Governor, Mr. Chol Tong. Mr. Chol’s replacement was a military man.

Subsequently, Kiir emotionally led South Sudan to war with Khartoum regime which in eventuality led to Panthou crisis and the bombing of civilian targets by the Khartoum’s rogue regime. In that incident, more than 1000 SPLA soldiers died and to this day no one in South Sudan talked about this humiliating adventure. After the fact, President Kiir made an uncivilized political remark toward Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General. Kiir told South Sudan parliament on the televised broadcast that “I told Ban Ki-moon that I am not your commander and not answerable to your directive”

The most disappointing part in that fiasco was that Kiir cave in and withdrew South Sudan troops from Helige in a cowardly disorganized fashion which resulted to the above reported thousand death tolls. Another poignant event emerged out of the Panthou Crisis was salaries of the deceased SPLA’s’ soldiers were cut in half by the same month they perished by the same government who sent to harm way.

Out of emotive, Kiir frantically ordered the closure of South Sudan oil production without back up plan. For the last 20 months South Sudan’s civil servants barely got paid due to the fact there was no money in South Sudan reserve opposite to what president Kiir claimed.

Early this year, President Kiir relieved 153 senior army officers at once and replaced most of them with new close associates and tribal men. The move was nothing short of consolidating power and for South Sudan to become a rogue state. The move was seen by many analysts as a dangerous and irrelevant since it sets the new country into the wrong path of dictatorship.

Before President Kiir retired 153 senior armed officers, however, he also personally signed off big junk of South Sudan’s land to Arabs in the name of the questionable demilitarized zone between two countries. The signed off places have never been in the history part of the northern Sudan but Kiir signed them off to appease Arab Northern (Sudan) for South Sudan’s oil to flow north. The sell out did not stop there. The president pledged to compensate North Sudan with $ 3 billion US dollars simply because South Sudan separated from Sudan. If President Kiir was politically smart and think independently as able politician, Sudan would have compensated South Sudan for the atrocities and human sufferings the north inflicted on South Sudan and not otherwise.

Rumor had it that President Kiir suspended national reconciliation because of an internal strife in the SPLM between him and his VP, Riek Machar. Mading Ngor wrote, “the Vice President Riek appears to overplay his hands at times and some of his moves border on insubordination, expressed consciously or not.” In this quote, Mading failed on specifying which area the VP may have overplayed his powers over his boss, which in my view amounts to mere speculations of a sought and insignificantly factual. If President Kiir has based his decision in suspending the national reconciliation citing above mentioned point as a reference, therefore, it’s fair to conclude that lack of confidence and political shrewdness are the driving factors.

As I was about to publish this commentary, I realized that President Kiir has on Monday appointed Archbishop of Episcopal Church, Daniel Deng Bul Yak to chair the national reconciliation and Archbishop of Catholic Church, Paride Taban as his deputy. This is indeed a good gesture as far as peace process is concerned in South Sudan, considering the fact those appointed are clergies of the House of God.

Who is Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul Yak?

Who is Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul Yak? Is he the right clergyman to lead so much politicized national reconciliation? Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul was born in 1950 in Twic East County, Jonglei State, South Sudan. Archbishop Bul has studied theology in Sudan and United State of American. His work with church since 1970s undoubtedly suggested a good clergy man but his work with people traumatized war suggested otherwise. 

Archbishop Bul spent most of his clergy work in the northern Sudan during the Sudan civil war, particularly in Port Sudan and Renk. Archbishop Bul did not live through the horrors during war time. During Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) it seemed, Archbishop Bul moved to Juba where he became the archbishop of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan.

After Sudan elections in 2010, Archbishop Bul was appointed to lead a peace delegation to make peace between rebel led by George Athor and the Republic of South Sudan. That peace initiative failed because Archbishop Bul was accused was conspiring with the RSS to capture George Athor instead.

During the Jonglei crisis, Archbishop Bul was also appointed to head the reconciliation process between the warring tribes in the Jonglei. In the process Archbishop Bul “was {also}accused by the Murle community of allegedly siding with the Dinka Bor, his tribe, prompting the Murle to withdraw from the reconciliation process and demanding for appointment of a neutral person to chair it.”

Given what we know, Archbishop Bul appeared problematic and might not be the right person to chair national reconciliation in South Sudan for the following reasons:

1. Archbishop Bul has never been in the bush and never experience bush lives and therefore he has no personal experience to relate to during the process of healing.

2. Archbishop Bul is already accused twice: one for siding with his native tribe during Jonglei peace process and for conspiring with RSS to capture George Athor. Therefore, his neutrality is in serious question;

3. Archbishop Bul’s appointment will be views as politically motivated and considered as the Dinka led political hegemony in the country;

4. Because national reconciliation is already politicized on tribal basis and that President Kiir has intentionally avoided Archbishop Paride Taban to chair the process is another serious phenomenon and hurdle;

5. The two tribes that need serious focus in South Sudan in the course of this national reconciliation are the Dinka and The Nuer. They (Dinka &Nuer) must be led through this peaceful healing process by a neutral personality like Archbishop Paride Taban to avoid tribal siding.

Though I personally applauded and supported the formation of the new national reconciliation committee by the president, I honestly feel that President Kiir has again made another political blunder by not appointing Archbishop Paride Taban to lead the process. Archbishop Taban will be a right choice and consider neutral by all parties involved in the healing process. Because this issue was grossly ignored, there is no doubt that neutrality and fairness is in serious question.

J. Nguen Nyol is a concerned South Sudan citizen living in Canada. He can be reached at nyolgaar@yahoo.com

“The game of eye for an eye, will only leave a blind country”

April 24, 2013 (SSNA) -- It is a privilege I will never regret to be a south Sudanese, and if I were to choose between south Sudan and one of the developed countries—say America—I would definitely choose south Sudan and if someone asked me to produce a reason for my choice, I would write a book. My dear readers, I have got an issue of concern to share with you and in fact I am expressing this idea in a very deep sorrow for I know we will face a lot of obstacles in the morrow, if we don’t turn to the right path.

My conscience tells me that south Sudan has lost tract of social coexistence and there is no doubt this has manifested itself in many a forms. The practice of tribalism fueled by lack of political ethics among the politicians, with their naive believe to know more than they really are, has led this nation astray. The issue of these war-weary politicians alone would not bother me because their grey hairs symbolized their short fall, but my fear is that these traditional politicians will make disciples among the youth and will sow the seeds of hatred instead of peace. This is a concern I believe every patriotic citizen of this fragile nation would put into consideration.

Youth are the heirs of the past, co-owners of the present and owners of the future, but we need to be very careful of what we should inherit and what we should not. The long civil war has corrupted our past and our present, because through the bush live, we have adopted a new culture of war which was not there during the time of our ancestors. Our ancestors during their time lived together, share water points, grazing land and cultivate together without any significant conflict. The same spirit applied to our soldiers when they were fighting for our freedom, they fought irrespective of tribes.

Presently, employment in all public institutions is based on tribal affiliation, a kind of "technical know who" has replaced "technical know-how". Tribalism has been the slogan of the current government and this has signified itself in employment and settlement around Juba which based on tribal clustering. The introductions of al-Qaeda style of killing—slaughtering a human being—which had never happened in the history of south Sudan, now happening in Juba. This is a grotesque present which I don’t think the youth can co-own. The future is too blurry but there is always a way out for an optimists.

Now that it is crystal clear that the past is neither worthy inheriting nor does the present worthy co-owning, what do we do? Will we pass through this pitfall the liberators passed through? NO! We are the future of this nation; therefore, we have to leave this path of tribalism. I want us to understand that our diversity is our strength but we should not regard it as a factor for our division. Change will never come to us as a miracle but we the youth must accept changes by standing up and say no to divisive politic in a way that is self-expression rather than politic. Let's leave politic to politicians because it blow us is division, "us against them" kind of politic.

Humankind has been a primitive segregator of what God the creator has put together; when God created human being, He did not segregate them into tribes or races. He created them in His own image and I guess He must be very proud of them, but because of the divisive nature of man, they clustered themselves into groups which became an impediment to peace and co-existence today. And now that this has proved itself to be the most problem facing us, we tend to escape the problem by finger-pointing at others that “they did it, not us” but this will not help in any sense because a problem get solved only when you accept it as your fault and seek alternative way forward.

The fact that you are born of one particular tribe should not be an excuse to pay your loyalty only to that tribe and despise the rest. I believe that even if I were not born of my tribe, I would have been born of another tribe within south Sudan because south Sudan deserves me and I will still be proud of being a south Sudanese, so why should I be proud of my tribe instead. One tribe cannot make a nation; it is our diversity that makes us look beautiful. Take an example of a rainbow, it has seven colors but if you removed one of them will it still look beautiful as it used to be? I believe not. I know all of us are patriots and have love for this country, but the only thing we have forgotten is that when we don’t love ourselves, how can we claim to be patriots to our country? This means we don’t also love this country.

Last, but not least, I need to advise my friends, the journalists who hold the sole responsibility of enlightening the citizens of this country. I always read all your articles but I think one principle of journalism must be missing. The principle of neutralism is missing among most journalists, though there are still qualified ones. It is not so interesting to a nationalist like me that you are using your tribal or personal interest as a watermark to your articles. An example of these are from the citizen newspapers, those who beat the drum of the truth should beat a drum they have first confirmed to be the drum of the truth, otherwise, they may end up beating the drum of tribalism. Media is very important and we should not join it with a prime objective of protecting the reputations of our tribes, the author is very much concerned about what we post in the media. Media messages affect more than any other things, therefore, we need to furnish our words in making sure that they will not draw negative attitudes in the minds of the public. If the writers could not abide by this principle then it would be better for the media organizations to reject some of the messages that they deem negative in the social set up.

The success and failure of this country is in our hands, especially we the youth. We need not only to depend on the information provided; we also need to refine our own. Politicians normally brings us messages base on their interests, and if we pick it bare, we are no longer neutrals. Let the spirit of fairness and honesty guides this nation, and most of all, may peace and co-existence prevail in abundant.

If my article harms anyone, please I am sorry! I just want to point out what I think can bring us together as youth because we have a lot of things ahead which call for our togetherness, otherwise, thanks for your time.

The author could be reached at kuach444@gmail.com